Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Brawndo]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Picks 1 and 3 would mean, Power at one and either Guenther or Beniers at 3 as my guess. I think they probably avoid Europe at the moment. 

They have a Swedish Scout Anders Forsberg 

[Rasmus_]

3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

They have a Swedish Scout Anders Forsberg 

Interesting!

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

They have a Swedish Scout Anders Forsberg 

Could go Power at 1 and Eklund or Beniers at 3. That would be interesting. Eklund is really good. 

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Except when we literally have the data that shows no matter how good one player is, it's not enough to elevate a hockey team in spite on the rest of the roster. The Oilers have only been better than we have corresponding to the talent gap between Eichel and Reinhart and McDavid and Draisaitl. If we had them, we'd be them. They've achieved nothing. Surely you wouldn't argue their puny accomplishments (including mostly missing the playoffs) since acquiring perhaps the greatest talent to ever play the game is a result worthy of the talent of that player? 

Of course McDavid should be absolved - because it's the rest of the team that isn't living up to the requirement. This isn't Basketball, Jack can be really good yet, even if he's the best player to ever play the game, not enough to make even much of a dent. 

Of course that reflects poorly on McDavid. Your language is interesting. "...greatest talent to ever play." If McDavid never wins anything, that'll probably be his tag. Not the greatest player or greatest of all time. The greats lift up those around them. You want an all star team around Jack to try and lift HIM to try and justify your opinion of him. It's not practical. There's a salary cap.

I suppose if the Sabres trade Jack, get worse on paper and somehow start winning next season, you'll want Jack back, because then, with a good team in place, he could be a difference maker. There's a chicken and egg deal going on here.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

To absolve the players on these crummy teams is ludicrous.

The crummy players you are critical of were brought in by the constantly changing hockey staff!

You are aiming at the wrong target. A decade of erratic organizational behavior is a recipe for failure. Over the past decade if you add up the number of coaching and GM changes that have been made it adds up to 10 or so. That is not a recipe for stability. When your foundation is shaky the house is going to crumble sooner than it should. Let me remind you because you may have forgotten but the Sabres were the worst team in the league last year. Something is amiss and it is evident to most people who not only have their eyes open but also know where to look.  

[Marvin]

Do the Sabres consider two forwards instead in the top 10?

[Thorner]

35 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Of course that reflects poorly on McDavid. Your language is interesting. "...greatest talent to ever play." If McDavid never wins anything, that'll probably be his tag. Not the greatest player or greatest of all time. The greats lift up those around them. You want an all star team around Jack to try and lift HIM to try and justify your opinion of him. It's not practical. There's a salary cap.

I suppose if the Sabres trade Jack, get worse on paper and somehow start winning next season, you'll want Jack back, because then, with a good team in place, he could be a difference maker. There's a chicken and egg deal going on here.

Didn't Gretzky win all his cups with an all-star team around him? He didn't elevate anything. That's the greatest ever. 

Yes, I used "talent" for McDavid because "greatness" includes resume, and he's still too young for that to match up. Crosby is greater right now, too. Of course championships factor into the narrative, for better or worse. Doesn't mean it's fair or accurate. Wayne couldn't win anything without being surrounded by not just good players, hall of famers. 

Is trent dilfer a better elevator than Dan Marino?

All bogus

[Thorner]

I don't need to justify anything, there's zero chicken and egg going on. The numbers speak for themselves, the only thing he hasn't done is provide some mystical, undefinable "ability" needed for winning.

You go ahead and mathematically define what that is, and why Jack doesn't have it. You can't fill in variables with whatever you want to fit your narrative that he doesn't have "it", if you can't define it. 

Not when Occam's Razor that the rest of the roster sucks is staring you right in the face. The Jack doesn't have "it" argument is one of the most illogical arguments one comes across. You are just taking the "x" of why we haven't won, and attributing it to the, literally, *least* likely cause because of leadership narratives you've fallen victim to in the past. 

