Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Exactly. It's just spin to mask the real reasons

They are trading Eichel to cut expenses?

[thewookie1]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Do you at least accept there are other legitimate reasons for not wanting to trade Jack? Ie - the entertainment value he provided in the midst of otherwise dreariness? I don't think you'd argue that it's *likely* KA turns this ship around, considering what we've seen come before. I'm not saying it won't happen but "doubting" what comes next would be a function of realism, at this point, no? So with that said, would you scoff at those who find value in the exceptional play he provides, where little other value can be found, when viewing through the prism of an entertainment product?

I'm not sure if you'd term me a "young" fan at 34 (how much relativity we talking here?) but I've been through decades of fandom and this still very much grinds my gears. 

 

Do I want to trade Eichel? No

Must we trade Eichel? Again No

Could he be a problem? Perhaps

What do we know of him? He's a highly expressive superstar player that was given the captaincy way too early. I wish we had Gionta at 31 when we signed him and were able to keep him around a while to give Eichel a chance to mature.

[LTS]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

And I think character is probably not the quite right word.  I'm not sure culture is quite the right word here, but I think it is closer to being correct.  I've never felt like Jack was a team guy.  From the beginnings with his reported disrespect for Gionta, Ive felt like Jack is a Jack guy.  Even Sam defers to Jack.  I think right from the get go it had to be about Jack.  And I think that is what KA wants to change.

Obviously, I don't have alot to back this up with, but thats how I read the tea leaves.

If this is accurate (and I have nothing other than gut feel to go on) then I think the team does have to move on from him to really get to where they want to go.

Or Jack has to change.

I'll confirm the bolded was an issue.  I have said for years that I have a source (family member) of a Sabre who was in the locker room at that time.  I do not have knowledge of anything current.

2 hours ago, klos1963 said:

I'm curious as to how many posters here were negative on Eichel prior to this past season.

I was, not only as a hockey player.  I had lunch with a family member of his girlfriend at the time and he spoke glowingly of Eichel and how he hung out with the kids during large family gatherings.  He was gracious, easy going, etc.  I have no knowledge of his current status and I am no longer running in the circle where I would have lunch with that person again.

As a hockey player, I definitely questioned him.  Last year was when he showed a change.

But overall, I'm not going to cry if he's gone.  Frankly at this point no one will be happy with the return. No one will be happy if he stays unless the team starts winning. In the end, if the Sabres win, people won't care as much.

[Curt]

2 hours ago, klos1963 said:

I'm curious as to how many posters here were negative on Eichel prior to this past season.

What constitutes being negative on Eichel? Does coming here and saying something not positive about him make me negative on Eichel?

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don't discount this because I don't know Adams.

But you are essentially saying Adams is a rat-bastard bureaucrat who values keeping his job over being successful in it, and that he immediately made it his priority to consolidate power, as opposed to building a winner.

It seems that you are basing that almost completely on his decision to trade Eichel, and the premise that Eichel should not be traded. Am I missing other factors?

 

It is interesting to observe who Jack has connected with off the ice and who he has not.

[LGR4GM]

This really is the ROR situation all over as we slowly convince ourselves Jack Eichel, a top 10 center in the NHL is part of the reason this team has sucked for a decade. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

They are trading Eichel to cut expenses?

They are trading Eichel because Adams wants a rebuild. Maybe it's hubris, wanting his own mark on this, maybe it's just to set himself up in a situation where the expectations are near-unmissable: but I think it's pretty clear the "step back" is what he wants. We know now he suggested moving Jack immediately upon taking over the job, when that wasn't Ok'd, the Hall opportunity presented itself. He took it - we were either going to be good, or the team would have enough rope to hang itself, souring Tpegs on the method and opening up the OK for Adams' slow climb. 

I know people say "when haven't we been rebuilding?" in the last decade, but when I say rebuild the heart of it to me is the conscious lowering of expectations. As soon as KA had his interview after JE, I said it - the goal is not to make the playoffs next year. 

I think that's a gigantic mistake. Just as the most detrimental factor of the tank was the mentality it infused the organization with, that's proven so hard to shake, we've again slid down that slippery slope right back into it. 

[LTS]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

This really is the ROR situation all over as we slowly convince ourselves Jack Eichel, a top 10 center in the NHL is part of the reason this team has sucked for a decade. 

Anyone who thinks that needs a good smackin.

Eichel is an exceptional hockey player.  He is certainly the reason the Sabres did not suck more.

