Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Andrew Amerk]

16 minutes ago, SabresVet said:

This is ripe even for a message board where nuanced subjects are boiled down into mutually exclusive arguments like you have.  No one's claimed this is about either his health OR money other than you.

The information operations campaign has really succeeded with some fans...who still act like Jack kicked their dog every day for the last 5 months.   

  

Except it IS about his money vs his health. No nuances like the media would want you to think.

He CAN get the surgery he wants, but it potentially voids his guaranteed money. 

If his health is more important that his money, than why didn’t he go get his preferred surgery 5 months ago? If he believes in his preferred surgery so much, then he would be able to sign the same or a better deal somewhere else after his preferred surgery. So, what’s the problem?

Edited October 23, 2021 by The Ghost of NS

[K-9]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

Maybe, but 50 year old Eichel might not be happier when he is recovering from his 4th spinal fusion surgery.

Just offering a plausible alternative view, that might be along the lines of what Eichel is thinking.

Or his 4th artificial disc replacement. Then again, after the first failure, I’m sure he’d settle for the more stable fusion surgery. 

[Richard Noggin]

3 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

My position has absolutely nothing to do with me being a Sabres fan and I categorically reject your insinuation.

Your position is that the Sabres should take all the risk in a trade or in a surgery to just end the situation.  My actuarial training screams bloody murder at me for that statistically reckless position.  Moreover, every insurer for Pegula's companies had better have told him that his insurance costs would skyrocket if he OK-ed the surgery.  That does not even count that he would legally be on the hook for every neck issue Eichel has for the rest of his life.

I empathise with Eichel.  My health insurance forces me to pay the entirety of a drug my doctor and I find superior to their recommended one because they don't get a kickback to have it in their formulary.  That's $10 a pill.  And I assumed the risk.  That's life.

Even with the empathy, as a practical matter, I think that the Sabres must stay the course and live with the consequences.

I give this post a very unfortunate thumbs-up. 

This is not a simple matter, and no one espousing a simple resolution are considering the realities--legal, financial, physical, mental--for all parties contractually involved. 

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Pretty sure this is false. It originated here three months ago:

Well they're the ones repeating it now and that was just after the draft so I definitely call bs. 

[Hoss]

8 hours ago, The Ghost of NS said:

Jack’s preferred surgery is doctor approved? 

By which Sabres medical expert?

Read the interaction again. I never said it was Sabres approved. The original post never said it was Sabres approved. I was just noting that it is indeed doctor approved even if the Sabres doctors allegedly don’t approve it.

[Hoss]

I’m curious: if Jack gets the surgery he and the doctors he’s working with believe is best for him is it possible he’d owe the Sabres some of his bonuses back?

[WildCard]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

Read the interaction again. I never said it was Sabres approved. The original post never said it was Sabres approved. I was just noting that it is indeed doctor approved even if the Sabres doctors allegedly don’t approve it.

Maybe it's mobile but the way 'approved' lines up here on my phone is very satisfying.

[Curt]

9 hours ago, The Ghost of NS said:

Except it IS about his money vs his health. No nuances like the media would want you to think.

He CAN get the surgery he wants, but it potentially voids his guaranteed money. 

If his health is more important that his money, than why didn’t he go get his preferred surgery 5 months ago? If he believes in his preferred surgery so much, then he would be able to sign the same or a better deal somewhere else after his preferred surgery. So, what’s the problem?

I think he has/had hopes that he would be able to be traded to a team that would approve his preferred surgery.  He would like to have his preferred surgery without putting his $50M contract at risk.  I think that is a completely reasonable desire.  In his position, I would want the same.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

Read the interaction again. I never said it was Sabres approved. The original post never said it was Sabres approved. I was just noting that it is indeed doctor approved even if the Sabres doctors allegedly don’t approve it.

Based on what we have learned the surgery isn't universally approved in this circumstance. Many doctors agree with the Sabres approach, even Eichel's own original 2nd opinion did. 

 

It will always seem unusual to me however that Eichel wanted the surgery immediately after the injury occurred. It has never sat right with me, logically, as to why he wanted to literally have a spinal disk replaced within a week of it getting herniated; seeming to only begrudgingly try a non-surgical rehab after a drawn out fight with the Sabres. I can understand how pain sucks and that fusion surgeries aren't always great in their own right but I honestly see it as unusual that a 24 year old would want to forever alter his spine immediately after it happened. 