Voodoo and mysticism - have at it 

 

 

 

Or, maybe Mark Messier was actually 40 year old Eric Staal w/o Wayne. He was actually terrible but once he saw Wayne light it up (so inspirational!") he was like, "Damn, I wanna be one of the greatest to ever play the game, too!"

One of the two, anyways. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Thorny

[Stoner]

Building a contending team is mysticism for sure. It's not based on a mathematical formula, I know that. I don't think Jack has the "it" factor at all. If he did, he would have led his team into the playoffs, just once.

But I don't really care to keep debating it. Like Ted Black's uni, Jack's a turdburger in Sabres history. Like another turdburger, Pierre Turgeon, Jack can go and be prime rib in other places. I'm looking for a sea change. I'm looking for our next LaFontaine.

Edited June 16, 2021 by PASabreFan

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Building a contending team is mysticism for sure. It's not based on a mathematical formula, I know that. I don't think Jack has the "it" factor at all. If he did, he would have led his team into the playoffs, just once.

But I don't really care to keep debating it. Like Ted Black's uni, Jack's a turdburger in Sabres history. Like another turdburger, Pierre Turgeon, Jack can go and be prime rib in other places. I'm looking for a sea change. I'm looking for our next LaFontaine.

How many years has Jack actually been a player capable, talent wise, of leading a team to the playoffs, in your estimation? Actually asking. The last 3, *maybe*? Incredibly small sample size considering the first year of those 3 they had just ditched their 2C for nothing, and the third year he played 21 games. So the Sabres missed the middle year, and he had 78 points in 68 games, and the next closest was *28 points less* with 50 (3rd was 42) and the issue is Jack was missing something? Just can’t get there.

I respect you want change. Can leave it there if you like 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Could go Power at 1 and Eklund or Beniers at 3. That would be interesting. Eklund is really good. 

I would be happy with that.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Of course that reflects poorly on McDavid. Your language is interesting. "...greatest talent to ever play." If McDavid never wins anything, that'll probably be his tag. Not the greatest player or greatest of all time. The greats lift up those around them. You want an all star team around Jack to try and lift HIM to try and justify your opinion of him. It's not practical. There's a salary cap.

I suppose if the Sabres trade Jack, get worse on paper and somehow start winning next season, you'll want Jack back, because then, with a good team in place, he could be a difference maker. There's a chicken and egg deal going on here.

Disagree.  The NHL is not a league of great players lifting up those around them and leading them to success.  That’s the NBA.

[Rasmus_]

19 minutes ago, Curt said:

I would be happy with that.

I would be thrilled with Power / Beniers or Eklund. 

[LabattBlue]

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

I understand your sentiment. But if Samson and Risto want out and have contract leverage to force a trade then moving the players while they have more value makes sense. The same line of thinking applies to Jack. If he is not fully committed to the direction that the organization is taking then it makes sense to move him. This organization has made a lot of blunders. It has resulted in a level of stagnation where players want out. I don't blame the players. Sometimes when the franchise is in a state of stagnation decisive jolts of action need to be taken to revive the carcass. Whether one likes it or not that's where we are at.

Well said!  👏

[Weave]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Friedman’s comment about Anaheim “keeping their powder dry” and preparing “something big” are getting way too little play, IMO. As I pointed out in the Ducks Shopping thread, there are too many matching parts and needs for this not to be a serious consideration.

Call the trade.  It would be your Roy for Ott moment.

[Marvin]

IMHO, if you are arguing that Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart are part of the problem, then you are arguing that the team around them has had enough talent to competitive on the ice without them in the line-up and that the coaches they had were good enough to have the team competitive without Jack and Sam.

I just looked at the rosters from 2015-6 to 2021.  Although Bylsma, Housley, and Krueger each had flaws and blind spots which severely impacted their effectiveness as coaches, I can't think of any coach who could have made 4 functioning lines and 3 functioning pairs of defencemen from those line-ups -- even with Jack, Sam, ROR, etc..  The bottom of those rosters were just that bad.  Therefore, how can I hold these problems against Eichel and Reinhart?

