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

[Stoner]

Whipping boy=player who's unfairly criticized and, especially, blamed

[dudacek]

38 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Whipping boy=player who's unfairly criticized and, especially, blamed

So, not Skinner then?

[Stoner]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

So, not Skinner then?

A whipping boy is a scapegoat. He unfairly receives blame that should be placed on others. Our classic scapegoat is Carter Hutton — allows three goals behind a porous defense and a feckless offense and loses 3-0 and is fingered (shut up). Your unquestioned leader, captain and best player, highest paid on the team, can't be a whipping boy. He's the alpha male and the top banana. The buck stops on his desk. Although close in salary, Jeff is JAG. He's in the whipping boy pool with Eakin, Risto et al.

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, irregularly irregular said:

Jack will be back. 

He is going nowhere until he proves he is healthy, fully recovered from his injury and playing like the Jack that we know he can be.

He will determine his place on the team by how well he plays, how well he handles the difficulties he will face (ie- not pouting, always skating hard and not giving up on any play) and how good of a teammate and veteran leadership he provides.

The first month will set the tone. I'd be excited to see the 2019-20 version of Jack back in the blue and gold.

By place are you referring to position and line allotment? If Jack is on the team, he walks into game 1 as the 1C, with 100% certainty. 

The injury could factor into a trade, definitely, but you see players who are currently injured get dealt, it does happen. There will be teams that are more desperate that will be willing to pay the "normal" price because they are willing to take the risk in light of actually having a chance at him - whether they are in the mix because some other teams balked at acquiring him due to the injury opening up the door, or because they know they'll be out of the running once his NTC kicks in. 

I don't think the risk precludes 2 teams from getting into a bidding way anyways and the resulting price still meeting whatever Adams' hypothetical, potential ask is

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Yeah, I dunno. For a looooong time, any criticism of Jack was not met kindly. This season things started to change. And probably rightly so. It was a bad look for Jack most nights. People can point to injury, but I wonder what injury had Jack chatting with his buddy on the Isles about his buddy's stick. He checked out.

I do wonder how a 10 million dollar player on a 31st place team can ever be a "whipping boy."

My thoughts are that the bolded is very premature and extremely wishful thinking.

This confused me a bit. The fact he's on a last place team functions as both a big reason why he draws criticism, and a big reason why those criticisms are labelled and classified as "whipping boy" jargon. 

It's the perfect storm - it just comes down to what side one falls on, or what side they fall closer to.

1) "If Jack is so good, shouldn't the team be better?" Enter: criticism. 

2) "The team is so bad, we can only expect so much from Jack, the criticisms are unfair". Enter: Jack's a whipping boy

Edited May 7, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

49 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

A whipping boy is a scapegoat. He unfairly receives blame that should be placed on others. Our classic scapegoat is Carter Hutton — allows three goals behind a porous defense and a feckless offense and loses 3-0 and is fingered (shut up). Your unquestioned leader, captain and best player, highest paid on the team, can't be a whipping boy. He's the alpha male and the top banana. The buck stops on his desk. Although close in salary, Jeff is JAG. He's in the whipping boy pool with Eakin, Risto et al.

Jack definitely can fall into this category. Attributing the losses to him can be construed as shouldering him with undue blame

[bob_sauve28]

Whipping Boy was an established position at the English court during the Tudor and Stuart monarchies of the 15th and 16th centuries. ... The downside was that, if the prince did wrong, the whipping boy was punished. It was considered a form of punishment to the prince that someone he cared about was made to suffer.

[mjd1001]

I don't know how he can be used much differently.  Maybe you hope the teams results will be different because of the other players around him..but that does't mean he used differently.

-'first' line,  on PP unit #1.  That hasn't changed for years.

-He averages about 21 minutes of ice time.  That is close to where most other top players are. Maybe you average him 30 to 60 seconds less per game (10-20 seconds less per period?)

-He already doesn't kill penalties...and I want that to stay the same.  2 minute PK's are a time for him to get 2 minutes of rest.

-The only thing I can see changing is to have him focus a little less on D-responsibilities to push the offense more. I'm not saying have him hang our near the redline all the time, but he should usually be the most talented player on the ice, I want him pushing for offense and have that be his mindset nearly 100% of the time.

 

As far as him still being a Sabre....I think he will be, but won't be surprised if he isn't.  I'm ok with the team moving him if they get a good return (doesn't even have to be a 'great' return, just not embarassing)...to me he isn't untouchable.

Edited May 7, 2021 by mjd1001

[irregularly irregular]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

By place are you referring to position and line allotment? If Jack is on the team, he walks into game 1 as the 1C, with 100% certainty. 

The injury could factor into a trade, definitely, but you see players who are currently injured get dealt, it does happen. There will be teams that are more desperate that will be willing to pay the "normal" price because they are willing to take the risk in light of actually having a chance at him - whether they are in the mix because some other teams balked at acquiring him due to the injury opening up the door, or because they know they'll be out of the running once his NTC kicks in. 

I don't think the risk precludes 2 teams from getting into a bidding way anyways and the resulting price still meeting whatever Adams' hypothetical, potential ask is

I agree with the bolded, but I'm not going to go 100%. I'll just say with a high degree of certainty. 

