Eichel to Meet with Sabres to Discuss Options regarding Neck Injury Next Week

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

Wrong verb 

It was the right verb.  He should know.  He's a master.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Where and when was it reported that the Sabres said anything about voiding Jack's contract?

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, Mango said:

If the Sabres want to change the culture, they need to not threaten to void a contract based on differences in opinion on medical care. That’s where the Sabres look Busch League. 

It is really that simple. 

They should be involved in Jack’s mental, emotional, and physical health. Of course. It will be difficult for them to take a step back from their previous flex and focus and focus on general maintenance and care. 
 

In regards to Adam’s. I don’t know. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and not heap all my Pegula baggage on the guy. But the team has been an embarrassment for nearly a decade from ownership down. And promoting your VP of Business Development to your GM feels like a bad move even though he played in the league. He also seems to have a giant hole in his resume from assistant coach in Buffalo to VP of BD. Like what did he do for those 6 or 7 years? Was he a scout?

I would argue that pulling the “it’s in your contract that we can control this decision regarding medical procedure, otherwise your contract can be voided” card, for what seems like the first time in the history of the big 4 in the US, would indicate that this sort decision isn’t in his wheel house. 

This is fair and have no issue with it. My issue is it feels like the Sabres led with that point and it has tainted the waters. 

Can you  show us what you read that shows the Sabres are doing the things in bold above.  Where are you getting this information?   The only thing I’ve read (and heard from Adams)  so far is that the Sabres doctor’s recommendation was rest and rehab with another evaluation in early June.  What facts do you have that suggest the Sabres are holding contractual clauses over Eichel’s  head?  
 

I’ll be the first to admit the Sabres have been “Busch League”  in many facets of how they run this team.  I just don’t know if it applies to Eichel’s injury and his contract. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Pimlach

[thewookie1]

I'd let him have the surgery if he'll waive his 1st year of NMC in writing. Then he can have his surgery and we don't have that NMC hanging over our head. 

[ubkev]

Isn't it bush league? I'm pretty sure it's bush league. I don't think the beer has much to do with it.

[Stoner]

8 minutes ago, ubkev said:

Isn't it bush league? I'm pretty sure it's bush league. I don't think the beer has much to do with it.

It's actually Busch League, I am shocked to learn. The beer company sponsored a rival baseball league in the 1930s, and the level of play was such an abject failure, the term Busch League entered the lexicon as a pejorative for a second-rate collection of so-called athletes.

[ubkev]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's actually Busch League, I am shocked to learn. The beer company sponsored a rival baseball league in the 1930s, and the level of play was such an abject failure, the term Busch League entered the lexicon as a pejorative for a second-rate collection of so-called athletes.

Good effort. Actually made me look. Busch Bavarian Beer - 1955. Changed to Busch beer in 1979. 

Bush league - bush being a synonym for rural area. Non-Major League clubs were referred to as bush league in the early days of baseball. The term has come to be used often outside of baseball.

 

[erickompositör72]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I'd let him have the surgery if he'll waive his 1st year of NMC in writing. Then he can have his surgery and we don't have that NMC hanging over our head. 

This would be poor risk management by the Sabres. If the surgery is not successful (including complications due to the nature of playing a high-impact sport), the NMC is the least of there worries.

[Brawndo]

7 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Where and when was it reported that the Sabres said anything about voiding Jack's contract?

They did not but both Dreger and Friedman mentioned it on appearances with the Instigators when Peters asked what the Sabres recourse could be, if he has the procedure without permission 

[thewookie1]

Just now, erickompositör72 said:

This would be poor risk management by the Sabres. If the surgery is not successful (including complications due to the nature of playing a high-impact sport), the NMC is the least of there worries.

I'm not saying just wipe your hands of it, but we can't force him not to go the surgery route as much as we all disagree with the idea. If Eichel honestly believes it will solve his problem, then he can waive his NMC for a year so that at minimum he can prove he's healthy and if he is and is still wanting out we can play accordingly.

[Mango]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Can you  show us what you read that shows the Sabres are doing the things in bold above.  Where are you getting this information?   The only thing I’ve read (and heard from Adams)  so far is that the Sabres doctor’s recommendation was rest and rehab with another evaluation in early June.  What facts do you have that suggest the Sabres are holding contractual clauses over Eichel’s  head?  
 

I’ll be the first to admit the Sabres have been “Busch League”  in many facets of how they run this team.  I just don’t know if it applies to Eichel’s injury and his contract. 

