Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Brawndo]

And if the other teams want the Sabres to Retain, the return goes way the hell up for them to consider it 

[Broken Ankles]

41 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

And if the other teams want the Sabres to Retain, the return goes way the hell up for them to consider it 

I can’t see why the Sabres are not considering this seriously if (and only if) Hague, Krebs and others are included.   If Jack is on the payroll for this entire year and unmoved, the cost is $10m (less escrow). If you you can extricate yourself of the contract immediately, and you retain $2m, it’s the exact same cost, only spread over 5 years.  Leaving only the concern of $2m in dead cap per year for five. But with a pending cap explosion  and so much youth on this team, is $2m going to affect them in 2024? Definitely not next year.  And the year after, KO and Z come off for $9m more.  If the cap moves north of $90m in 2025 it’s just an  insignificant amount. 
 
  Retain $2m, Krebs, Hague, Tuch and a conditional pick based on games played next year.  

[JohnC]

40 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

And if the other teams want the Sabres to Retain, the return goes way the hell up for them to consider it 

I just don't see Pegula allowing any salary retention in a Jack deal or any deal. And I don't think that KA would even consider it knowing what the owner's stance is.  

[nfreeman]

I’d guess the refusal to retain, if true, relates more to the desire to avoid, say, $3.5MM per year in dead cap room — because they are planning to be a good team that needs the cap space — than to an emotional reaction to the idea of continuing to pay part of Jack’s salary.  

[SabresVet]

4 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

I can’t see why the Sabres are not considering this seriously if (and only if) Hague, Krebs and others are included.   If Jack is on the payroll for this entire year and unmoved, the cost is $10m (less escrow). If you you can extricate yourself of the contract immediately, and you retain $2m, it’s the exact same cost, only spread over 5 years.  Leaving only the concern of $2m in dead cap per year for five. But with a pending cap explosion  and so much youth on this team, is $2m going to affect them in 2024? Definitely not next year.  And the year after, KO and Z come off for $9m more.  If the cap moves north of $90m in 2025 it’s just an  insignificant amount. 
 
  Retain $2m, Krebs, Hague, Tuch and a conditional pick based on games played next year.  

I suspect insurance is paying a majority of Jack's salary for the time being.  How much is unknown, but costs are a big factor given a) the losses realized last year and b) the loss in revenue because with ticket sales tanking.  Ownership probably isn't in a hurry to make a trade for player contract costs.  

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I just don't see Pegula allowing any salary retention in a Jack deal or any deal. And I don't think that KA would even consider it knowing what the owner's stance is.  

Would love to know how this decision is made.  Is Terry telling Adams that this is the case, or does Adams have that latitude?  

https://www.capfriendly.com

Sabres are the lowest spending team in the NHL and ~20% down from last year.  Then again, with fewer than 16,500 in the barn for 2 home games it makes sense.  And this is my issue with Pegula - financials influence decision making beyond the level you'd like to see from a professional sports franchise.  But it happens.  

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

The NHL really needs to allow flexibility in retaining salaries.  Imagine if we retained 50% this year only to facilitate a trade.  It actually may help make trades happen. 

But totally agree....you can't retain for 5 years.  That would be monumentally stupid.  

[Kelly the Dog]

Apologize if this has been answered, but does the NHL allow a team to, say, retain 3-4 million of Jack’s salary for two years but not the remaining years? Or do you have to retain for all of the contract or nothing. Couldn’t find it on Cap Friendly or quick perusal of google machine. 

[DarthEbriate]

Retention is permitted, but it costs a 1st per season retained (which by rule is every year). So, if you want the Sabres to retain anything, it's your next 5 firsts. No lottery protection. Plus a top prospect and some current player salary dump. I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I just don't see Pegula allowing any salary retention in a Jack deal or any deal. And I don't think that KA would even consider it knowing what the owner's stance is.  