Everything else that you wrote is indeed plausible. I think it would take something really special to get KA to agree on a trade before the season starts. What are the chances of other teams coming up with really special when Jack is coming back from injury? That said, it only takes 2 teams to start a bidding war.

I'll go out on a short limb here and say that Jack only gets traded after training camp starts. Other teams have to see that he is healthy and capable of playing high quality hockey before they are taking on a $10M contract and giving up what has to be a very significant return. This will not be the ROR trade, part 2.

Edited May 7, 2021 by irregularly irregular
bad grammar

[Kristian]

8 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Yeah, I dunno. For a looooong time, any criticism of Jack was not met kindly. This season things started to change. And probably rightly so. It was a bad look for Jack most nights. People can point to injury, but I wonder what injury had Jack chatting with his buddy on the Isles about his buddy's stick. He checked out.

I do wonder how a 10 million dollar player on a 31st place team can ever be a "whipping boy."

My thoughts are that the bolded is very premature and extremely wishful thinking.

If RK was my coach, I would’ve checked out too.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, irregularly irregular said:

I agree with the bolded, but I'm not going to go 100%. I'll just say with a high degree of certainty. 

Everything else that you wrote is indeed plausible. I think it would take something really special to get KA to agree on a trade before the season starts. What are the chances of other teams coming up with really special when Jack is coming back from injury? That said, it only takes 2 teams to start a bidding war.

I'll go out on a short limb here and say that Jack only gets traded after training camp starts. Other teams have to see that he is healthy and capable of playing high quality hockey before they are taking on a $10M contract and giving up what has to be a very significant return. This will not the ROR trade, part 2.

Could happen. 

I was gonna say, that puts KA in a tough position, because dealing Jack at the last minute would leave him little time to improve the roster - but if we're dealing Jack, we are rebuilding, because the return is going to be futures. So it wouldn't matter. I don't think that scenario is all that likely though, because it sorta throws the fans for a loop who just presumably put down money on seasons to, at least in some part, watch Jack play. 

- - - 

For the record, *if* (sorry, @Taro T) JE has strongly intimated to management that a potential trade request is a not-insignificant possibility, I legitimately believe Kevyn Adams goes to sleep at night sweating about what he's going to do with Jack, dreaming of NMCs, glimpses of Tim Hortons floating by, for some reason. The injury only makes it ridiculously more complicated.

It's a tough choice.

I keep Jack. And improve the roster. That's what I do; but I dunno if that fairly considers the context of the situation. I can't even really give a concrete opinion because I have no idea what the relationship between Jack and the team actually is. No idea. The rumors of trade requests could be laughable. But if I'm honest and imagine myself GM, and imagine a scenario where Jack has made it clear to me a trade request could be on the table (or I was convinced it was possible, for any reason, really), I'm not sure I could make the choice to pass up what would surely be a significantly better return, this off season, (injury dependent, I guess*) unhampered by the NMC that would weigh on deals after July 1, 2022. There's the draft. But maybe that's cutting it too close. 

It probably comes down to how confident he is that he can significantly improve the roster this offseason - I don't think he would take the chance of keeping Jack and standing pat more less at F like some project - if we keep Eichel I think he looks to bolster. Too risky if otherwise in my estimation. 

*All the mixed messaging we've seen regarding the Sabres and this Eichel injury up to and including the odd tweets still seem a pretty big tell to me that they are strongly considering a trade. 

[darksabre]

9 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Yeah, I dunno. For a looooong time, any criticism of Jack was not met kindly. This season things started to change. And probably rightly so. It was a bad look for Jack most nights. People can point to injury, but I wonder what injury had Jack chatting with his buddy on the Isles about his buddy's stick. He checked out.

I do wonder how a 10 million dollar player on a 31st place team can ever be a "whipping boy."

My thoughts are that the bolded is very premature and extremely wishful thinking.

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. 

[Pimlach]

On 5/6/2021 at 3:00 PM, bob_sauve28 said:

It will be good to get a healthy Jack Eichel back in the line up. 

Jack will be returning to a very different team from the one he left. Not only will there be a new coach but there are new and better players on the roster with more scoring potential, a defense that seems at least to have the making of a group that can grow together with the prospects of success. 

RK used Jack a lot. He may have overused him at times. Now that there is more scoring spread throughout the line up I just wonder how much that changes how Jack is used. Instead of double shifting him, maybe he gets used more like Marchant on the PK. I know he has at times done that, but it wouldn't mind seeing him there all the time. 

Thoughts? 

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.  
 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Pimlach

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

if we're dealing Jack, we are rebuilding, because the return is going to be futures.

Why does this have to be the case?

Why cant this be a hockey trade between two teams shaking up their cores?

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Why does this have to be the case?

Why cant this be a hockey trade between two teams shaking up their cores?

It most certainly doesn't need to be a trade for futures.  And in a salary cap world I'm not sure it even can be a trade for futures.  The other team is going to have to move parts to make room for Jack's salary.

Jack, one of our non-Sam top six wingers, and a bottom pair D man for another teams 1C, 1W, and a goalie.  Add fillers as needed.