[Carmel Corn]

23 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

IMHO, if you are arguing that Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart are part of the problem, then you are arguing that the team around them has had enough talent to competitive on the ice without them in the line-up and that the coaches they had were good enough to have the team competitive without Jack and Sam.

I just looked at the rosters from 2015-6 to 2021.  Although Bylsma, Housley, and Krueger each had flaws and blind spots which severely impacted their effectiveness as coaches, I can't think of any coach who could have made 4 functioning lines and 3 functioning pairs of defencemen from those line-ups -- even with Jack, Sam, ROR, etc..  The bottom of those rosters were just that bad.  Therefore, how can I hold these problems against Eichel and Reinhart?

Yes, exactly!  For the past few seasons the Sabres have had a revolving door of different bottom 6 forwards and journeyman defense.  None of those additions were good enough to make an impact and the amount of change made it difficult to develop any cohesion (even if they had talent).  The Sabres management has made it a habit if shopping at Dollar General and still overpaying for the useless crap, broken or outdated crap they acquired.

[bob_sauve28]

9 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I don't hate the idea of getting a first back in principle but if it's high, I worry we tie too much value up in a lottery ticket 

We are finally getting some talent on this team at forward and we are shipping away the best one. This seems like a step backwards 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Call the trade.  It would be your Roy for Ott moment.

Comtois, 3oa, Perreault, and 1st in 2022 plus Kesler for Eichel. 

[Broken Ankles]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don't need to justify anything, there's zero chicken and egg going on. The numbers speak for themselves, the only thing he hasn't done is provide some mystical, undefinable "ability" needed for winning.

You go ahead and mathematically define what that is, and why Jack doesn't have it. You can't fill in variables with whatever you want to fit your narrative that he doesn't have "it", if you can't define it. 

Not when Occam's Razor that the rest of the roster sucks is staring you right in the face. The Jack doesn't have "it" argument is one of the most illogical arguments one comes across. You are just taking the "x" of why we haven't won, and attributing it to the, literally, *least* likely cause because of leadership narratives you've fallen victim to in the past. 

Voodoo and mysticism - have at it 

 

 

 

Or, maybe Mark Messier was actually 40 year old Eric Staal w/o Wayne. He was actually terrible but once he saw Wayne light it up (so inspirational!") he was like, "Damn, I wanna be one of the greatest to ever play the game, too!"

One of the two, anyways. 

 

 

I see your graph, and raise you a Venn.

 

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

 

 

I see your graph, and raise you a Venn.

 

Like I always say, only a Sith deals in absolutes 

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Call the trade.  It would be your Roy for Ott moment.

Looks like @LGR4GM beat me to it, at least the main parts.

The guts of the deal will Comtois and 3OA for Eichel.

The Sabres will also get a 2ndary prospect and a well-paid veteran. The Ducks will get a lesser Sabres piece depending on the quality of their two lesser pieces.

Edited June 17, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Looks like @LGR4GM beat me to it, at least the main parts.

The guts of the deal will Comtois and 3OA for Eichel.

The Sabres will also get a 2ndary prospect and a well-paid veteran. The Ducks will get a lesser Sabres piece depending on the quality of their two lesser pieces.

And the other first mentioned?

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Comtois, 3oa, Perreault, and 1st in 2022 plus Kesler for Eichel. 

I think the other first is to sweeten the pot. Hence taking Kesler

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

And the other first mentioned?

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

And the other first mentioned?

I don’t see it happening.

Compare it to Peca, Wilson and a 1st for Mogilny.

Comtois will be a top-six forward and a tone-setter like Peca, and he’s more proven.

The prospect, be it Perreault or someone else, is the Wilson. We just hope he fulfills his potential better.

And the pick is top 3, not top 15, which is the 1C premium.

Edited June 17, 2021 by dudacek