But he may not be the answer to future success either... at least in Buffalo.  And as much a deal people make over ROR (and I cannot believe I am bringing it up).  ROR was not the driving factor of the Blues success that one season.  He was who he always was and since then, because Binnington has been mediocre, the Blues haven't done anything notable.  ROR was a good player, but he wasn't going to drive success on his own.

I don't think anyone knows if Eichel would have been the answer.  At least on the ice he sure as hell wasn't going to be the problem.

[Curt]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

This really is the ROR situation all over as we slowly convince ourselves Jack Eichel, a top 10 center in the NHL is part of the reason this team has sucked for a decade. 

No!  No, I say!  He is not!

Was he given too much, too fast, too soon?  Perhaps.  But that’s not his fault.

Has he made mistakes?  No doubt.  Everyone has.

Is he a good captain.  Maybe not, he is pretty young.  Maybe he grows into leadership with age.

In the end, he is a very very good hockey player, and if the Buffalo Sabres had been able to assemble a good team around him, I have no doubt Eichel would be an important part of that.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, LTS said:

Anyone who thinks that needs a good smackin.

Eichel is an exceptional hockey player.  He is certainly the reason the Sabres did not suck more.

But he may not be the answer to future success either... at least in Buffalo.  And as much a deal people make over ROR (and I cannot believe I am bringing it up).  ROR was not the driving factor of the Blues success that one season.  He was who he always was and since then, because Binnington has been mediocre, the Blues haven't done anything notable.  ROR was a good player, but he wasn't going to drive success on his own.

I don't think anyone knows if Eichel would have been the answer.  At least on the ice he sure as hell wasn't going to be the problem.

I mean, you've just eloquently made the argument for why Jack shouldn't be traded. ROR was all of a sudden a Conn Smythe winner when other pieces were in place? THAT'S my biggest issue with trading Jack. He DOES have the capability of being what we need him to be, we just never leverage the entire roster into a situation that facilitates it. 

[Zamboni]

On the topic of giving the C to someone … it’s the kiss of death for the Sabres. Who was the last Sabre who was awarded the lone C, and lasted more than three years after given the C. It just seems like anyone who gets the C gets traded away rather “quickly” after that. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Zamboni

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

They are trading Eichel because Adams wants a rebuild. Maybe it's hubris, wanting his own mark on this, maybe it's just to set himself up in a situation where the expectations are near-unmissable: but I think it's pretty clear the "step back" is what he wants. We know now he suggested moving Jack immediately upon taking over the job, when that wasn't Ok'd, the Hall opportunity presented itself. He took it - we were either going to be good, or the team would have enough rope to hang itself, souring Tpegs on the method and opening up the OK for Adams' slow climb. 

I know people say "when haven't we been rebuilding?" in the last decade, but when I say rebuild the heart of it to me is the conscious lowering of expectations. As soon as KA had his interview after JE, I said it - the goal is not to make the playoffs next year. 

I think that's a gigantic mistake. Just as the most detrimental factor of the tank was the mentality it infused the organization with, that's proven so hard to shake, we've again slid down that slippery slope right back into it. 

Agree that Adams wants to rebuild.  Seems obvious to me.

I disagree that means re-adopting a tank mentality.

For me, whether it’s a mistake will be born out in the execution.

[Randall Flagg]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

Anyone who thinks that needs a good smackin.

Eichel is an exceptional hockey player.  He is certainly the reason the Sabres did not suck more.

But he may not be the answer to future success either... at least in Buffalo.  And as much a deal people make over ROR (and I cannot believe I am bringing it up).  ROR was not the driving factor of the Blues success that one season.  He was who he always was and since then, because Binnington has been mediocre, the Blues haven't done anything notable.  ROR was a good player, but he wasn't going to drive success on his own.

I don't think anyone knows if Eichel would have been the answer.  At least on the ice he sure as hell wasn't going to be the problem.

I don't really get the point you're bringing up here. No NHL players drive success on their own, save for the occasional goalie that gets hot for a couple weeks. Novody ever argued that Eichel or ROR can do this. They argued against the bad faith character claims made against them, by people who asserted that they would never win because of them and spent that brief time with the blues in the basement gloating about how right they were. They argued against moving on from that player for bad return and the idea that our 3 weeks of success was proof that ROR was a cancer. Those making those initial claims had them blow up in their face when the Blues won the cup just months later, which directly destroyed fundamental pillars of the bad-faith arguments. 

