Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not saying you're wrong, I think you are seeing what you want to see.

It is almost certainly true that the Sabres told them the offer wasn't good enough and they don't feel empowered to go further.

But under the circumstances (the Sabres wanting to trade Eichel) it is more likely they are holding an auction and looking to lever the best offer, as opposed to setting a price and saying "first one to pay it, he's yours."

You are missing my point. I'm not disputing that the GM wants to move Jack. A person has to be obtuse not to understand the meaning of the GM's comments about wanting players who want to be here. Of course there is a de-facto auction to see what the best offers are. But even with teams competing to trade for Jack that doesn't mean that there isn't a baseline level of return for us to accept a deal. If the best offer doesn't rise to the minimum level of an acceptable return then a trade shouldn't be made him until it does meet that standard. 

How many people here believe that the ROR deal was a good deal? It was a rushed deal to avoid executing bonus clause. The result was a team that was diminished. I have repeatedly said that I don't expect to get equal value back in a Jack trade. That doesn't mean that I have to get an unfair return for him, especially when there is not a requirement to trade him. 

I hope this clarifies the issue. Our horses are starting to ride in circles and are getting tired. 🙂

[LGR4GM]

LA may be out on Eichel but...

What about Reinhart, Risto (50% retained) for 9oa, Turcotte, Kempe, and Brock Faber.

[French Collection]

Is it possible the NHL is telling teams to hold off on this trade until the Cup is awarded?

 

[Pimlach]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Again you're still missing 2 of the 4 pieces for Columbus to work. You got 1 first rounder, 1 nhl goalie... 0 prospects of any note, no good nhl roster player coming back. 

Columbus sucked as a trade partner which is why they're out. Maybe it's a sign Adams isn't as dumb as some suggest. 

Agree on Columbus as a trade partner.  
 

Adams is not dumb.  Far, far from it.  He is inexperienced and maybe less connected in the NHL FO Network.  
 

The Pegula cost cuts make his job harder and he is gaining experience fast, he is drinking from a firehouse.  
 

I like his position on the type of players we want - if they don’t want to be here to help turn this around then he should accommodate them.  We are seeing it before our eyes in the playoffs.  Hockey is a team-sport.   Looking at the teams in the final four.  Only one team has a 1C like Eichel.  The right move on an Eichel trade could be the start of a turnaround for this team. 
 

[LGR4GM]

35 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Agree on Columbus as a trade partner.  
 

Adams is not dumb.  Far, far from it.  He is inexperienced and maybe less connected in the NHL FO Network.  
 

The Pegula cost cuts make his job harder and he is gaining experience fast, he is drinking from a firehouse.  
 

I like his position on the type of players we want - if they don’t want to be here to help turn this around then he should accommodate them.  We are seeing it before our eyes in the playoffs.  Hockey is a team-sport.   Looking at the teams in the final four.  Only one team has a 1C like Eichel.  The right move on an Eichel trade could be the start of a turnaround for this team. 
 

But every team has a player like Eichel. The lesson from these playoffs is not "look at Montreal, they did it without a top center so can we!" but "you need talent throughout the lineup and some timely goaltending." 

Last year Tampa won the cup and they defintiely have an elite center. Year before St Louis, ROR is an elite 2-way center. Year before Washington, elite center. Pittsburgh won back to back cups with 2 elite centers. The point is Montreal could win the cup but the take away shouldn't be about how we can also do it that way. We shouldn't try to emulate outliers. Also Suzuki and Caufield are exceedingly good young players who have shown up for the playoffs. 

The right move on an eichel trade can absolute be the start of a turnaround. The team could use it to build the depth they have needed since 2015 when they traded depth for ROR, Bogo, Kane. That depth has to be high end depth like a Suzuki or a Caufield because that is what pushed Montreal further. 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You are missing my point. I'm not disputing that the GM wants to move Jack. A person has to be obtuse not to understand the meaning of the GM's comments about wanting players who want to be here. Of course there is a de-facto auction to see what the best offers are. But even with teams competing to trade for Jack that doesn't mean that there isn't a baseline level of return for us to accept a deal. If the best offer doesn't rise to the minimum level of an acceptable return then a trade shouldn't be made him until it does meet that standard. 

How many people here believe that the ROR deal was a good deal? It was a rushed deal to avoid executing bonus clause. The result was a team that was diminished. I have repeatedly said that I don't expect to get equal value back in a Jack trade. That doesn't mean that I have to get an unfair return for him, especially when there is not a requirement to trade him. 

I hope this clarifies the issue. Our horses are starting to ride in circles and are getting tired. 🙂

I think I understand your central point very well: That Adams will keep Eichel if he does not get the requisite return.

It's not that I disagree, it's that my point is that Adams' baseline level of return is below what many are willing to accept.

