Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Doohicksie]

12 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

That doesn't strike me as realistic either.  I don't think the 30 other owners would view it as in their interests to help the Sabres or Eichel, or at least not $50MM in their interests (or $20MM or whatever their piece would be), and I doubt the players would want much if any of the financial obligation either.

It would amount to basically $300k per franchise per year for 5 years (possibly split between the owners and the PA), if realized.  I think it might open up a Pandora's Box of future liabilities though.  Just seems like it would be a bad precedent (even if it were advertised as a one-time deal).

[mjd1001]

Today or tomorrow would be a great day for the fans if Eichel was traded.  Interest in the team is rising a bit, and the die-hards seem really happy with the direction of things after 3 games (even if most realize this team will be good to even get 70-75 points this year, and losing streaks may be coming).  With that said, a few days off between games would be a great time to fill that void with some news of a return for him.   I can only hope and wish...

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, Digger said:

Yes I love the developing chemistry with the team but we need to make the trade to move on from Eichel.  @darksabre mentioned above that Quick would be the easiest cap dump to come back in goal.  I'm not sure what else would fit because Quick might not be enough to cover the cap but maybe we just take someone like Olie Matta (because we really need more LD.............not).

Quick was a neighbor of mine when he was in the AHL. Shared a house with 3 other players. I have some stories.

[Thorner]

18 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

So what you are saying is Jack Eichel is SO special that the ENTIRE LEAGUE needs to come together to figure out how to give him what he wants?

I don't think there is a single owner who would be up for this. Not one. Why? Because the next time they have a disgruntled player, and they ALL have disgruntled players from time to time, it will come back to bite them in the nether. They are more than fine to hold up their signed copies of the CBA and let Eichel sit as long as he wants to.

Building an army here, @dudacek, careful 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Looks like they might be the actual team with the inside track for Wright. 

[Weave]

29 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Quick was a neighbor of mine when he was in the AHL. Shared a house with 3 other players. I have some stories.

[Norcal]

39 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Quick was a neighbor of mine when he was in the AHL. Shared a house with 3 other players. I have some stories.

Is that where he earned the nickname quickie? 

[irregularly irregular]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

He could do that simply by having the ADR without their consent.  If it fails and he cannot play, they can void is contract for not following their treatment plan.  But he won't.  If it were a possibility he would have done it already.

The downside for Jack is he assumes all the risk to the point of not getting paid for the next 5 years.  He's not going to do that.

So.... they're just giving up on this season.

There is a middle ground here somewhere. Eichel, the Sabres, the NHL and NHLPA will all have to moderate their positions. Everyone accepts some level of risk and some level of responsibility if this is going to move forward. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by irregularly irregular
more better grammar

[PromoTheRobot]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

Here's a G-rated one. He used to hold court with some of us neighbors, leaning up against his very expensive sports car, drinking Bud Lights, and gloating about whoever was the starting goalie in LA having a rough stretch Turned out Quick got called up a few weeks later.  

[Doohicksie]

6 minutes ago, irregularly irregular said:

There is a middle ground here somewhere. Eichel, the Sabres, the NHL and NHLPA will all have to moderate their positions. Everyone accepts some level of risk and some level of responsibility if this is going to move forward. 

In terms of common sense, sure.  In terms of legalities, they are constrained by the terms of the CBA, insurance underwriters, lawyers, etc.  The "moderation" I expect at some point is KA backing off his requirement of "4 first round equivalents".  I expect some of the draft picks will be conditional based on Jack's ability to play in the future, and the players received in return for Jack will not be the top shelf blue chippers KA wants.  But no team has come close enough to his ask to get the trade done.

[That Aud Smell]

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

He used to hold court with some of us neighbors, leaning up against his very expensive sports car, drinking Bud Lights, and gloating about whoever was the starting goalie in LA having a rough stretch

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

I have less flattering ones that I shouldn't share.

[Thorner]

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

I have less flattering ones that I shouldn't share.

[nfreeman]

14 minutes ago, irregularly irregular said:

There is a middle ground here somewhere. Eichel, the Sabres, the NHL and NHLPA will all have to moderate their positions. Everyone accepts some level of risk and some level of responsibility if this is going to move forward. 

But there is no reason for the Sabres to do this.  Right now, they are looking at a $12.5MM loss (assuming 75% insurance coverage on Eichel's $50MM deal).  It only makes sense for them to change the status if either their financial exposure is reduced or if they get a compelling trade package, or some combination of those 2 items.  They aren't going to do anything that worsens their position.

From their perspective, they can sit back and let the inaction drive Jack crazy and let the pressure build on GMs of losing teams.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

So what you are saying is Jack Eichel is SO special that the ENTIRE LEAGUE needs to come together to figure out how to give him what he wants?

I don't think there is a single owner who would be up for this. Not one. Why? Because the next time they have a disgruntled player, and they ALL have disgruntled players from time to time, it will come back to bite them in the nether. They are more than fine to hold up their signed copies of the CBA and let Eichel sit as long as he wants to.