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

[JohnC]

53 minutes ago, Mango said:

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

The organization is not arbitrarily denying anyone the medical choice they want. They are following the advice of medical experts who are advising them what are the best practices for such an injury. It is not surprising that there isn't unanimity in treatment by doctors. But as a first step the medical consensus is to take a conservative approach to treatment and then go on from there. 

If the conservative approach isn't working then surgery may be required. Then the issue becomes what type of surgery is most appropriate. That is another issue to wrestle with. It just seems to me that the organization is being very responsible in the more conservative position they are taking. 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

No.  The entire thing is about the Sabres team doctors recommending a low risk path involving rehab and rest.  After that, they will  re-evaluate.  That time is coming in June.  That is what Adams said and it is consistent with common practice for this injury.  
 

The controversy comes from Eichel calling it a disconnect.   The Sabres holding the contract over his head has NEVER happened because it’s way too soon in the process to have it happen.   The drama comes from Eichel and his press conference,  and then fans on the Internet reacting to it.  

Edited May 31, 2021 by Pimlach

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

...and seconded by Eichel's doctors. Let's not ignore that little tidbit 

[PromoTheRobot]

16 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

No.  The entire thing is about the Sabres team doctors recommending a low risk path involving rehab and rest.  After that, they will  re-evaluate.  That time is coming in June.  That is what Adams said and it is consistent with common practice for this injury.  
 

The controversy comes from Eichel calling it a disconnect.   The Sabres holding the contract over his head has NEVER happened because it’s way too soon in the process to have it happen.   The drama comes from Eichel and his press conference,  and then fans on the Internet reacting to it.  

There is such a desire to blame the Sabres for everything that we side with the player, even when he's being petulant. His own doctors told him to give rest and therepy a chance first.

[nfreeman]

23 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

No.  The entire thing is about the Sabres team doctors recommending a low risk path involving rehab and rest.  After that, they will  re-evaluate.  That time is coming in June.  That is what Adams said and it is consistent with common practice for this injury.  
 

The controversy comes from Eichel calling it a disconnect.   The Sabres holding the contract over his head has NEVER happened because it’s way too soon in the process to have it happen.   The drama comes from Eichel and his press conference,  and then fans on the Internet reacting to it.  

Well, you’re probably right that no ultimatums have been delivered, but I’m sure everyone involved knows that the contract is the ultimate issue.  In that sense it is being held over Jack’s head even if the Sabres didn’t say it directly.  

[Radar]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

Sorry but I think you're looking at Eichel as the victim and ignoring that the organization has multi million dollar investment in his health and ability to play a rough sport. Eichel could have handled this behind closed doors without the drama and attention getting manner he used. I love Jack as a player and my desire is for him to be healthy and remain a Sabre. I have doubts about his desire to be here and suspicions on his going public with this.

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Radar

[Pimlach]

22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

There is such a desire to blame the Sabres for everything that we side with the player, even when he's being petulant. His own doctors told him to give rest and therepy a chance first.

True.  I will not be surprised if the two medical sides come to consensus on this.  The big issue to me was not the medical teams recommended path.  It was Eichel choosing to air it in a presser.   I get his frustration but it looks like he was leveraging a way out.  
 

How the Sabres handle this is critically important as the league, players, and agents are watching.  We talk a lot about resetting the culture, the  last thing they need is false narrative being spread.  

14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, you’re probably right that no ultimatums have been delivered, but I’m sure everyone involved knows that the contract is the ultimate issue.  In that sense it is being held over Jack’s head even if the Sabres didn’t say it directly.  

This applies equally to all teams and does not make the Sabres “Busch League” as suggested here. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Pimlach

[Sabres Fan in NS]

11 hours ago, Brawndo said:

They did not but both Dreger and Friedman mentioned it on appearances with the Instigators when Peters asked what the Sabres recourse could be, if he has the procedure without permission 

So, just two guys, who I like and are credible, saying that under the CBA the Sabres could void Jack's contract.  Nothing from the Sabres.  It will never happen.

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I'm not saying just wipe your hands of it, but we can't force him not to go the surgery route as much as we all disagree with the idea. If Eichel honestly believes it will solve his problem, then he can waive his NMC for a year so that at minimum he can prove he's healthy and if he is and is still wanting out we can play accordingly.

If we means the Sabres, yes they can. If he's showing any decent progress, they aren't going to let him have surgery. 