My perception is that you think a deal has yet to be made because the baseline has yet to be met.

I think that if 3OA is on the table, the baseline is already met and Adams is trying to lever that into the best return possible. Those saying "It has to Zegras++ or it has to be Dach+++ or we walk away" are going to be disappointed.

I hope you are right.

[Stoner]

Make it stop.

I mean, make it start.

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

How many people here believe that the ROR deal was a good deal? It was a rushed deal to avoid executing bonus clause. The result was a team that was diminished. 

I hope this clarifies the issue. Our horses are starting to ride in circles and are getting tired. 🙂

That is one of the reasons that I get so frustrated with the ROR trade when brought up on this board.

There are so many people who just want to say the GM made a bad trade or the trade was bad because the savers didn't know what they were doing most signs point to that not being the fact.

We will never know for sure 100%, but it really looks like ownership didn't want to pay that bonus so the general manager and the scouting department were told to get the best trade they could where the sabers wouldn't have to pay out that bonus. That changes the calculus of the trade and that's on the owner, not on the team scouts or management.

With O'Reilly, you could have gotten a better package had you paid that bonus.... With Jack, you might be getting a worse package because of his injury.

[JohnC]

48 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think I understand your central point very well: That Adams will keep Eichel if he does not get the requisite return.

It's not that I disagree, it's that my point is that Adams' baseline level of return is below what many are willing to accept.

My perception is that you think a deal has yet to be made because the baseline has yet to be met.

I think that if 3OA is on the table, the baseline is already met and Adams is trying to lever that into the best return possible. Those saying "It has to Zegras++ or it has to be Dach+++ or we walk away" are going to be disappointed.

I hope you are right.

Our views are not really that far apart. I agree with you that many here have expectations that are too exorbitant. Where we fundamentally disagree is how high is the floor for Adams. You think that it is lower than I do. I definitely don't believe, as you appear to believe, that if only a 3OA was on the table from Anaheim it would be sufficient. I would be willing to accept a Zegras or Dyrsdale and a 3OA for Jack if that was the best offer or a Dach plus their first pick for Jack. In my mind I have to get a young high grade player as part of a deal.

It seems that the different horses we are riding on are going in the same direction. And these long rides are wearing my arse out. 🤡

Edited June 25, 2021 by JohnC

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I think Adams is in a no-win situation with the Eichel trade, at least with the fan base. Many posters on this board are banging the drum to get multiple top prospects or picks and if they can't get it now to hold out for it until you do. Yet some stories seem to say Adams is asking for that and other teams are dropping out left and right.

The reality is Eichel may want out and the sabres may want him out for reasons we don't know of, but the return that many expect simply may not be there. 

If Adams doesn't trade Eichel soon after everything that's gone down, a segment of the fan base will be upset with him for waiting too long to trade him. On the other hand if he does trade them and doesn't get a huge return, a different segment of the fan base will be showing up at the arena with torches and pitchforks.

lol poor Adams

He'll be judged on the results - as he should be. 

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

That is one of the reasons that I get so frustrated with the ROR trade when brought up on this board.

There are so many people who just want to say the GM made a bad trade or the trade was bad because the savers didn't know what they were doing most signs point to that not being the fact.

We will never know for sure 100%, but it really looks like ownership didn't want to pay that bonus so the general manager and the scouting department were told to get the best trade they could where the sabers wouldn't have to pay out that bonus. That changes the calculus of the trade and that's on the owner, not on the team scouts or management.

With O'Reilly, you could have gotten a better package had you paid that bonus.... With Jack, you might be getting a worse package because of his injury.

In that ignominious deal we saved a penny and lost a dollar. I agree with you that the owner instigated the transaction. 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are missing my point. I'm not disputing that the GM wants to move Jack. A person has to be obtuse not to understand the meaning of the GM's comments about wanting players who want to be here. Of course there is a de-facto auction to see what the best offers are. But even with teams competing to trade for Jack that doesn't mean that there isn't a baseline level of return for us to accept a deal. If the best offer doesn't rise to the minimum level of an acceptable return then a trade shouldn't be made him until it does meet that standard. 

How many people here believe that the ROR deal was a good deal? It was a rushed deal to avoid executing bonus clause. The result was a team that was diminished. I have repeatedly said that I don't expect to get equal value back in a Jack trade. That doesn't mean that I have to get an unfair return for him, especially when there is not a requirement to trade him. 

I hope this clarifies the issue. Our horses are starting to ride in circles and are getting tired. 🙂

I agree there is/should be a minimum baseline, but for better or worse I think we can tell Adams has established his: That 3OA much like others have stated, and regardless of whether you and I agree with it, is being adjudged to be an asset worthy of being the anchor (shout out to (I think?) @inkman) to the Eichel return package. Probably what's happening is all roads are leading back to 30A right now and unless someone beats that, in KA's eyes, that'll be the deal. He's picking the best offer but he's already decided that offer meets his baseline.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

That is one of the reasons that I get so frustrated with the ROR trade when brought up on this board.