I'm just relaying what I heard.

Friedman and Marek said the NHL has signed one-off deals from time to time that specifically state they cannot be used a precedent in any future case.

League sources seem to be more sympathetic to the situation than Sabrespace and perhaps more cognizant of PR, legal and future CBA costs an ugly standoff here could spark.

Couple that with more info about ADR and maybe some are thinking that a partnership underwriting the surgery is less risky than the alternative.

Just speculating.

[K-9]

25 minutes ago, irregularly irregular said:

There is a middle ground here somewhere. Eichel, the Sabres, the NHL and NHLPA will all have to moderate their positions. Everyone accepts some level of risk and some level of responsibility if this is going to move forward. 

I don’t agree that the Sabres should have to share any responsibility. The only position the team should moderate is what they’re willing to accept in a deal and right now, there is no reason for them to do so. If the Sabres grow tired of paying him to do nothing, then perhaps that also moves their needle a bit as well.  

[darksabre]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I'm just relaying what I heard.

Friedman and Marek said the NHL has signed one-off deals from time to time that specifically state they cannot be used a precedent in any future case.

League sources seem to be more sympathetic to the situation than Sabrespace and perhaps more cognizant of PR, legal and future CBA costs an ugly standoff here could spark.

Couple that with more info about ADR and maybe some are thinking that a partnership underwriting the surgery is less risky than the alternative.

Just speculating.

I think you're close to the mark on this. I expect that when something finally gets done it's going to be...a special situation. 

[That Aud Smell]

27 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I have less flattering ones that I shouldn't share.

Are they as pitiable as the one you did share? The image of a pro athlete holding court with men from a local subdivision neighborhood, while leaning on a sports car and drinking beer, is ... really something. All around.

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Are they as pitiable as the one you did share? The image of a pro athlete holding court with men from a local subdivision neighborhood, while leaning on a sports car and drinking beer, is ... really something. All around.

It’s sure not usual nose candy claims.

[kas23]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

But there is no reason for the Sabres to do this.  Right now, they are looking at a $12.5MM loss (assuming 75% insurance coverage on Eichel's $50MM deal).  It only makes sense for them to change the status if either their financial exposure is reduced or if they get a compelling trade package, or some combination of those 2 items.  They aren't going to do anything that worsens their position.

From their perspective, they can sit back and let the inaction drive Jack crazy and let the pressure build on GMs of losing teams.

If Terry is content with losing $12.5M for Jack to sit and rot for nothing, it seems reasonable (and even face saving) for Terry to retain $1-2M per year to facilitate a trade. He’d lose less than he would collecting insurance, would jettison this headache off the team, and would gain assets. However, I don’t think retention is the main thing holding up this trade. 

[nfreeman]

35 minutes ago, kas23 said:

If Terry is content with losing $12.5M for Jack to sit and rot for nothing, it seems reasonable (and even face saving) for Terry to retain $1-2M per year to facilitate a trade. He’d lose less than he would collecting insurance, would jettison this headache off the team, and would gain assets. However, I don’t think retention is the main thing holding up this trade. 

I don't either.  I think it's simply that no one is willing to both take the risk on the $50MM (minus whatever modest retention is agreed) AND pony up a rich trade package.

[Weave]

Just now, nfreeman said:

I don't either.  I think it's simply that no one is willing to both take the risk on the $50MM (minus whatever modest retention is agreed) AND pony up a rich trade package.

Occam's razor in action.

[thewookie1]

6 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

Imagine not having interst in a RHD like Dysdale???   the Ducks offer him and their 1st rounder up, plus another piece or two. you make that trade!

100% RIGHT 

Drysdale, Perrault, Henrique, Top 2 Protected 1st and a 2nd that becomes a Top 2 Protected 1st in 2023.

 

I'd be ok with that.

[Hoss]

6 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Drysdale, Perrault, Henrique, Top 2 Protected 1st and a 2nd that becomes a Top 2 Protected 1st in 2023.

 

I'd be ok with that.

I know you’re stating what YOU want but these packages just don’t exist. A fully healthy Jack who has been playing and playing well gets you that. This Jack gets you … maybe two of those pieces.

[triumph_communes]

The NHLPA is losing ground on guaranteed contracts with this because it gives the teams power over a players body in a way their members do not like. It is going to become a hot button issue for the next CBA negotiations. 
 

The owners collectively would like to minimize contract risks as they’re all suckers to outside agencies on this now. 
 

I could imagine a situation where the league and possibly the NHLPA choose to accept the financial risk of the contract for Eichel to get his preferred surgery.  If they do this I’m good faith now next CBA they may stipulate that certain limits shifts guaranteed contract payments into some fund to help shield the individual clubs. The players would likely have to give up some money to do this too to get their rights back, which is what makes it a win overall for the league. 
 

IF LTIRetired players are paid out by a league fund, it also makes it easier for the rich teams to sell dead contracts to poor teams to circumvent cap nightmares. It’s the players who want the minimum salary so anything that spreads the gap further is again in the owners interests. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by triumph_communes