Will Jack's Role On This Team Be Different Next Year?

[irregularly irregular]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

Have you observed how these things work in the real world?

If Jack Eichel seriously requests (demands?) a trade, he will be traded.  I don’t think it’s even a question.

And there is the unenviable task KA is faced with. Does he hold out for more and not trade Jack before the season.... season goes in the crapper and Jack says he wants out.... Jack's trade value now drops far below what was being offered before. 

I agree with Weave that the trade has to be sum of its parts. Wookie is also right in that there is no trade happening were the best player is not Jack. 

[steveoath]

And so the rumor mills start churning out their cr@p.

https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2021/05/one-trade-offer-buffalo-sabres-declined.html 

[3putt]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If he is back, and I suspect he will be, let’s remember that he lobbied for veterans.   This gave us Hall, Staal, Eakin, and  Rieder.   Eakin has a year left. Rieder will go.  
 

Now that the Tage-Mitts-Asplund line has emerged, we might be able to put together three  decent lines to include Jack  and Sam at center.   Olofsson, Cozens, Skinner, Girgs and Bjork -   I would like to add some forwards that bring both toughness and skill to the team.  
 

 

So you want additions that bring skill and toughness but Jack wanted slackers and washed up over the hill players milking the last year Of their contract? Hmmmm....maybe Jack wanted the same thing you do and the arse wipes that run the team said hold my beer and brought in hall, staal and eakin. Tage blows he is a bottom six player mentally without the bottom six grit you desire.  Mitts and the others have a very small sample size to project upon.

[Curt]

9 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

That's a bit of an oversimplification. If he requests a trade and we can't get what we deem proper compensation; he won't be traded end of story. The teams aren't out there looking to make sure their players are happy and comfortable over winning. 

 

Also, wasn't Peca's saga over a contract dispute? Eichel doesn't exactly have an out; if he publicly demands a trade I'd actually guess there's a better chance he isn't traded due to his value potentially taking a hit. We have zero obligation to help him anywhere outside of Buffalo.

 

My 3 Rules/Requirements for trading Eichel:

1. Untenable relationship (He is hellbent on leaving, not even a yacht could change his mind)

2. Western Conference team (I am not interested in anything coming from the Eastern Conference; they can offer us their next 20 1st rounders, don't care)

3. Returns are massive and highly applauded overall.  (For instance, Byfield, Kempe, Brown, 2021 1st & 3rd, and 2022 1st for starters) Maybe another prospect too?

 

 

If he makes it clear that he is flat out done with Buffalo , he would be traded.  Perhaps not immediately traded for whatever pile of junk other teams have laying around, but he would be traded.  No organization wants to indefinitely deal with the negative media distraction and team chemistry effect of having a disgruntled franchise player/captain hanging around for years.  It would be an unsustainable situation.

I think to say, “well he has a contract, they don’t have to trade him if they don’t want to.” is the real oversimplified position.  It’s being completely naive to all the other factors of the situation.

[3putt]

11 hours ago, Curt said:

Have you observed how these things work in the real world?

If Jack Eichel seriously requests (demands?) a trade, he will be traded.  I don’t think it’s even a question.

Disagree.  Jack has no leverage. If he doesn’t play he doesn’t get paid.  Period. He is not going to throw that kind of money out the window. He can ask but then the leverage is in the teams hands, i.e. waive your clause.  This idea that he can demand anything and even wants to is in the minds of fans and pundits who most likely have not even spoken with him. 

[Weave]

37 minutes ago, steveoath said:

And so the rumor mills start churning out their cr@p.

https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2021/05/one-trade-offer-buffalo-sabres-declined.html 

 

Does the conversation even develop further with Zibinejad plus Kakko or LaFreniere as a base?  There would probably have to be other moving parts on both sides.  Seems like the basic structure could be a win/win for both teams.  We'd probably have to add a young gun to replacce the young gun they lose.  They'd have to make up the difference elsewhere to reflect the difference between Jack and Z.