I'm very certain a player can't just arbitrarily waive a nmc in their contract for a year. It's a contract, not a suggestion. 

3 hours ago, Mango said:

This entire thing is about the Sabres denying Eichels request for surgery. Eichel wanted to have it. The Sabres said no. This meeting is about Jack’s progress after taking the approach forced on him by the organization. 

I'm on the Sabres side and forced I guess is the right word but it's a medical consensus not some arbitrary thing. 

[Taro T]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If we means the Sabres, yes they can. If he's showing any decent progress, they aren't going to let him have surgery. 

I'm very certain a player can't just arbitrarily waive a nmc in their contract for a year. It's a contract, not a suggestion. 

I'm on the Sabres side and forced I guess is the right word but it's a medical consensus not some arbitrary thing. 

Can't see a scenario when Eichel would waive it for a full year, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so.  The NMC is a benefit to HIM, not the club.  If he has a reason to waive it for whatever reason, he has that right.

And, players waive NTCs/NMCs all the time.  There is nothing in the CBA nor the MOU preventing it.  And actually, the MOU specifically states that the clause must be honored by a team acquiring a p,ayer w/ such a clause.

[LGR4GM]

40 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Can't see a scenario when Eichel would waive it for a full year, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so.  The NMC is a benefit to HIM, not the club.  If he has a reason to waive it for whatever reason, he has that right.

And, players waive NTCs/NMCs all the time.  There is nothing in the CBA nor the MOU preventing it.  And actually, the MOU specifically states that the clause must be honored by a team acquiring a p,ayer w/ such a clause.

And once it is waived, it's waived. My issue is not that he can never do, it's that he can do for a specific time period he arbitrarily creates. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And once it is waived, it's waived. My issue is not that he can never do, it's that he can do for a specific time period he arbitrarily creates. 

Wrong.  The NMC/NTC specifically & explicitly travels with the player under the MOU.  Prior to that, it was the team's choice to honor it.

There is already an example of a player waiving his NMC for the upcoming expansion draft with it being fully in effect after that.  That is as specific a time period as it gets.

You are essentially taking the position that an employee who has contracted to earn X $'s for working 40 hours for an employer can't voluntarily work an extra hour with no additional compensation.  It's the employee's time; how he spends it is his choice.  Due to Cap Circumvention rules a player can't voluntarily reduce his salary, but there is nothing prohibiting him from adjusting HIS NMC.

The player can voluntarily give up his NMC/NTC for whatever duration he wishes.  His team cannot do so as it isn't theirs, it is his.  His team could also voluntarily add restrictions on their ability to trade a player.  (Don't know why they would, but there is nothing prohibiting it should they have a reason to do so.  They just can't officially give him one prior to him being able to qualify for Group 3 FA were he not under contract.)

And, the CBA SPECIFICALLY exempts NMCs/NTCs from the prohibition on renegotiating the terms of a contract.

[Brawndo]

7. The 12-week rest and recovery period Buffalo asked Jack Eichel to take ended on the weekend. Everyone’s being very quiet about this, because it’s already gotten enough public attention, but there will be conversations this week on where this goes from here. I do believe both the Sabres (with the NHL) and Eichel (with the NHLPA) have discussed what their options are if there is still disagreement about the next steps. The likely outcome is a trade.

From 31 Thoughts 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Wrong.  The NMC/NTC specifically & explicitly travels with the player under the MOU.  Prior to that, it was the team's choice to honor it.

There is already an example of a player waiving his NMC for the upcoming expansion draft with it being fully in effect after that.  That is as specific a time period as it gets.

You are essentially taking the position that an employee who has contracted to earn X $'s for working 40 hours for an employer can't voluntarily work an extra hour with no additional compensation.  It's the employee's time; how he spends it is his choice.  Due to Cap Circumvention rules a player can't voluntarily reduce his salary, but there is nothing prohibiting him from adjusting HIS NMC.

The player can voluntarily give up his NMC/NTC for whatever duration he wishes.  His team cannot do so as it isn't theirs, it is his.  His team could also voluntarily add restrictions on their ability to trade a player.  (Don't know why they would, but there is nothing prohibiting it should they have a reason to do so.  They just can't officially give him one prior to him being able to qualify for Group 3 FA were he not under contract.)

And, the CBA SPECIFICALLY exempts NMCs/NTCs from the prohibition on renegotiating the terms of a contract.

Cool, thanks for being a raging dick while explaining this.