There are so many people who just want to say the GM made a bad trade or the trade was bad because the savers didn't know what they were doing most signs point to that not being the fact.

We will never know for sure 100%, but it really looks like ownership didn't want to pay that bonus so the general manager and the scouting department were told to get the best trade they could where the sabers wouldn't have to pay out that bonus. That changes the calculus of the trade and that's on the owner, not on the team scouts or management.

With O'Reilly, you could have gotten a better package had you paid that bonus.... With Jack, you might be getting a worse package because of his injury.

Why get frustrated? Who's "fault" it was comes down to semantics. It was the Sabres - they made a bad deal. If Pegula drove it, Pegula is functionally the GM when he wants to be. The ire may be misdirected but it's not misplaced overall. 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I agree there is/should be a minimum baseline, but for better or worse I think we can tell Adams has established his: That 3OA much like others have stated, and regardless of whether you and I agree with it, is being adjudged to be an asset worthy of being the anchor (shout out to (I think?) @inkman) the Eichel return package. Probably what's happening is all roads are leading back to 30A right now and unless someone beats that, in KA's eyes, that'll be the deal. He's picking the best offer but that offer but he's already decided that offer meets his baseline.

I strenuously don't believe that a stand alone 3OA trade meets the GM's baseline. Although it could be the centerpiece of a deal. If Zegras or Drysdale are not part of the package then there needs to be other pieces that can play next year. In my view the GM is very aware that he needs to bulk up his current roster next year. 

[WildCard]

In other news, water is wet

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by WildCard

[nucci]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

In other news, water is wet

Brilliant reporting

[Thorner]

Just now, JohnC said:

I strenuously don't believe that a stand alone 3OA trade meets the GM's baseline. Although it could be the centerpiece of a deal. If Zegras or Drysdale are not part of the package then there needs to be other pieces that can play next year. In my view the GM is very aware that he needs to bulk up his current roster next year. 

I said anchor

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

In other news, water is wet

 

Has Dreger always been useless or is it a recent development?

Seriously, I feel like everything he has put out in the past 6 months is kind of like this.  Did I just not realize it before?

[mjd1001]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Why get frustrated? Who's "fault" it was comes down to semantics. It was the Sabres - they made a bad deal. If Pegula drove it, Pegula is functionally the GM when he wants to be. The ire may be misdirected but it's not misplaced overall. 

Well that's my whole point. Miss directed or misplaced, a lot of people put it not on the sabers as a whole but they put it on one particular person and there's a good chance the person they're putting it on might not be the correct person to place it on.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

In other news, water is wet

At least "aggressive" lends itself to moves potentially designed around looking to be competitive next season. How I'm choosing to view it, anyways. 

[mjd1001]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

lol poor Adams

He'll be judged on the results - as he should be. 

Totally, totally disagree with direct respect to my initial post. You would be inappropriate to judge Adams as a terrible GM because of a situation he was forced to deal with.

If he makes a bad deal, it's on him. If he makes the best deal he can based on the options presented to him, but those options are not what the fan base would have wanted, then it's not on him.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

Well that's my whole point. Miss directed or misplaced, a lot of people put it not on the sabers as a whole but they put it on one particular person and there's a good chance the person they're putting it on might not be the correct person to place it on.

It's either the owners or the GM the owners hire and retain. In reality there's always a chain back to ownership. They've positioned themselves in that spot, they are a direct line to the GM by choice. 

[WildCard]

 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Totally, totally disagree with direct respect to my initial post. You would be inappropriate to judge Adams as a terrible GM because of a situation he was forced to deal with.

If he makes a bad deal, it's on him. If he makes the best deal he can based on the options presented to him, but those options are not what the fan base would have wanted, then it's not on him.

I said results. Overall results - just because Botterill was apparently "forced" into the ROR deal (even though he was also apparently exploring it for months, like Adams and Eichel) doesn't mean he's off the hook for the entirety of the team's performance. 

Adams will be judged, as I said last offseason when everyone was awarding him a premature "A", on the team's record. 

[inkman]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree there is/should be a minimum baseline, but for better or worse I think we can tell Adams has established his: That 3OA much like others have stated, and regardless of whether you and I agree with it, is being adjudged to be an asset worthy of being the anchor (shout out to (I think?) @inkman) to the Eichel return package. Probably what's happening is all roads are leading back to 30A right now and unless someone beats that, in KA's eyes, that'll be the deal. He's picking the best offer but he's already decided that offer meets his baseline.

And here I thought the shout out would be for Eichel’s package.  Yes I am Anchorman.