Scenarios I've concocted that could be possible:

1. The surgery demands were meant to get him traded quickly but he underestimated KA's willingness to play hard ball

2. The doctor who would operate on Eichel is trying to use Eichel for some sort of self-gain; and Eichel is none the wiser

3. Eichel started the season with a herniated disk, not a shoulder injury, tried to rehab without alerting the team doctors and then ended up damaging it more in the Isles game. Hence the urge to immediately operate on it as to him it had already been (6 weeks?) I'd imagine hiding a herniated disk isn't exactly easy but with enough pain tolerance and complaints of shoulder pain being the cause; the Sabres doctors wouldn't be really to blame. 

4. Eichel is weird, as in he wanted artificial parts in his body for no discernable reason and was just wanting a more legitimate excuse.

 

 

[K-9]

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

I think he has/had hopes that he would be able to be traded to a team that would approve his preferred surgery.  He would like to have his preferred surgery without putting his $50M contract at risk.  I think that is a completely reasonable desire.  In his position, I would want the same.

Agree entirely; it’s a perfectly reasonable position for Jack to take. But Eichel’s reasonable position does not make the Sabres’ position unreasonable. 

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Agree entirely; it’s a perfectly reasonable position for Jack to take. But Eichel’s reasonable position does not make the Sabres’ position unreasonable. 

Agree completely.  What we have here is one employee and one employing organization both looking out for their own best interests.  Those interests do not align in this case.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Curt

[Thorner]

19 hours ago, darksabre said:

There are no bad guys here, man. It's just a bad situation. Jack can get that treatment anytime he wants, the Sabres aren't stopping him from doing it. His desire to continue having this particular NHL contract is the only impediment. If the surgery is so important he should just take the boatloads of money he's already made and get on with things. 

18 "likes"? This could be a new board record? I wish there was some sort of documented list, but I'm weird like that

[Thorner]

17 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

This fascinates me.

Why did you walk away feeling like the Sabres sound like the bad guy?

It's the same phenomenon where two opposing fanbases can watch a nationally televised game at the same time and both come away thinking the folks calling the game on broadcast were biased against their particular team 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Hoss said:

Read the interaction again. I never said it was Sabres approved. The original post never said it was Sabres approved. I was just noting that it is indeed doctor approved even if the Sabres doctors allegedly don’t approve it.

You left who the preeminent doctor who approved of the surgery. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=dr.+irwin+corey&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS802US802&oq=Dr.+Irwin+Core&aqs=chrome.0.0i355i512j46i512j69i57j0i512j0i22i30l2.6616j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, WildCard said:

Maybe it's mobile but the way 'approved' lines up here on my phone is very satisfying.

Pulled it up on mobile to see. Indeed excellent 

[PromoTheRobot]

14 hours ago, SabresVet said:

Perish the thought a 24 year old man might be thinking longer than a few months forward like the average fan is.  Even if ADR doesn’t work, he can get the fusion. Put yourself in the man’s shoes…this is a life decision.  I guarantee you’d consider options if the “doctor approved” surgery would require going under the knife regularly for perhaps decades to come. 

Doctor approved? Kids in the street comparison? Talk about some major false equivalence. See above. 

That right there shows you don't really get what the risks of ADR are. You're taking about inserting an artificial device high in your spinal column, then playing NHL hockey 6 weeks later.  Jack could be paralyzed with one bad hit. Then fusion would be rather moot, no?

Edited October 23, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[SabresVet]

35 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

That right there shows you don't really get what the risks of ADR are. You're taking about inserting an artificial device high in your spinal column, then playing NHL hockey 6 weeks later.  Jack could be paralyzed with one bad hit. Then fusion would be rather moot, no?

Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard...

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

18 "likes"? This could be a new board record? I wish there was some sort of documented list, but I'm weird like that

Speaking board records, this thread is in 4th place overall, behind Complaint Thursday’s, Things that are Awesome (my favorite $25k pyramid category) and Bills 2015 (WTF - unacceptable).  No more off topic threads on John.  Post all updates here to move into third place before the trade happens.  @Thorny your contribution of content to this is invaluable and we need more of it.  Show me your leadership skills.  

[LabattBlue]

1 hour ago, Broken Ankles said:

Speaking board records, this thread is in 4th place overall, behind Complaint Thursday’s, Things that are Awesome (my favorite $25k pyramid category) and Bills 2015 (WTF - unacceptable).  No more off topic threads on John.  Post all updates here to move into third place before the trade happens.  @Thorny your contribution of content to this is invaluable and we need more of it.  Show me your leadership skills.  

With old board software you could see the number of posts by each member within a thread.  Be interested to know who has posted the most in this thread. 😂

[dudacek]

It seems like a number of you believe insurance would cover an Eichel fusion surgery, but not an Eichel ADR surgery.

Does anyone have an actual sourced report backing this up? 

