Eichel thrown under the bus by Vegas HC Bruce Cassidy

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Different Discussion...but I would put Mario and Hasek in that list with Orr and Gretzky.  When Mario was at his best he was unstoppable, Literally, if he was going to score, no one was going to prevent it.  

I do agee with Sid and Ovie ( and everyone else) being that step behind 'generational' though.

Sid and Ovie are a step behind them in talent, but what they both have is an incredibly strong work ethic and compete level and that elevates the team around them. When your stars put in extra effort and hard work generally you feel the need to do the same and so their teams are led well.  That's not Jack. 

Mario was a dominant force without doubt. Am I the only one that has occasionally seen Mario like plays from our own Tage Thompson this year? Maybe he will end up being more "generational" than old Jacky boy. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Different Discussion...but I would put Mario and Hasek in that list with Orr and Gretzky.  When Mario was at his best he was unstoppable, Literally, if he was going to score, no one was going to prevent it.  

I do agee with Sid and Ovie ( and everyone else) being that step behind 'generational' though.

I think Mario and Dominik are close and I could go either way on calling them generational.  I'd include Mike Bossy in their category -- as a goal-scorer, he was either generational or pretty GD close IMHO.

 

52 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Again, I’m not haggling with you over him failing to live up to even elite, of late, in fact I made that point in another post: that he’s not generational because he’s not generational, but if he doesn’t solidify as “elite”, that’s on him: he has the talent for that.

As I explained to dudacek, my position isn’t swayed/your argument isn’t made stronger, relative to the point I’m making, by saying “8 years” when I didn’t reasonable expect elite within the first 4. You could just as soon say “Jack Eichel hasn’t stabilized as elite within his first 26 years on earth”. Adding years to the total to make it look more impressive isn’t relevant to me, cannot stress this enough: if that’s your preferred method of framing, go for it. But it stuck out like a sore thumb within the presence of dudacek’s usually excellently formed arguments and I’m saying the same to you. 

Under the prism of not expecting generational (you can grant me this stance, yes?) but rather elite, Jack’s development curve over his first 4 years, linear upward trajectory, culminating in a 5th year, staring at age 22 (you know, the age Dahlin is) where he *did* amount to elite is exactly what I wanted to see. I cannot stress enough that what’s interesting to me is the most recent stretch where he very clearly needs to find a way to get things back on track. 

- - - 

If he never does, and just remains a “good” player in need of the right fit, of course I’d reframe my stance on his overall career over time: it would become a disappointment relative to what I think he could have been. This isn’t the terminology I’d use thus far. When the majority of his career thus far has been on a satisfying trajectory and then reached what appears to be a significant rocky stretch/chance of plateau, my view incorporates exactly that: he has had a disappointing stretch since exactly the onset of covid. Whether he can salvage his “elite” career needs to be seen. The burden of proof is squarely on him, but I’m not casting judgement on his career so far, labelling it “disappointing”, I’m just not close to there. He’s 26. 

I don't disagree that Eichel's development track was reasonable, but I do disagree with your view that "8 years" is meaningless/unfair.  It's reasonable IMHO as a fan of a team that invested so much in him to want to evaluate his career as a whole -- and, as you've admitted, he's fallen off of the "elite" track in the last 3 years.  We can point to Covid, injury, etc., but it all counts, including frequency of injury, adapting to new/bizarre covid circumstances, trade, new coaches, new teammates -- whatever.  It all counts and it's all part of his (8-year) body of work.

Also, for the record, Jack will turn 27 at the start of next season.  I think it's pretty reasonable, if not generous, to assume that after this season his career will be half over.  Will that give him a solid 5 years or so in which he very well could prove himself elite again?  Absolutely, and I wouldn't be a-tall surprised if he gets there.  But after another 8 seasons, he'll be 34 and about to start his age-35 season.  It's pretty unlikely that he'll be elite at that point, and reasonably likely, given his injury history, that he'll be broken down and finished or close to it. 

[Quint]

When I hear the name Mike Bossy, all I can think of is Ric Seiling.😒

[Thorner]

18 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think Mario and Dominik are close and I could go either way on calling them generational.  I'd include Mike Bossy in their category -- as a goal-scorer, he was either generational or pretty GD close IMHO.