See, I think this is where KA is different from past GMs.  If it's a deal KA wants to do, and if he can sell the benefit to the team to the Pegulas even though some salary is retained, he might be able to pull the trigger.  Look for another Trip to Boca soon, I hope.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Doohickie

[Doohicksie]

38 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Apologize if this has been answered, but does the NHL allow a team to, say, retain 3-4 million of Jack’s salary for two years but not the remaining years? Or do you have to retain for all of the contract or nothing. Couldn’t find it on Cap Friendly or quick perusal of google machine. 

No.  If you retain 20% the first year, you retain 20% for the rest of the contract (or whatever percent you settle on).

And 50% is the max the team trading the player away can retain.

[Doohicksie]

15 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Retention is permitted, but it costs a 1st per season retained (which by rule is every year). So, if you want the Sabres to retain anything, it's your next 5 firsts. No lottery protection. Plus a top prospect and some current player salary dump. I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

wut.

You're just making this up, right?

[DarthEbriate]

6 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

wut.

You're just making this up, right?

Of course! But let's say a team wants Buffalo to retain $4M/year on the trade. Retention is annual for the remainder of the contract. Now, I wouldn't do it if I were GM Sheevyn. But if the opposition GM even wanted me to consider it, then I'd be owning ALL their firsts, plus the players/prospects to balance it out in the short term.

[Doohicksie]

31 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Of course! But let's say a team wants Buffalo to retain $4M/year on the trade. Retention is annual for the remainder of the contract. Now, I wouldn't do it if I were GM Sheevyn. But if the opposition GM even wanted me to consider it, then I'd be owning ALL their firsts, plus the players/prospects to balance it out in the short term.

Sorry, I thought it was a response to @Kelly the Dog's question, whose post immediately preceded yours.  I'm tired.

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman on HNIC

Teams are asking the Sabres to retain on Eichel’s Deal and they are refusing. 
The Sabres are willing to take contracts back, but not retain 

 

 

 

I'm certainly good with that stance.

 

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

 

I'm starting to think Vegas may be pretty dumb. They'll spend like drunken sailors for wingers but God forbid pay up for a 1C. 

[Weave]

8 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I'm certainly good with that stance.

 

 

I'm starting to think Vegas may be pretty dumb. They'll spend like drunken sailors for wingers but God forbid pay up for a 1C. 

Yup.  They have an awesome track record of all the dumb stuff they do. 

[mjd1001]

8 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I'm certainly good with that stance.

I'm good with them not retaining any salary either that would stretch out 5 years. You want to dump some bad contracts on the Sabres that might last 1, 2, even 3 years, fine.  But with an aging Skinner on the books already with a huge deal that stretches well into the future, I don't want the Sabres paying for Eichel 4 or 5 years into the future on top of that.  Especially when some of your current young guys at that point will be getting into their bigger contract years.

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, Doohickie said:

See, I think this is where KA is different from past GMs.  If it's a deal KA wants to do, and if he can sell the benefit to the team to the Pegulas even though some salary is retained, he might be able to pull the trigger.  Look for another Trip to Boca soon, I hope.

I hope that you are right that if the right deal is constructed in a Jack trade the owner would be amenable to some salary takeback. If a trade was made that included some combination of players on their first contract and high end prospects it could make sense and balance out. When the final tabulation is made the high cost contract going out that included retained money would be offset by the incoming cheaper contracts. 

Another selling point of retaining some money on the Jack contract is the argument that by making a deal that brings in added talent it would accelerate the rebuilding process. The hope would be that it could encourage skeptical fans to buy tickets ($$$$) in the currently half empty building. (I'm not blaming the fans but the empty building is embarrassing.)

On this issue of contracts there are a variety of ways to construct deals that make financial sense and don't anchor the team in future years. It may make more sense to take back a player/contract in a deal to make the numbers $$ work. A little flexibility and creativity will certainly help to get to a solution. All options need to be on the table. 

[tom webster]

You do not retain salary when you are trading a very good, young player on a good value contract. You only retain when you are dumping a bad contract. It’s as simple as that.

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, SabresVet said:

I suspect insurance is paying a majority of Jack's salary for the time being.  How much is unknown, but costs are a big factor given a) the losses realized last year and b) the loss in revenue because with ticket sales tanking.  Ownership probably isn't in a hurry to make a trade for player contract costs.  