Eric Duhatschek today in the Athletic:

“….and shepherd him back to health, slowly and methodically, in the hopes that by September of 2022, whatever surgical procedure he undergoes is complete and that he’ll be ready to play at a high level again. Insurance will cover most of the actual dollars owed Eichel if he doesn’t play, which mitigates the financial risk of adding a player owed $50 million in the remaining five years of his contract.

Now the above comment is very general and I’m not taking it as proof of ADR being insured, any more than @GASabresIUFAN ‘s buddy’s general comment on NHL insurance policies. Which, to date, is the closest thing to I’ve seen to “proof” insurance is a real issue here.

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It seems like a number of you believe insurance would cover an Eichel fusion surgery, but not an Eichel ADR surgery.

Does anyone have an actual sourced report backing this up? 

Eric Duhatschek today in the Athletic:

“….and shepherd him back to health, slowly and methodically, in the hopes that by September of 2022, whatever surgical procedure he undergoes is complete and that he’ll be ready to play at a high level again. Insurance will cover most of the actual dollars owed Eichel if he doesn’t play, which mitigates the financial risk of adding a player owed $50 million in the remaining five years of his contract.

Now the above comment is very general and I’m not taking it as proof of ADR being insured, any more than @GASabresIUFAN ‘s buddy’s general comment on NHL insurance policies. Which, to date, is the closest thing to I’ve seen to “proof” insurance is a real issue here.

Well, I don't think "proof" in this case will be obtainable, since we'll never get to see the policy, although Vogl or Hammy or someone should ask KA the question.

But we all know how insurance companies work.  It seems almost certain that if the policyholder's doctors recommend against a surgical procedure, but the policyholder consents to it, coverage will be voided.

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I don't think "proof" in this case will be obtainable, since we'll never get to see the policy, although Vogl or Hammy or someone should ask KA the question.

But we all know how insurance companies work.  It seems almost certain that if the policyholder's doctors recommend against a surgical procedure, but the policyholder consents to it, coverage will be voided.

Yet “about 5” other teams are OK with ADR. Do they have a better insurance agent, or not care about the risk?

If it’s simply because they have a different doctor’s opinion, can the Sabres just not hire that doctor?

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Yet “about 5” other teams are OK with ADR. Do they have a better insurance agent, or not care about the risk?

If it’s simply because they have a different doctor’s opinion, can the Sabres just not hire that doctor?

I would guess that:

- those 5 teams are not willing to give up good assets in trade for Eichel

- those 5 teams, in any trade for Eichel, will require the Sabres to take some combination of bad contracts (which are also not insured, so every dollar they unload that way offsets a dollar of Eichel's cost) and Eichel salary retention

- any insurance coverage that those 5 teams would be able to get for ADR would cost much more and pay much less than the Sabres' coverage for fusion

- those 5 teams are all deep-pocketed teams (Vegas, Rangers, Habs, Philly, etc.) who can live with up to a $50MM uninsured risk, minus whatever retention/bad contracts they get the Sabres to take back.

[bunomatic]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I would guess that:

- those 5 teams are not willing to give up good assets in trade for Eichel

- those 5 teams, in any trade for Eichel, will require the Sabres to take some combination of bad contracts (which are also not insured, so every dollar they unload that way offsets a dollar of Eichel's cost) and Eichel salary retention

- any insurance coverage that those 5 teams would be able to get for ADR would cost much more and pay much less than the Sabres' coverage for fusion

- those 5 teams are all deep-pocketed teams (Vegas, Rangers, Habs, Philly, etc.) who can live with up to a $50MM uninsured risk, minus whatever retention/bad contracts they get the Sabres to take back.

You forgot the part about bending the Sabres over😥

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I would guess that:

- those 5 teams are not willing to give up good assets in trade for Eichel

- those 5 teams, in any trade for Eichel, will require the Sabres to take some combination of bad contracts (which are also not insured, so every dollar they unload that way offsets a dollar of Eichel's cost) and Eichel salary retention

- any insurance coverage that those 5 teams would be able to get for ADR would cost much more and pay much less than the Sabres' coverage for fusion

- those 5 teams are all deep-pocketed teams (Vegas, Rangers, Habs, Philly, etc.) who can live with up to a $50MM uninsured risk, minus whatever retention/bad contracts they get the Sabres to take back.

You mean the amount of financial risk they are willing to take is fully tied to the cost they are willing to pay in player assets? As one rises the other falls? I can see that.

Wouldnt it stand to reason the Pegulas could make the same play in reverse? Take on the risk of the surgery to maximize the player assets?

If 5 teams believe in ADR enough to wager $50 million on it, why shouldn’t Kim And Terry?

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by dudacek