Zibinjad, Sam, Cozens is a pretty good C spine.  If Mitts doesn't get moved as part of the deal, that is actual depth.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Weave

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, 3putt said:

Disagree.  Jack has no leverage. If he doesn’t play he doesn’t get paid.  Period. He is not going to throw that kind of money out the window. He can ask but then the leverage is in the teams hands, i.e. waive your clause.  This idea that he can demand anything and even wants to is in the minds of fans and pundits who most likely have not even spoken with him. 

He absolutely does have leverage.  the team will want to avoid a fractured locker room and disenfranchised franchise player in the worst way.  That is his leverage.  Is it enough leverage to swing a trade?  Certainly possible.  The team goes as Jack goes.  If Jack isn't committed the team goes nowhere anyway, and that is a pretty significant incentive.

Whether or not the issue is solely in the minds of the pundits and fans is another matter entirely, and we have no way of knowing either way.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Weave

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, 3putt said:

Disagree.  Jack has no leverage. If he doesn’t play he doesn’t get paid.  Period. He is not going to throw that kind of money out the window. He can ask but then the leverage is in the teams hands, i.e. waive your clause.  This idea that he can demand anything and even wants to is in the minds of fans and pundits who most likely have not even spoken with him. 

I’m not saying that Jack can do whatever he wants, go to whichever team he wants, pick and choose every detail of the situation.  He doesn’t have a NMC right now.  I’m just simply saying, if he becomes adamant that he wants to leave Buffalo, he would be traded.

And as @Weave said, Eichel’s leverage is that the team wants to avoid/end the negative attention circus that would definitely come with an Eichel trade demand.  It would be a further embarrassment for the organization and consistent negative distraction for the team.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Curt

[JohnC]

Does trading Jack to the Rangers for Kakko and La Freniere and a high end prospect seem like a reasonable return? 

I'm not advocating for Jack to be moved. I'm just not sure that the team's timeline is acceptable to his timeline for competitiveness. 

[3putt]

Just now, Curt said:

I’m not saying that Jack can do whatever he wants, go to whichever team he wants, pick and choose every detail of the situation.  He doesn’t have a NMC right now.  I’m just simply saying, if he becomes adamant that he wants to leave Buffalo, he would be traded.

But all of this is presupposed on a very big if.  He wants to win.  We want the team to win. If it is apparent that this team can win, why would he want out? Trading him is simply buying an inexperienced gm 5 years to show he was the wrong choice to begin with.  
 

If there was one thing to support the idea that they, management, is still spinning its wheels and the decision tree has not been fixed it was the fact KA was not allowed to replace the coach when he was hired. If he was and did not then I could see a scenario where Jack approaches Terry and says it looks like YOU want to move in a different direction and I will play ball.  I simply do not believe JE is the type of player who will not try and give it all no matter where he is.  It is not in his nature. When healthy he produces.  The conversation seems to be a culture war.  “I like this player” or “ this kid will be a beast.”  But the only known is that JE was in consideration for MVP on a shyte team.  And management wants to get rid of that?  

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Does trading Jack to the Rangers for Kakko and La Freniere and a high end prospect seem like a reasonable return? 

I'm not advocating for Jack to be moved. I'm just not sure that the team's timeline is acceptable to his timeline for competitiveness. 

I think we absolutely need a center coming back if Jack is moved, so it's probably either/or for the two kids, plus something else.

[Curt]

Just now, 3putt said:

But all of this is presupposed on a very big if.  He wants to win.  We want the team to win. If it is apparent that this team can win, why would he want out? Trading him is simply buying an inexperienced gm 5 years to show he was the wrong choice to begin with.  
 

If there was one thing to support the idea that they, management, is still spinning its wheels and the decision tree has not been fixed it was the fact KA was not allowed to replace the coach when he was hired. If he was and did not then I could see a scenario where Jack approaches Terry and says it looks like YOU want to move in a different direction and I will play ball.  I simply do not believe JE is the type of player who will not try and give it all no matter where he is.  It is not in his nature. When healthy he produces.  The conversation seems to be a culture war.  “I like this player” or “ this kid will be a beast.”  But the only known is that JE was in consideration for MVP on a shyte team.  And management wants to get rid of that?  

Yeah, absolutely.  It is hypothetical based on “if” he wanted out, because that was the scenario presented in the post that I responded to.  If means if.

