Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

The latest rumours have the Rangers seriously kicking the tires again. 

Apparently they were seriously negotiating last summer so all those rumours might have been true. We wanted that #1 though and they wouldn't part with it. Wonder what the rest of the deal might have been? 

Eichel-Panarin = lethal. 

Buchnevich, Chytil, 1st, prospect

[mjd1001]

I really do not understand not wanting to trade him in the conference or the division. You trade him to wherever you are getting the best offer. If the Rangers, or Boston, were to give you the best offer, many of you would actually take a WORSE offer just to keep him in the other conference?

[Thorner]

17 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I really do not understand not wanting to trade him in the conference or the division. You trade him to wherever you are getting the best offer. If the Rangers, or Boston, were to give you the best offer, many of you would actually take a WORSE offer just to keep him in the other conference?

It makes no sense. Make up the most (or lose the least) possible ground on the field at large. 

[thewookie1]

56 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Buchnevich, Chytil, 1st, prospect

No thank you, not good enough

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

No thank you, not good enough

Agree, but it's in line with what we've seen proposed. The first is certainly lower, but Chytil is I think a better prospect than Perreault, and Buchnevich is more accomplished than Comtois 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

45 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I really do not understand not wanting to trade him in the conference or the division. You trade him to wherever you are getting the best offer. If the Rangers, or Boston, were to give you the best offer, many of you would actually take a WORSE offer just to keep him in the other conference?

Depends on how much worse the offer is.

 

The last thing I want is to constantly be reminded of a mistake or aid an opponent in any regard. 

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, ash said:

My fault for taking the bait on this conversation. 

No shame. You got had by one of the best.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Depends on how much worse the offer is.

 

The last thing I want is to constantly be reminded of a mistake or aid an opponent in any regard. 

I agree with you. Trading ROR out west saved us from ever having to hear about that particular blunder. 

Whatever happened to that loser anyways?

[thewookie1]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree with you. Trading ROR out west saved us from ever having to hear about that particular blunder. 

Whatever happened to that loser anyways?

How often do we play St. Louis?

 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

How often do we play St. Louis?

 

Already mentioned with regards to that part - logically you should look to gain most relative to the league as a whole - and you do that by maximizing your return, full stop 

Imagine prioritizing 8 games over the other 74 where your team is presumably better because of a better deal 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

Just now, Thorny said:

Already mentioned with regards to that part - logically you should look to gain most relative to the league as a whole - and you do that by maximizing your return, full stop 

I honestly disagree.

Your first thought should be to beat your division, the vast majority of your schedule; then the Conference, and then the League.

If there are 3 Powerhouses in the West and 1 in the East, still only 1 from each goes to the Finals.

We don't play in a Top 16 of 30, we have a Top 3 of 8 and a Top 2 of the remaining 10 in the East. What Chicago, Anaheim, or LA does will only effect me in the event we play them in the Finals. Otherwise, we play them twice a year and have zero impact on each other's standings otherwise.

[Thorner]

As a matter of practicality - if Adams is afraid to trade Eichel in division because he sees a strong likelihood it bites him in the ass, why the holy hell are we trading Jack Eichel?

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Thorny said:

As a matter of practicality - if Adams is afraid to trade Eichel in division because he sees a strong likelihood it bites him in the ass, why the holy hell are we trading Jack Eichel?

As a matter of practicality, what in division team would we want to even trade with?

[Thorner]

You take the best deal. But frankly, I could make a stronger case for why you should prioritize trading him in division OVER trading him out. If you can't stand by the conviction of your decisions you shouldn't be making the decisions at all. If Adams thinks he needs to trade Jack Eichel, he damn well better think he's going to gain significant value, overall, in the deal, and if that's the case - your net gain would be the largest if the team you are trading with is in division. 

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

As a matter of practicality, what in division team would we want to even trade with?

I should have said, "as a matter or practicality, within the terms of the proposed hypothetical" 😄

I'm not advocating the best return right now can be found in division, merely that, if it is, we should take it. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You take the best deal. But frankly, I could make a stronger case for why you should prioritize trading him in division OVER trading him out. If you can't stand by the conviction of your decisions you shouldn't be making the decisions at all. If Adams thinks he needs to trade Jack Eichel, he damn well better think he's going to gain significant value, overall, in the deal, and if that's the case - your net gain would be the largest if the team you are trading with is in division. 

I don't think you can

You're implying a trade is a zero sum game like drafting, and it isn't. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by LGR4GM

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't think you can

Already did it. 

I'm not saying it's what you should do: I don't think it is. It's more so reflective of the fact I actually think it's exceptionally illogical to take a lesser deal, out of division, for the sake of it being out of division

[thewookie1]

Just now, Thorny said:

As a matter of practicality - if Adams is afraid to trade Eichel in division because he sees a strong likelihood it bites him in the ass, why the holy hell are we trading Jack Eichel?

That I wouldn’t want, I would want my GM to be able to figure out the calculus around how much the trade would shift the teams. Your quote is as a fan I’d feel that way.