Now we get weak sauce after the fact as if the whole point in this all along was that ROR can't pull an entire team by himself. That was never the argument being had and parallels to Eichel's case are that the same types of stories, which exist for players on every nhl team including superstars, exist and only get scrutinized when it's time for a big move like this. That they crop up to this extent now is an example of this natural tendency and we are trying to get ahead of it or at least what will be the nastier and more baseless aspects of it 

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

On the topic of giving the C to someone … it’s the kiss of death for the Sabres. Who was the last Sabre who was awarded the lone C, and lasted more than three years after given the C. It just seems like anyone who gets the C gets traded away rather “quickly” after that. 

Who even was the last lone C before Eichel?

Edited June 18, 2021 by Curt

[LTS]

Just now, Thorny said:

I mean, you've just eloquently made the argument for why Jack shouldn't be traded. ROR was all of a sudden a Conn Smythe winner when other pieces were in place? THAT'S my biggest issue with trading Jack. He DOES have the capability of being what we need him to be, we just never leverage the entire roster into a situation that facilitates it. 

He wasn't all of a sudden a Conn Smythe winner.  ROR was the same player with the Blues.  He had the best playoff on that team in that run.  It's not like he's followed it up with anything.  He did not elevate the Blues.  The Blues fired their coach and they improved when Berube came in and Binnington joined the club.  Since then they've been back to the same team they were before.

ROR is a very good hockey player.  ROR did not jive with the ownership.  It is what it is.

Eichel is an exceptional hockey player.  There are clearly issues or his name would not be in trade rumors.  Whether those issues are enough to impact the team performance, regardless of who you bring in, will be a mystery because if he's traded we'll never know.  If he's not we'll get a chance to find out. If Eichel is pushing his way out then I wouldn't be blaming Sabres ownership for trading him except that they could not build a team... but also Jack wasn't going to be patient enough to see what transpired.  Both sides get blame.

I'm not an advocate for or against trading Eichel.  I simply have no idea at this point whether he is enough of an off-ice issue to register an opinion.  All I know is I am sick of hearing about it and I only care if the Sabres win.

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I don't really get the point you're bringing up here. No NHL players drive success on their own, save for the occasional goalie that gets hot for a couple weeks. Novody ever argued that Eichel or ROR can do this. They argued against the bad faith character claims made against them, by people who asserted that they would never win because of them and spent that brief time with the blues in the basement gloating about how right they were. They argued against moving on from that player for bad return and the idea that our 3 weeks of success was proof that ROR was a cancer. Those making those initial claims had them blow up in their face when the Blues won the cup just months later, which directly destroyed fundamental pillars of the bad-faith arguments. 

Now we get weak sauce after the fact as if the whole point in this all along was that ROR can't pull an entire team by himself. That was never the argument being had and parallels to Eichel's case are that the same types of stories, which exist for players on every nhl team including superstars, exist and only get scrutinized when it's time for a big move like this. That they crop up to this extent now is an example of this natural tendency and we are trying to get ahead of it or at least what will be the nastier and more baseless aspects of it 

Yes, I am not trying to insinuate that ROR would drive the success of a team.  I am saying he was not the reason that the team succeeded.  He wasn't the difference maker for the Blues and he hasn't been since then.  He's been the same player all along.  But more value is ascribed to ROR because they did win the Cup and he did win the Conn Smythe.  I don't think that value is warranted.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Agree that Adams wants to rebuild.  Seems obvious to me.

I disagree that means re-adopting a tank mentality.

For me, whether it’s a mistake will be born out in the execution.

We will never see them undertake a tank like the one in the past and I don't mean to make that suggestion. 

My theory is that, because of the well we've fallen into, even just consciously making "winning" a secondary priority will doom them. We need to kickstart - I don't think we'll ever win again until we start looking to build a playoff team, and stop trying to build a Stanley Cup team. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Thorny

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, LTS said:

He wasn't all of a sudden a Conn Smythe winner.  ROR was the same player with the Blues.  He had the best playoff on that team in that run.  It's not like he's followed it up with anything.  He did not elevate the Blues.  The Blues fired their coach and they improved when Berube came in and Binnington joined the club.  Since then they've been back to the same team they were before.

ROR is a very good hockey player.  ROR did not jive with the ownership.  It is what it is.

Eichel is an exceptional hockey player.  There are clearly issues or his name would not be in trade rumors.  Whether those issues are enough to impact the team performance, regardless of who you bring in, will be a mystery because if he's traded we'll never know.  If he's not we'll get a chance to find out. If Eichel is pushing his way out then I wouldn't be blaming Sabres ownership for trading him except that they could not build a team... but also Jack wasn't going to be patient enough to see what transpired.  Both sides get blame.

I'm not an advocate for or against trading Eichel.  I simply have no idea at this point whether he is enough of an off-ice issue to register an opinion.  All I know is I am sick of hearing about it and I only care if the Sabres win.

