Eichel thrown under the bus by Vegas HC Bruce Cassidy

[mjd1001]

9 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Hey, I saw "That 90's Show" last night.  You are still getting all the funny lines.  Red is still a classic.  

Off topic, but last night also I decided to kill some time watching both that 90's show and the new remake/relaunch of Night court. 

Neither are great shows, not even good.  I don't know how long they will last, but for an hour or two, I was entertained.  Its kinda like the Rob Zombie movie remake of the Munters, it was actuall pretty bad as a movie, yet I was still entertained for some reason.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Quint said:

Eichel and Vesey, two peas in an over-hyped USA hockey pod.

Where does Tage fit into that pod?

[mjd1001]

Here is something interesting about Eichel...has he worked to get BETTER over the course of his career?

Look at the other players drafted at the top of the draft that at the time, were considered generational or near generational. 4 guys came to mind when I thought about guys taken within a year or two of him:  Eichel, McDavid, Matthews, and McKinnon.

Now, on one hand what I am going to say may be influenced by his injuries...but again, even if you take out the first month or two afte he came back from his injury the numbers wouldn't change much.  So, these "close to generational players", how has their production changed from the first 3 seasons they played until the last 3 seasons?

McDavid.  First 3 seasons:  1.22 PPG, last 3:  1.72ppg

McKinnon.  First 3:  0.70PPG, last 3:  1.39ppg

Matthews. First 3:  0.97ppg, last 3:  1.32ppg

Eichel. First 3:  0.85ppg, last 3:  0.88ppg

There may be some factors, the injury that impact those numbers, sure. But the one thing it shows is that of those 'big 4', Eichel is the only one that hasn't taken major steps up in production from his first few years to the 'prime' production years.

Long term injuries causing wear-and-tear? Or just lack of pushing himself like elite players to get better? I'm guessing its a bit of both.

[Buffalonill]

34 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

You can't always get what you want...

#alwaysnextyear

[steveoath]

 

 

[K-9]

24 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Here is something interesting about Eichel...has he worked to get BETTER over the course of his career?

Look at the other players drafted at the top of the draft that at the time, were considered generational or near generational. 4 guys came to mind when I thought about guys taken within a year or two of him:  Eichel, McDavid, Matthews, and McKinnon.

Now, on one hand what I am going to say may be influenced by his injuries...but again, even if you take out the first month or two afte he came back from his injury the numbers wouldn't change much.  So, these "close to generational players", how has their production changed from the first 3 seasons they played until the last 3 seasons?

McDavid.  First 3 seasons:  1.22 PPG, last 3:  1.72ppg

McKinnon.  First 3:  0.70PPG, last 3:  1.39ppg

Matthews. First 3:  0.97ppg, last 3:  1.32ppg

Eichel. First 3:  0.85ppg, last 3:  0.88ppg

There may be some factors, the injury that impact those numbers, sure. But the one thing it shows is that of those 'big 4', Eichel is the only one that hasn't taken major steps up in production from his first few years to the 'prime' production years.

Long term injuries causing wear-and-tear? Or just lack of pushing himself like elite players to get better? I'm guessing its a bit of both.

In terms of pushing himself, Eichel trains and prepares as hard as anyone imo. I just think Eichel arrived in the league already very close to his ceiling, while others needed some time to mature physically, etc., before taking off. Jack just didn’t have as much room to grow. And McDavid is just in another stratosphere and Jack was always gonna have second chair in the orchestra playing next to him.

[Doohicksie]

18 minutes ago, K-9 said:

In terms of pushing himself, Eichel trains and prepares as hard as anyone imo. I just think Eichel arrived in the league already very close to his ceiling, while others needed some time to mature physically, etc., before taking off. Jack just didn’t have as much room to grow. And McDavid is just in another stratosphere and Jack was always gonna have second chair in the orchestra playing next to him.

Nope, not even second chair.

[Happy Days]

Jack has had an injury ridden past with only 2 seasons of over 68 games played.  One of those was his rookie season. He has no 82 game season in his 8 years. Points per game is important, but games missed is also important. Eichel  is an excellent player, but has had only 1 season over 80 points in his career. 82 points is his career high.

That doesn’t even account for his being under 50 percent on face offs every year of his career, and his inconstant defensive play game to game.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Happy Days

[GASabresIUFAN]

I once thought that Eichel was going to be the next McKinnon.  Over the early part of his career Eichel was outscoring McKinnon.  Instead he has turned into Taylor Hall 2.0.  

 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Nope, not even second chair.

True. McDavid is a solo artist playing the great orchestras in the great venues of the world while Eichel is competing for a chair in a middle school band by comparison. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by K-9

[Weave]

46 minutes ago, K-9 said:

In terms of pushing himself, Eichel trains and prepares as hard as anyone imo. I just think Eichel arrived in the league already very close to his ceiling, while others needed some time to mature physically, etc., before taking off. Jack just didn’t have as much room to grow. And McDavid is just in another stratosphere and Jack was always gonna have second chair in the orchestra playing next to him.

I think this is probably an accurate take.  Jack was much closer to he ceiling when he arrived in the league.

[PerreaultForever]

It was only a matter of time before this inevitably happened. It's what Cassidy does. That's why Krejci went home to Europe and DeBrusk demanded a trade. Cassidy always throws players under the bus.

But he's not wrong. Eichel lacks character and drive. Talent aside, he's the exact opposite of Tuch. 

[Cascade Youth]

If it were just about (lack of) availability, I don’t think his coach would be calling him out like this.  Strongly suspect/reading between the lines that Jack’s leadership issues are what’s grating at Cassidy.  Off the ice stuff.  Even though that’s not how the quote is phrased.  Point per game players don’t typically get trashed like that.