 

I don't disagree that Eichel's development track was reasonable, but I do disagree with your view that "8 years" is meaningless/unfair.  It's reasonable IMHO as a fan of a team that invested so much in him to want to evaluate his career as a whole -- and, as you've admitted, he's fallen off of the "elite" track in the last 3 years.  We can point to Covid, injury, etc., but it all counts, including frequency of injury, adapting to new/bizarre covid circumstances, trade, new coaches, new teammates -- whatever.  It all counts and it's all part of his (8-year) body of work.

Also, for the record, Jack will turn 27 at the start of next season.  I think it's pretty reasonable, if not generous, to assume that after this season his career will be half over.  Will that give him a solid 5 years or so in which he very well could prove himself elite again?  Absolutely, and I wouldn't be a-tall surprised if he gets there.  But after another 8 seasons, he'll be 34 and about to start his age-35 season.  It's pretty unlikely that he'll be elite at that point, and reasonably likely, given his injury history, that he'll be broken down and finished or close to it. 

I am evaluating his career as a whole: I’m just sticking with my analysis of the first 5 seasons within. When the trajectory is satisfying for what still amounts to the majority of his career, I refer to the most recent stretch as disappointing, yet not the sum. It’s an inherently logical stance, the only thing that can be asked for any argument: if he fails to get back in gear, and the “disappointing” seasons outnumber the good, and he fails to establish as an elite or even VERY GOOD player, ill simply shift my stance at that time. I think I’ve proven that I’m hardly staunch to a point out of vain bias. I’m sitting here typing out that the last 3 have been disappointing 🤷‍♀️

You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I think it’s fair to say we’ve now ventured far into the thickets of semantics at this point - how we are framing the first 8 years the differentiating factor, due to our own personal leanings, while our actual analysis of each individual season seems pretty close. No? Our stances have been converted to the same language - I know this because if Eichel continues to amount to more less this, in a few years my stance will have aligned with yours. And if Eichel turns it around, presumably you’d shift yours. 
 

I don’t agree he’ll be done at 34 going on 35. I think he’ll still he playing and playing well. Perhaps because we disagree on our varying desires to see this happen, we’ve reached a reasonable impasse. We’ll have to wait and see 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Thorny

[Pimlach]

4 minutes ago, Quint said:

When I hear the name Mike Bossy, all I can think of is Ric Seiling.😒

Poor Rick.  Never gonna escape the fact that the Sabres drafted for need, and not the BPA. 

Seiling was a good player, Bossy was an elite scorer and HoF player. 

Bossy averaged 57 goals a year in his 10 year career, his lowest output was his last season, 38 goals in 63 games.  Insane.  He played on the undisputed best team in the league and pretty much never got hurt, until his 10th season when is complained of chronic back issues.  

Gil would have had a few hundred more assists and probably another 50 goals playing with Bossy.  Oh well .... 

[nfreeman]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I am evaluating his career as a whole: I’m just sticking with my analysis of the first 5 seasons within. When the trajectory is satisfying for what still amounts to the majority of his career, I refer to the most recent stretch as disappointing, yet not the sum. It’s an inherently logical stance, the only thing that can be asked for any argument: if he fails to get back in gear, and the “disappointing” seasons outnumber the good, and he fails to establish as an elite or even VERY GOOD player, ill simply shift my stance at that time. I think I’ve proven that I’m hardly staunch to a point out of vain bias. I’m sitting here typing out that the last 3 have been disappointing 🤷‍♀️

You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I think it’s fair to say we’ve now ventured far into the thickets of semantics at this point - how we are framing the first 8 years the differentiating factor, due to our own personal leanings, while our actual analysis of each individual season seems pretty close. No? Our stances have been converted to the same language - I know this because if Eichel continues to amount to more less this, in a few years my stance will have aligned with yours. And if Eichel turns it around, presumably you’d shift yours. 
 

I don’t agree he’ll be done at 34 going on 35. I think he’ll still he playing and playing well. Perhaps because we disagree on our varying desires to see this happen, we’ve reached a reasonable impasse. We’ll have to wait and see 

This is all fine except the bolded -- I don't wish ill on Jack, and I don't think you should assume, or state, otherwise about me or anyone else who hasn't specifically indicated otherwise.  If he has personal failings, which, again, we don't really know, I hope he improves on them and either way I hope he has a good career and a good life.  My underlying motivation in all this is to evaluate the Eichel trade.  IMHO, to do so, a realistic evaluation of Eichel's current status and overall career is required.