As a GM, if I’m having to trade Eichel; I want the trade to benefit me greatly without causing further difficulties for us. Akin to a divisional game being a 4 point game, inner-conference trades have far more impact overall.

For instance, if we trade Eichel to Anaheim; Anaheim gets a boost in the standings more than likely however that boost doesn’t effect us in any way. If we send him to NYR we are directly hindered by Eichel’s play. In the former case, the acquisitions have more time to produce fruit where as in the conference they’d have to go tit for tat with Eichel to merely keep the overall status quo in the Conference 

[Thorner]

"I'm pretty sure this guy isn't going to fully recover, if I'm going to get a pretty big haul either way, this gives me a chance to handicap a division opponent with a 10 million dollar anchor (sorry, @inkman)." - I can at least understand that thinking

"I'm going to take a lesser deal, and be a worse team over the course of 82, so that I benefit relative to a singular team in my division" is, in my opinion, absurd 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Already did it. 

I'm not saying it's what you should do: I don't think it is. It's more so reflective of the fact I actually think it's exceptionally illogical to take a lesser deal, out of division, for the sake of it being out of division

I wouldn't take a significantly lesser deal

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

That I wouldn’t want, I would want my GM to be able to figure out the calculus around how much the trade would shift the teams. Your quote is as a fan I’d feel that way.

As a GM, if I’m having to trade Eichel; I want the trade to benefit me greatly without causing further difficulties for us. Akin to a divisional game being a 4 point game, inner-conference trades have far more impact overall.

For instance, if we trade Eichel to Anaheim; Anaheim gets a boost in the standings more than likely however that boost doesn’t effect us in any way. If we send him to NYR we are directly hindered by Eichel’s play. In the former case, the acquisitions have more time to produce fruit where as in the conference they’d have to go tit for tat with Eichel to merely keep the overall status quo in the Conference 

It's not that the "boost" itself affects us, you are right, it really wouldn't if it was Anaheim. The point I am making is that it would be a mistake to prioritize that particular benefit over the benefit we'd gain from taking the best deal. Which serves us better relative to the league as a whole. 

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Already did it. 

I'm not saying it's what you should do: I don't think it is. It's more so reflective of the fact I actually think it's exceptionally illogical to take a lesser deal, out of division, for the sake of it being out of division

I get the sense we have completely incompatible opinions on this. You want to effectively go big or go home where I look to reduce risk and maintain status quo. 

Yes, technically if you can fleece a team, you’d want it to be in the Conference where it’s impact would be multiplied. However the opposite also is true and it is nearly impossible to win a trade where you give up the best player involved.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

I get the sense we have completely incompatible opinions on this. You want to effectively go big or go home where I look to reduce risk and maintain status quo. 

Yes, technically if you can fleece a team, you’d want it to be in the Conference where it’s impact would be multiplied. However the opposite also is true and it is nearly impossible to win a trade where you give up the best player involved.

I don't want to go big or home at all. I want to take the deal with the best overall value - you aren't actually listening to my argument 

I am not advocating for prioritizing an in division trade - i simply used that as a reference point for how truly illogical I believe it would be to turn down a better offer for the sake of keeping him out of division. It's not a risk/reward equation to me, at all. It's merely about gaining the most value relative to the league overall 

[thewookie1]

If we have to trade Eichel for .85 on the dollar to NYR or .80 on the dollar for Anaheim. I’d take Anaheim since while I lose a little more, the difference is less destructive.

NYR would then have 1.15 whereas Anaheim would have 1.20 

However a out of Conference trade doesn’t mean we end up .40 short because we aren’t compared 1 to 1

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don't want to go big or home at all. I want to take the deal with the best overall value - you aren't actually listening to my argument 

I am not advocating for prioritizing an in division trade - i simply used that as a reference point for how truly illogical I believe it would be to turn down a better offer for the sake of keeping him out of division. It's not a risk/reward equation to me, at all. It's merely about gaining the most value relative to the league overall 

Alright, I understand better however I’d still fully disagree with improving the team in the league overall being the most important goal.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

If we have to trade Eichel for .85 on the dollar to NYR or .80 on the dollar for Anaheim. I’d take Anaheim since while I lose a little more, the difference is less destructive.

NYR would then have 1.15 whereas Anaheim would have 1.20 

However a out of Conference trade doesn’t mean we end up .40 short because we aren’t compared 1 to 1

that extra .5 serves us better, over 82 games (we get that benefit, every game) than the benefit of keeping Eichel away from the big bad rangers

People willingly accept "BPA" and this is the same founding principle - it's just about maximizing value being the key priority

[Randall Flagg]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

If we have to trade Eichel for .85 on the dollar to NYR or .80 on the dollar for Anaheim. I’d take Anaheim since while I lose a little more, the difference is less destructive.

NYR would then have 1.15 whereas Anaheim would have 1.20 

However a out of Conference trade doesn’t mean we end up .40 short because we aren’t compared 1 to 1

Alright, I understand better however I’d still fully disagree with improving the team in the league overall being the most important goal.

We only play the Rangers 3x per year. We play the ducks 2x per year. Take the best deal