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, 3putt said:

But all of this is presupposed on a very big if.  He wants to win.  We want the team to win. If it is apparent that this team can win, why would he want out? Trading him is simply buying an inexperienced gm 5 years to show he was the wrong choice to begin with.  
 

If there was one thing to support the idea that they, management, is still spinning its wheels and the decision tree has not been fixed it was the fact KA was not allowed to replace the coach when he was hired. If he was and did not then I could see a scenario where Jack approaches Terry and says it looks like YOU want to move in a different direction and I will play ball.  I simply do not believe JE is the type of player who will not try and give it all no matter where he is.  It is not in his nature. When healthy he produces.  The conversation seems to be a culture war.  “I like this player” or “ this kid will be a beast.”  But the only known is that JE was in consideration for MVP on a shyte team.  And management wants to get rid of that?  

I think you are talking past Curt.  He's not suggesting mgt wants Jack gone.  He's suggesting that if Jack wants out Jack will be accommodated because there are all kinds of negatives that go with a franchise player that doesn't want to be in the franchise.

[3putt]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Does trading Jack to the Rangers for Kakko and La Freniere and a high end prospect seem like a reasonable return? 

I'm not advocating for Jack to be moved. I'm just not sure that the team's timeline is acceptable to his timeline for competitiveness. 

But I ask why are we as consumers accepting a longer timeline than start winning next year?  That won’t happen with futures.  I have advocated that the issue is not JE it is the black hole of 15M in the bottom 6.  And we are willing to accept 3 years of waiting for it to go away.  It can be fixed sooner.  It will be expensive and many will not like the cost, i.e. their favorite shiny toy being moved. But it can be done.

KyA has to sit down with Skinner and say look, you are not part of the solution. My options are to sit you in the press box for two years until we can buy out your deal while I open a roster spot for an elc to fill your role.  In two years you can try and get TO to sign you, but that is unlikely because you haven’t played a minute in two years.  Or you can work with me on finding another solution.  It can be done.  But it seems a vast number of people resigned to the fact that we need to wait and rebuild while the recency bias of the last 30 meaningless games is either validated or lands us in the same position 3 years down the road.  

[Stoner]

14 hours ago, darksabre said:

Rightly so my ass. 

Dude has abused himself for this fan base and for what?

You want him to be the next Tim Connolly? A guy falsely ridiculed. Because I don't. I've made that mistake and I won't be making it again. 

Jack gives everything his body will let him give every night. It's not his fault it's been a total dumpster fire around here his whole career. 

Ridiculed? No. Criticized? Yes. Did you watch any games when Jack played?

Your other position is noble, but I'd like to see the policy enacted. The players put their bodies and in a sense their lives on the line for us — praise only, please.

And my mind is boggled at calling the franchise a dumpster fire and not wanting to say a bad word about its best player and leader.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, 3putt said:

But all of this is presupposed on a very big if.  He wants to win.  We want the team to win. If it is apparent that this team can win, why would he want out? Trading him is simply buying an inexperienced gm 5 years to show he was the wrong choice to begin with.  
 

If there was one thing to support the idea that they, management, is still spinning its wheels and the decision tree has not been fixed it was the fact KA was not allowed to replace the coach when he was hired. If he was and did not then I could see a scenario where Jack approaches Terry and says it looks like YOU want to move in a different direction and I will play ball.  I simply do not believe JE is the type of player who will not try and give it all no matter where he is.  It is not in his nature. When healthy he produces.  The conversation seems to be a culture war.  “I like this player” or “ this kid will be a beast.”  But the only known is that JE was in consideration for MVP on a shyte team.  And management wants to get rid of that?  

Management doesn't want to get rid of Jack. The Sabres fielded calls on him as they would do for any player. Just the same way as other organizations field calls for any of their players. You keep the lines of communication open to everyone and you keep your options open for now and the future. 

Jack is a great player. Does that mean that if someone would make an eye-popping offer that could potentially improve the roster that we wouldn't consider it? 

[Stoner]

Also your post implies you know what Jack's injury was. And I don't think you do for sure.