[Thorner]

Just now, nfreeman said:

This is all fine except the bolded -- I don't wish ill on Jack, and I don't think you should assume, or state, otherwise about me or anyone else who hasn't specifically indicated otherwise.  If he has personal failings, which, again, we don't really know, I hope he improves on them and either way I hope he has a good career and a good life.  My underlying motivation in all this is to evaluate the Eichel trade.  IMHO, to do so, a realistic evaluation of Eichel's current status and overall career is required.

I wasn’t supposing you wish ill will. I was supposing you’d prefer he didn’t establish as a no-bs elite player moving forward. Given the choice, would you rather he become a top 5 player in the game, or not? 

[matter2003]

15 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

There seems to be some things in common between Jack Eichel and Sammy Watkins:

Both Drafted by a below average/bad Buffalo team....both considered to have 'elite' talent for their position coming into the league. Both had VERY good first couple years on their Buffalo team while not being good enough to get the team to the playoffs...both then had injury issues...Both traded shortly after that major injury in Buffalo...

Watkins after his injury was never the same. NFL receiver, but bumped around the league.  Eichel?  since his injury he has fallen down the scoring charts of league leaders.  Not sure Eichel will turn into the journyman that Watkins has become, but his career seems to at the very least not be rising.

Watkins was more to do with his mindset and inability to cope which led him to being drunk and/or high during every game and practice here after a while.  Dude simply wasted his talent and didn't work on developing it.

[RochesterExpat]

8 hours ago, Cascade Youth said:

To be somewhat fair - Cassidy was a very odd choice and many of us predicted that he was the worst possible coach to get the best out of Jack.

He has Eichel centering a line of Cotter and Amadio. Paul Cotter might, might, play a traditional fourth line checking role in the NHL someday, but he's not much more than an AHL tweener right now. Amadio is at least a bona fide NHL player, but he's still a bottom 6 guy who is going to be fighting for his roster spot every year.

Basically, Eichel is with two JAGs (or at least one JAG and one semi-JAG). How did that work for Jeff Skinner again? Anyone remember?

Cassidy publicly named and shamed Eichel. Now he's playing him on a line with talent worse than Eichel played with at any point in Buffalo (remember all the "if Eichel were on a good team" arguments?). I recognize Stone is injured, but what is Cassidy even doing? That's not how you motivate Eichel to do better. He's going to keep phoning it in and he'll stay stuck in his weird mental space he goes to.

Say what you want about the trade, Eichel's time here, or anything else Eichel/Buffalo related, but you can't deny that Eichel was on a tear to start this season in Vegas. He got injured and I am convinced something transpired with the coaching staff. Maybe he was asked to play through it. Maybe Cassidy told him he's too soft. I don't know. But I am convinced something happened and now Cassidy is at a loss for how to deal with Eichel because Cassidy's strong suit has never been player management.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I wasn’t supposing you wish ill will. I was supposing you’d prefer he didn’t establish as a no-bs elite player moving forward. Given the choice, would you rather he become a top 5 player in the game, or not? 

Well, for the record, that's not what you said.  You said this:

 

Quote

I don’t agree he’ll be done at 34 going on 35. I think he’ll still he playing and playing well. Perhaps because we disagree on our varying desires to see this happen, we’ve reached a reasonable impasse. We’ll have to wait and see 

...i.e. that I don't want to see him still playing and playing well at 34/35 -- which is not the case and which is what I objected to.

Regardless, the reformulated question about whether I'd prefer to see him prove himself as a top-5 player is admittedly a tough one and kinda pins me down, which is of course the point of spirited discourse like this.

I suppose I think that if he is or turns into a good guy and good teammate, I'm fine with him turning into that kind of player, although in that case the evaluation of the trade from the Sabres' perspective would suffer.  If he's a demonstrable jerk, though, it would be hard to be happy with him being a fantastic player.

 

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

Watkins was more to do with his mindset and inability to cope which led him to being drunk and/or high during every game and practice here after a while.  Dude simply wasted his talent and didn't work on developing it.

Was this confirmed?  I thought he was just a space cadet and injury-prone -- I didn't realize he had a substance abuse problem.