Would love to know how this decision is made.  Is Terry telling Adams that this is the case, or does Adams have that latitude?  

https://www.capfriendly.com

Sabres are the lowest spending team in the NHL and ~20% down from last year.  Then again, with fewer than 16,500 in the barn for 2 home games it makes sense.  And this is my issue with Pegula - financials influence decision making beyond the level you'd like to see from a professional sports franchise.  But it happens.  

The owner signs off on any deals, especially deals where a substantial amount of money is involved. KA is a smart fellow. He knows what the parameters are when it comes to contracts. When a decision is outside the boundaries he has to get the owner's approval. That is a standard practice in the NHL and other pro sports. The boss is the one who signs the checks.  

[Weave]

22 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You do not retain salary when you are trading a very good, young player on a good value contract. You only retain when you are dumping a bad contract. It’s as simple as that.

Given Jack's injury, it is a gamble as to whether that team is receiving a good value contract or a cap dump.

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Yup.  They have an awesome track record of all the dumb stuff they do. 

Alright Mr. Sarcastic.

It's a bit hyperbole to call Vegas entirely stupid but you cannot tell me that trading for a 1C isn't incredibly important. The idiocy comes in the unwillingness to trade Krebs because of supposedly being sad from trading Suzuki 

Especially seeing as they traded Suzuki, Tatar's cap and a 2nd for a potentially pure rental in Pacioretty.

I just see it as unusual they were willing to throw assets around to get wingers but a 1C, they refuse to.

 

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Given Jack's injury, it is a gamble as to whether that team is receiving a good value contract or a cap dump.

I'd disagree, if he ends up healthy you get a 1C. If it fails you can easily bury him on LTIR meaning his cap is of no consequence.

This team traded a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd for Tatar and barely used him. For them to be so gun shy now is just odd

[SabresVet]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

The owner signs off on any deals, especially deals where a substantial amount of money is involved. KA is a smart fellow. He knows what the parameters are when it comes to contracts. When a decision is outside the boundaries he has to get the owner's approval. That is a standard practice in the NHL and other pro sports. The boss is the one who signs the checks.  

And I understand that, but it's the inner-working nuance for which we'll never know.  For example, if KA has a deal with a suitable return, but Buffalo has to pick up 2M for multiple years.  That's getting them out of this issue for the most part, putting players into their system development, and hopefully winning some games.  

If money is the sole obstacle right now, the owner's inflexibility is inhibiting the moving forward.  We're not gonna know, but I can see TPegs being obstinate on matters like this because revenue is going to be down so far. 

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

I'd disagree, if he ends up healthy you get a 1C. If it fails you can easily bury him on LTIR meaning his cap is of no consequence.

This team traded a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd for Tatar and barely used him. For them to be so gun shy now is just odd

VGK is in a much different place than at that point.  Could of forwards are injured, less cap flexibility (2.7M under), being in a difficult conference, and not sneaking up on anyone a la 2017-18.   

[Hoss]

15 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman on HNIC

Teams are asking the Sabres to retain on Eichel’s Deal and they are refusing. 
The Sabres are willing to take contracts back, but not retain 

 

 

 

This is incredibly stupid if it’s a definitive rule. Obviously you have to consider it if the return is there. This team isn’t spending to the cap anytime soon. I would maybe get some conditional picks DEEP down the line where like four or five years down the line you get a third that becomes a first if Jack plays 70+ games.

13 hours ago, Doohickie said:

See, I think this is where KA is different from past GMs.  If it's a deal KA wants to do, and if he can sell the benefit to the team to the Pegulas even though some salary is retained, he might be able to pull the trigger.  Look for another Trip to Boca soon, I hope.

Murray was known for making the deals he wanted regardless of the Pegulas. He just got dudes who probably spread a toxic gas throughout the locker room that the janitors have yet to clear out (including Jack Eichel).

Edited October 17, 2021 by Hoss

[aristocrat]

Jack is an all star no way to retaining salary. You either offer the right package or don’t get him. Period. Unless it’s a crazy overpayment. Like 3-4 unprotected firsts plus a couple players which is not happening