[kas23]

3 hours ago, Quint said:

Eichel and Vesey, two peas in an over-hyped USA hockey pod.

To me, Eichel is like a broken fax machine. 

[kas23]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

In terms of pushing himself, Eichel trains and prepares as hard as anyone imo. I just think Eichel arrived in the league already very close to his ceiling, while others needed some time to mature physically, etc., before taking off. Jack just didn’t have as much room to grow. And McDavid is just in another stratosphere and Jack was always gonna have second chair in the orchestra playing next to him.

Maybe this is closer to the problem than we think. We all know talent alone cannot make a player elite. The ones that become elite usually train and prepare well above and beyond than the next guy. McKinnon is a great example. Talent players that just go with the flow are the ones that either fall out of the league or in the best case scenario, become like Jack. He has elite talent, but is not someone you lean on to elevate your team. I still think the Sabres will win a cup before Jack does. 

[Contempt]

6 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

 

Eichel getting trashed by his own coach and I'm here for it!!

[Contempt]

5 hours ago, Marvin said:

Eichel will be fine.

[Quint]

6 hours ago, nfreeman said:

- It bears on the wisdom of betting the franchise on one guy, which is what the Sabres decided to do when they burned everything to the ground to get him.

I know it's just a technical point but they didn't burn everything to the ground to get Eichel but to get McDavid. They lost the gamble and got the wrong guy and the franchise depended on it. Murray's face at the draft said it all.

[Norcal]

3 minutes ago, Quint said:

I know it's just a technical point but they didn't burn everything to the ground to get Eichel but to get McDavid. They lost the gamble and got the wrong guy and the franchise depended on it. Murray's face at the draft said it all.

Truth. McDavid is the one that got away. 

[Quint]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

 

Vesey had no hype other than the Sabres foolishly trading for him.  

What's your beef with USA Hockey? 

 

 

No beef Punch. I didn't mean to say USA Hockey, I meant to say Hockey East. The point was that both Eichel and Vesey are from Hockey EAst, they're both from Boston and they're both a-holes. Coincidence?

Edited January 20, 2023 by Quint

[Thorner]

26 minutes ago, Quint said:

I know it's just a technical point but they didn't burn everything to the ground to get Eichel but to get McDavid. They lost the gamble and got the wrong guy and the franchise depended on it. Murray's face at the draft said it all.

We A) already know that there’s no wisdom in betting everything on one guy, we don’t need to wait to see any data on that, to answer @nfreeman 
 

and B) if the aim of the tank was specifically McDavid, and achieving him was the only form of success, that was a poor mathematical bet from the start and therefore an even more awful strategy, from conception. The only logic that ever even arguably existed in the idea of “tanking” was the concept of “McEichel”, which was guaranteed by finishing last. This is what many fans bought in for. 

But as mentioned, torpedoing the franchise to get ANY one guy I think has proven to be folly considering you drastically up the degree of difficultly in surrounding said player with a complementary team. 

Our tank was dumb for at least 1 significant reason, and for as many as 3 reasons, the inclusion of which makes it exponentially stupider when combined. 

1) torching the ground and salting the earth for ANY player is bad. We know they inarguably did this. They also may have:

2) if they ventured into that thinking ONLY McDavid would be that guy, and they not only torched everything, but did it for A 25% shot, its a laughably bad strategy at the point 

3) if they did it for McDavid (or even either) and did so under the prism of thinking ONE PLAYER makes the team, not just that they needed to burn it all down to get him, but that they consciously undersold the work they thought they had to do after, around said player (which I’d argue is exactly the case), it pushes the whole thing over to *chef’s kiss* all-time bad. 

Which, was sort of par for the course for at least a decade 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Thorny

[Scottysabres]

27 minutes ago, Norcal said:

Truth. McDavid is the one that got taken away. 

Fixed it for ya

Edited January 20, 2023 by Scottysabres

[SwampD]

7 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I'm not bitter -- I'm just interested.

I honestly thought this was sarcasm.

6 hours ago, nfreeman said:

There are plenty of legit reasons to be interested in Eichel drama:

- It bears on whether KA made the right call in moving on from him -- and thus on whether KA has the right stuff to make important decisions for the franchise.

- It bears on how good Eichel actually is -- not just how skilled, but actually how much he actually contributes to the team winning -- and thus whether the return we got for him in trade was a good return -- and thus how good KA is at obtaining good returns in trades.

- It bears on the wisdom of betting the franchise on one guy, which is what the Sabres decided to do when they burned everything to the ground to get him.

- It bears on how important character, as opposed to skill, is when evaluating a player -- although admittedly this assumes that Eichel's character isn't as good as his skill, which could be wrong.

- As noted upthread by @Getpucksdeep, it bears on fantasy hockey, which is really important.

But good points.

Although, in my mind, moving on was absolutely the right call. I never questioned KA on that.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Fixed it for ya

Do you really think the league would have preferred McDavid in *Edmonton* over Buffalo?

Those of is in *Winnipeg* refer to Edmonton as the middle of freaking nowhere. Think about this. 

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I honestly thought this was sarcasm.

But good points.

Although, in my mind, moving on was absolutely the right call. I never questioned KA on that.

Imo only the last one isn’t answered.

edit- Sorry, the last one before the fantasy hockey one. obviously fantasy is important 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Thorny

[pastajoe]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Do you really think the league would have preferred McDavid in *Edmonton* over Buffalo?

Those of is in *Winnipeg* refer to Edmonton as the middle of freaking nowhere. Think about this. 

The league wanted to punish Buffalo for purposely making roster moves to tank, and Edmonton just had a new arena built and needed to ensure they had an attraction to fill it.