[MBD]

7 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

He has Eichel centering a line of Cotter and Amadio. Paul Cotter might, might, play a traditional fourth line checking role in the NHL someday, but he's not much more than an AHL tweener right now. Amadio is at least a bona fide NHL player, but he's still a bottom 6 guy who is going to be fighting for his roster spot every year.

Basically, Eichel is with two JAGs (or at least one JAG and one semi-JAG). How did that work for Jeff Skinner again? Anyone remember?

Cassidy publicly named and shamed Eichel. Now he's playing him on a line with talent worse than Eichel played with at any point in Buffalo (remember all the "if Eichel were on a good team" arguments?). I recognize Stone is injured, but what is Cassidy even doing? That's not how you motivate Eichel to do better. He's going to keep phoning it in and he'll stay stuck in his weird mental space he goes to.

Say what you want about the trade, Eichel's time here, or anything else Eichel/Buffalo related, but you can't deny that Eichel was on a tear to start this season in Vegas. He got injured and I am convinced something transpired with the coaching staff. Maybe he was asked to play through it. Maybe Cassidy told him he's too soft. I don't know. But I am convinced something happened and now Cassidy is at a loss for how to deal with Eichel because Cassidy's strong suit has never been player management.

He wanted to get surgery...

[RochesterExpat]

8 minutes ago, MBD said:

He wanted to get surgery...

I am talking about this current season of Eichel in Vegas. He was on a tear, got injured, and hasn't looked the same since he got back. Sorry for the confusion.

[MBD]

2 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

I am talking about this current season of Eichel in Vegas. He was on a tear, got injured, and hasn't looked the same since he got back. Sorry for the confusion.

I was making a joke.  A bad one at that.

[Thorner]

27 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, for the record, that's not what you said.  You said this:

 

...i.e. that I don't want to see him still playing and playing well at 34/35 -- which is not the case and which is what I objected to.

Regardless, the reformulated question about whether I'd prefer to see him prove himself as a top-5 player is admittedly a tough one and kinda pins me down, which is of course the point of spirited discourse like this.

I suppose I think that if he is or turns into a good guy and good teammate, I'm fine with him turning into that kind of player, although in that case the evaluation of the trade from the Sabres' perspective would suffer.  If he's a demonstrable jerk, though, it would be hard to be happy with him being a fantastic player.

 

Was this confirmed?  I thought he was just a space cadet and injury-prone -- I didn't realize he had a substance abuse problem.

I don’t think the evaluation from the Sabres perspective takes one iota of a hit the better he plays. Eichel-in-Buffalo and Eichel-in-Vegas both posses their own unique variable(s) and Eichel having success in Vegas does not mean said success could have been had here.

My stance here remains that Eichel *could* have worked out in Buffalo, had things been handled better, in many facets, from the start. But I believe it to be the case that the situation reached a point of no return where it could not be salvaged in all likelihood. 

Tage Thompson becoming great hasn’t changed the evaluation of the Blues trade, from the Blues’ perspective. The universe where Thompson remains a Blue is murky, vague and unreadable. The trade already worked for them: trades and signings and draft picks are a means to an end, they achieved the end. No Blues fan would consider taking back the deal. The Cup isn’t awarded for GM efficiency, by the quarterback-rating GM equivalent: it gets awarded for what actually happens. 

The Sabres traded Jack Eichel and got better, pretty quickly. Those are the results. I’d have to have ridiculous hubris to claim to foresee *better* results supposing a different course of action from the GM. Just like one would have to have ridiculous hubris to question the blues deal as a blues fan by saying something like, “we should have kept Tage, we might have TWO cups!”. 

This isn’t the way the world works, we don’t live in a vacuum starting point with carefully controlled variables. This is why I never bought into the “we need to see Eichel fail to make the trade even better!” 

Hard pass. We already won. 

Go fix yourself Jack, I’m rooting for you 
 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Thorny

[PromoTheRobot]

On a side note: VGK is 5 points away from sliding out of playoff position.

[Doohicksie]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Also, for the record, Jack will turn 27 at the start of next season.  I think it's pretty reasonable, if not generous, to assume that after this season his career will be half over.  Will that give him a solid 5 years or so in which he very well could prove himself elite again?  Absolutely, and I wouldn't be a-tall surprised if he gets there.  But after another 8 seasons, he'll be 34 and about to start his age-35 season.  It's pretty unlikely that he'll be elite at that point, and reasonably likely, given his injury history, that he'll be broken down and finished or close to it. 