Yes, I am not trying to insinuate that ROR would drive the success of a team.  I am saying he was not the reason that the team succeeded.  He wasn't the difference maker for the Blues and he hasn't been since then.  He's been the same player all along.  But more value is ascribed to ROR because they did win the Cup and he did win the Conn Smythe.  I don't think that value is warranted.

He has exactly as much value as anyone reasonable would claim. He is a selke caliber PPG 1C that is capable of being a key piece to a cup run. That is nearly as high a place as is possible to reach in this sport, it's in the top ~5% of all players, and far higher than many would have smugly proclaimed as his ceiling not 5 months before he proved it 

 

[Radar]

1 hour ago, Buffalonill said:

I'll listen i'm all yours tell me whats wrong 

What's wrong? Both sides have probably some blame here. My impression of Jack? Super talent. Probably needs to mature to blend that talent to be a leader. Played hardball a bit and went public for no valid reason except to set the stage for his departure. Franchise under ownership of the Pegulas probably by their poor management caused a negative atmosphere in general. Still Jack didn't need to give that exit interview which I think was for only selfish (immature) reasons. I know for me personally that was my first turn in questioning Jack's motives. Sure KA was not happy about that and probably other behind scenes things.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, LTS said:

He wasn't all of a sudden a Conn Smythe winner.  ROR was the same player with the Blues.  He had the best playoff on that team in that run.  It's not like he's followed it up with anything.  He did not elevate the Blues.  The Blues fired their coach and they improved when Berube came in and Binnington joined the club.  Since then they've been back to the same team they were before.

The point of my post is that I'm saying he WASN'T "all of a sudden" a Conn Smythe winner. What they needed him to be was there all along. We are looking at the same data points and drawing different conclusions - it's not a detriment to ROR that he couldn't do it without Binnington - it's simply a fact of life. That's the NHL. This Is England. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Thorny

[DarthEbriate]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This really is the ROR situation all over as we slowly convince ourselves Jack Eichel, a top 10 center in the NHL is part of the reason this team has sucked for a decade. 

The decision to tank (for Eichel/McDavid) and dismantle the organizational depth down to the studs --- to the extent that both Buffalo and Rochester were bottom-dwellers in their respective leagues --- is the reason this team has sucked for a decade.  So I guess, maybe we could blame Eichel/McDavid for that. But really that's on TPegs and whoever sold it to XGMDR.

Was it Eichel on the ice? Absolutely not. Trading a 1C in ROR while Eichel was still becoming a solid 2C was horrible. Having consistently-below-average goaltending behind a youthful roster... horrible. Hiring a coach who wanted to play a defensive shell 100% of the time and sit solely on the PP as the means of offense... horrible. Tons of reasons beyond Eichel for this team being terrible on ice.

[Buffalonill]

So does kyle  okposo get the C lol

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

The point of my post is that I'm saying he WASN'T "all of a sudden" a Conn Smythe winner. What they needed him to be was there all along. We are looking at the same data points and drawing different conclusions - it's not a detriment to ROR that he couldn't do it without Binnington - it's simply a fact of life. That's the NHL. This Is England. 

Actually ovechkin was a terrible teammate and not a leader for years which is why they never got past 2nd round.  But they won the cup in 18, so he had finally grown and matured and now is capable of doing that. But they've lost since then, so he actually changed again. Also toews

[Thorner]

This idea that someone isn't a "difference maker" if they can't make the difference all on their own has totally jumped the shark. What people are talking about isn't a "difference maker", it's a Savior. 

The tank really did break people. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, DarthEbriate said:

The decision to tank (for Eichel/McDavid) and dismantle the organizational depth down to the studs --- to the extent that both Buffalo and Rochester were bottom-dwellers in their respective leagues --- is the reason this team has sucked for a decade.  So I guess, maybe we could blame Eichel/McDavid for that. But really that's on TPegs and whoever sold it to XGMDR.

Was it Eichel on the ice? Absolutely not. Trading a 1C in ROR while Eichel was still becoming a solid 2C was horrible. Having consistently-below-average goaltending behind a youthful roster... horrible. Hiring a coach who wanted to play a defensive shell 100% of the time and sit solely on the PP as the means of offense... horrible. Tons of reasons beyond Eichel for this team being terrible on ice.

Wait until you see the 3 seasons before the tank that are part of that decade. 

[Radar]

1 minute ago, Buffalonill said:

So does kyle  okposo get the C lol

Well he's probably a better leader than our present captain.