Edited May 8, 2021 by PASabreFan

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, 3putt said:

But I ask why are we as consumers accepting a longer timeline than start winning next year?  That won’t happen with futures.  I have advocated that the issue is not JE it is the black hole of 15M in the bottom 6.  And we are willing to accept 3 years of waiting for it to go away.  It can be fixed sooner.  It will be expensive and many will not like the cost, i.e. their favorite shiny toy being moved. But it can be done.

KyA has to sit down with Skinner and say look, you are not part of the solution. My options are to sit you in the press box for two years until we can buy out your deal while I open a roster spot for an elc to fill your role.  In two years you can try and get TO to sign you, but that is unlikely because you haven’t played a minute in two years.  Or you can work with me on finding another solution.  It can be done.  But it seems a vast number of people resigned to the fact that we need to wait and rebuild while the recency bias of the last 30 meaningless games is either validated or lands us in the same position 3 years down the road.  

I do believe that the Sabres can win next year. But that is not to say that I wouldn't consider deals that might improve the roster. Could a bonanza return on Jack potentially upgrade the roster by adding talent and thickening the roster? It could. I'm not advocating for trading our best player. But that doesn't foreclose listening to any offers for him or anyone else.  

[3putt]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Management doesn't want to get rid of Jack. The Sabres fielded calls on him as they would do for any player. Just the same way as other organizations field calls for any of their players. You keep the lines of communication open to everyone and you keep your options open for now and the future. 

Jack is a great player. Does that mean that if someone would make an eye-popping offer that could potentially improve the roster that we wouldn't consider it? 

Not at all. If the Oil want to send us Connor or the Leaves Matthews you listen.  What I do not understand is the consternation that a pending trade clause forces anyone’s hand. You keep your best players and work on replacing worse ones.  If you can upgrade do it.  I simply do not see many scenarios where the team is better without JE and with more, different and almost certainly lesser players.  

[bob_sauve28]

7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Also your post implies you know what Jack's injury was. And I don't think you do for sure.

But there was an anonymous source that confirmed what it was! So it must be true! 

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, Weave said:

I think we absolutely need a center coming back if Jack is moved, so it's probably either/or for the two kids, plus something else.

As you stated if a deal were to be made I would want the two kids plus another piece. In that scenario you would thicken the roster and have more of a buffer for the inevitable injuries. 

[Rasmus_]

He's a number one center on any team other than:  Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Boston, Florida, Colorado, Winnipeg, Vancouver. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by TheCerebral1

[3putt]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I do believe that the Sabres can win next year. But that is not to say that I wouldn't consider deals that might improve the roster. Could a bonanza return on Jack potentially upgrade the roster by adding talent and thickening the roster? It could. I'm not advocating for trading our best player. But that doesn't foreclose listening to any offers for him or anyone else.  

But this assumes that what we have seen the weeks without him is good enough.  I do not.  They were playing in  a no pressure environment with nothing to lose and still would not have been good enough to make the playoffs.  Upgrade the roster by all means but start with Skinner, OK Risto Eakin and the goaltender(s).  If you want grit, send VO and TT somewhere for a player.  I simply do not believe the return everyone assumes will transform the roster will be much different than that form the ROR deal.  We made that trade for the wrong reasons and it was exploited.  I think the reasons people want to use to rationalize the move are approaching that line of thinking.   

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, 3putt said:

Not at all. If the Oil want to send us Connor or the Leaves Matthews you listen.  What I do not understand is the consternation that a pending trade clause forces anyone’s hand. You keep your best players and work on replacing worse ones.  If you can upgrade do it.  I simply do not see many scenarios where the team is better without JE and with more, different and almost certainly lesser players.  

I agree with you that if Jack is dealt the players replacing him would be lesser players. That doesn't mean that there can't be a return of multiple players that wouldn't make this roster better. As an example would a trade with the Rangers in which Kakko, LaFraniere and another high end prospect be a good return that could make this a better and fuller roster? Maybe yes or no?  

[3putt]

Just now, JohnC said:

I agree with you that if Jack is dealt the players replacing him would be lesser players. That doesn't mean that there can't be a return of multiple players that wouldn't make this roster better. As an example would a trade with the Rangers in which Kakko, LaFraniere and another high end prospect be a good return that could make this a better and fuller roster? Maybe yes or no?  

In a few years? Possibly. Next year.  I have my doubts.