Yeah, I'm on the chronic injury train with respect to Jack.  I honestly don't think he'll ever be That Guy, the difference maker, on his team.  I think what work ethic he has is focused on physical rehab rather than skill development.  I expect he'll be banged up every year until he decides to hang up the skates.

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don’t agree he’ll be done at 34 going on 35. I think he’ll still he playing and playing well.

I just don't see it.  Too injury prone.

[Thorner]

Could also see him putting it all together during a playoff run one of these years. (Not a talent comparison) like the way Peter the Great would have an injury riddled season, sit out most of it, but manage to keep himself glued together for a 20ish game stretch in the playoffs 

I mean, if a team he’s on ever makes the playoffs, I guess 

[Thorner]

35 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Yeah, I'm on the chronic injury train with respect to Jack.  I honestly don't think he'll ever be That Guy, the difference maker, on his team.  I think what work ethic he has is focused on physical rehab rather than skill development.  I expect he'll be banged up every year until he decides to hang up the skates.

I just don't see it.  Too injury prone.

Is your contention about “playing” or “playing well” or both? No point even going back and forth on the latter. 

As for “playing”, if he’s got the will to be out there, and I think he does, I don’t see him hanging them up that early. There is a long history of players who’ve battled through injuries...continuing to do so until a more advanced age. Probably also depends if it’s nagging injury after nagging injury or if it’s a complication like the neck, something very serious that keeps cropping up.

He’s not even at the top end of the list of “mainstay injury prone” guys in the league - Eichel has averaged 60 games per 80 since coming in, Zach Bogosian for example has averaged 47. 

If Eichel’s neck can be seen as a 1-off, (not saying it can, I truly don’t know yet/need more data) distinct from all the other random stuff he’s had crop up seemingly endlessly (it’s his only surgery, correct? I could be missing 1), he’s actually averaged 70 games per year, a reasonable number, any season in question where his disc issue isn’t factored in. (21 games in 2020-21, 34 games in 2021-22)

To me, if I had to guess, if the neck DOES prove to be distinct, and he returns to the “generally gets banged up but is good for a solid 65-70 a year”, I don’t see a short career. If the neck set back is the first in a long line of similar set backs, I could definitely foresee an unfortunate, earlier than expected (when drafted) end to his career. 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I don’t think the evaluation from the Sabres perspective takes one iota of a hit the better he plays. Eichel-in-Buffalo and Eichel-in-Vegas both posses their own unique variable(s) and Eichel having success in Vegas does not mean said success could have been had here.

My stance here remains that Eichel *could* have worked out in Buffalo, had things been handled better, in many facets, from the start. But I believe it to be the case that the situation reached a point of no return where it could not be salvaged in all likelihood. 

Tage Thompson becoming great hasn’t changed the evaluation of the Blues trade, from the Blues’ perspective. The universe where Thompson remains a Blue is murky, vague and unreadable. The trade already worked for them: trades and signings and draft picks are a means to an end, they achieved the end. No Blues fan would consider taking back the deal. The Cup isn’t awarded for GM efficiency, by the quarterback-rating GM equivalent: it gets awarded for what actually happens. 

The Sabres traded Jack Eichel and got better, pretty quickly. Those are the results. I’d have to have ridiculous hubris to claim to foresee *better* results supposing a different course of action from the GM. Just like one would have to have ridiculous hubris to question the blues deal as a blues fan by saying something like, “we should have kept Tage, we might have TWO cups!”. 

This isn’t the way the world works, we don’t live in a vacuum starting point with carefully controlled variables. This is why I never bought into the “we need to see Eichel fail to make the trade even better!” 

Hard pass. We already won. 

Go fix yourself Jack, I’m rooting for you 
 

This is all reasonable, but the ROR trade story was written much more quickly, and with much more finality, than the story of the Eichel trade. What if this is by far Tuch’s best season, and Krebs never amounts to more than an energetic fourth liner, and Östlund washes out? Those questions will play out over the next three or four years, as will Jack’s story.

While you’re probably right that the Sabres had to trade Eichel, as there was too much water under the bridge, we don’t know for sure that this is the best package they could’ve gotten (although I think it probably was). The better Eichel does going forward, the more pronounced the question will be of whether they should’ve got more for him. 