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Why does this have to be the case?

Why cant this be a hockey trade between two teams shaking up their cores?

Really it would come down to who is actually trading a player on Eichel's level?

Seeing as I doubt Toronto or Edmonton plan to trade Matthews or McDavid. 

Colorado won't be trading Mackinnon.

Petterson, Jack Hughes, and similar centers don't come close to Eichel's overall value.

Barkov only has 2 years on his contract and likely wouldn't be traded anyhow.

 

Am I missing anyone?

 

 

In the end I keep Eichel; there is little to nothing a team could offer me to budge on that. If Eichel wants out, you just tell him tough ***** kid, play or don't play but you are our player until your contract says you aren't. I'm not being bullied by some hockey player, no matter his skill level, into another rebuild because I'm unsure what our fanbase will even be at that point. 

[Weave]

*sigh*

[Andrew Amerk]

27 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Really it would come down to who is actually trading a player on Eichel's level?

Seeing as I doubt Toronto or Edmonton plan to trade Matthews or McDavid. 

Colorado won't be trading Mackinnon.

Petterson, Jack Hughes, and similar centers don't come close to Eichel's overall value.

Barkov only has 2 years on his contract and likely wouldn't be traded anyhow.

 

Am I missing anyone?

 

 

In the end I keep Eichel; there is little to nothing a team could offer me to budge on that. If Eichel wants out, you just tell him tough ***** kid, play or don't play but you are our player until your contract says you aren't. I'm not being bullied by some hockey player, no matter his skill level, into another rebuild because I'm unsure what our fanbase will even be at that point. 

Isn’t this what the Sabres did with Peca?

Also, what does keeping a disgruntled captain do to a room full of young players who might be looking up to him?

Edited May 8, 2021 by Andrew Amerk

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

Isn’t this what the Sabres did with Peca?

 

They traded the better player to get Peca, too.  Mogilny, a bonafide superstar for a borderline 1C.  You don't need to get an equal player back if you get the right player and can fill a hole as well.  Jack goes out, a lesser C and something else (say a 1RW) comes back.  Both teams win the trade.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Weave

[dudacek]

29 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Really it would come down to who is actually trading a player on Eichel's level?

Seeing as I doubt Toronto or Edmonton plan to trade Matthews or McDavid. 

Colorado won't be trading Mackinnon.

Petterson, Jack Hughes, and similar centers don't come close to Eichel's overall value.

Barkov only has 2 years on his contract and likely wouldn't be traded anyhow.

 

Am I missing anyone?

 

 

In the end I keep Eichel; there is little to nothing a team could offer me to budge on that. If Eichel wants out, you just tell him tough ***** kid, play or don't play but you are our player until your contract says you aren't. I'm not being bullied by some hockey player, no matter his skill level, into another rebuild because I'm unsure what our fanbase will even be at that point. 

Just because you think you aren’t getting a player as good as Jack does not mean you can’t make a good trade.

And it certainly doesn’t mean that kind of trade isn’t better - or easier to pull off - than a basket full of lottery tickets 

[thewookie1]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Just because you think you aren’t getting a player as good as Jack does not mean you can’t make a good trade.

And it certainly doesn’t mean that kind of trade isn’t better - or easier to pull off - than a basket full of lottery tickets 

I just have difficulty imagining any basket worth the drop off.

I'd want nothing to do with the Rangers.

And LA would have to part with Byfield, a 1st, and then some to get my attention.

To win a Stanley Cup you need a few elite super players. Teams almost never win otherwise; you could literally have the most balanced team in existence and you'll lose to a team with a more traditional 1-2-3-4 line group more often then not because that "elite" level is a far greater advantage than a pseudo-2/3 line playing another team's 4th line.

[Andrew Amerk]

16 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

They traded the better player to get Peca, too.  Mogilny, a bonafide superstar for a borderline 1C.  You don't need to get an equal player back if you get the right player and can fill a hole as well.  Jack goes out, a lesser C and something else (say a 1RW) comes back.  Both teams win the trade.

I know that, but @thewookie1 was saying if Jack doesn’t want to play for Buffalo, than he can sit. Just like Peca did. 

Peca garnered Connolly and Pyatt. Granted, Jack is much better, but are Sabres fans ready for the return they’ll see if a disgruntled Jack gets if he refuses to play?

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I just have difficulty imagining any basket worth the drop off.

I'd want nothing to do with the Rangers.

And LA would have to part with Byfield, a 1st, and then some to get my attention.

To win a Stanley Cup you need a few elite super players. Teams almost never win otherwise; you could literally have the most balanced team in existence and you'll lose to a team with a more traditional 1-2-3-4 line group more often then not because that "elite" level is a far greater advantage than a pseudo-2/3 line playing another team's 4th line.

Ryan O’Reilly says hi.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

In the end I keep Eichel; there is little to nothing a team could offer me to budge on that. If Eichel wants out, you just tell him tough ***** kid, play or don't play but you are our player until your contract says you aren't. I'm not being bullied by some hockey player, no matter his skill level, into another rebuild because I'm unsure what our fanbase will even be at that point. 

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.

[thewookie1]

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.

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?