More generally, from the Sabres’ perspective, in evaluating the trade, I don’t think it’s realistic to say that there is no difference between Eichel turning into, say, an Auston Mathews level player, as opposed to, say,  Pierre Luc Dubois.

 

 

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, RochesterExpat said:

He has Eichel centering a line of Cotter and Amadio. Paul Cotter might, might, play a traditional fourth line checking role in the NHL someday, but he's not much more than an AHL tweener right now. Amadio is at least a bona fide NHL player, but he's still a bottom 6 guy who is going to be fighting for his roster spot every year.

Basically, Eichel is with two JAGs (or at least one JAG and one semi-JAG). How did that work for Jeff Skinner again? Anyone remember?

Cassidy publicly named and shamed Eichel. Now he's playing him on a line with talent worse than Eichel played with at any point in Buffalo (remember all the "if Eichel were on a good team" arguments?). I recognize Stone is injured, but what is Cassidy even doing? That's not how you motivate Eichel to do better. He's going to keep phoning it in and he'll stay stuck in his weird mental space he goes to.

Say what you want about the trade, Eichel's time here, or anything else Eichel/Buffalo related, but you can't deny that Eichel was on a tear to start this season in Vegas. He got injured and I am convinced something transpired with the coaching staff. Maybe he was asked to play through it. Maybe Cassidy told him he's too soft. I don't know. But I am convinced something happened and now Cassidy is at a loss for how to deal with Eichel because Cassidy's strong suit has never been player management.

Good stuff here.  I wonder If Eichel ever wonders what would’ve happened if he’d had DG as his coach.  I wonder about it.  

[Thorner]

17 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is all reasonable, but the ROR trade story was written much more quickly, and with much more finality, than the story of the Eichel trade. What if this is by far Tuch’s best season, and Krebs never amounts to more than an energetic fourth liner, and Östlund washes out? Those questions will play out over the next three or four years, as will Jack’s story.

While you’re probably right that the Sabres had to trade Eichel, as there was too much water under the bridge, we don’t know for sure that this is the best package they could’ve gotten (although I think it probably was). The better Eichel does going forward, the more pronounced the question will be of whether they should’ve got more for him. 

More generally, from the Sabres’ perspective, in evaluating the trade, I don’t think it’s realistic to say that there is no difference between Eichel turning into, say, an Auston Mathews level player, as opposed to, say,  Pierre Luc Dubois.

 

 

Ya man I guess. If we are really getting into the nitty-gritty to the point where, it’s not a case of you/one suggesting, potentially, “oh we should have kept Eichel!” if he just explodes going forward, ie we are accepting he needed to he moved, and we are really on pins and needles waiting on Jack’s future career, spanning years of our lives, to evaluate whether Adams should have gotten, what, an extra second round pick?...gotta tell ya, not really for me. 
 

We know Adams got a good deal. We know from the time of the deal there was a ton of questions around Jack’s health, the constraints on the negotiating process KA had cause the new team needed to OK the surgery. If it could have been a better return, I struggle to think it significant. 
 

For me, the book on the trade is written. If Tuch assassinates Tage at practice tomorrow, maybe I’ll change my mind but I already made my peace with the deal, by way of KA being absolutely correct about the deal NEEDING to be made, while I thought we were receiving 50 point Tuch. If Tuch goes back to 50 point Tuch I’m still Tuching myself in with a smile on my face by way of vastly improved team. 

You may not (see: do not) agree but, I can only express my truest thought: the book on the trade is written for me.

Adams receives full marks. Court adjourned. I’m done. 

 

 

 

(We’ll pick up the Eichel discussion Tuesday at 3:07pm, coffee will be on)

Edited January 29, 2023 by Thorny

[dudacek]

Who is Jack tracking as a comparable now? Assuming the majority of the next 5 or 6 years fall within the highs and lows we’ve already seen.

Best guy I could find is Tyler Seguin, who settled in as #1 centre but not your first choice as one, or a guy you really want to build around?

[Thorner]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Who is Jack tracking as a comparable now? Assuming the majority of the next 5 or 6 years fall within the highs and lows we’ve already seen.

Best guy I could find is Tyler Seguin, who settled in as #1 centre but not your first choice as one, or a guy you really want to build around?

There’s a few 60 gamers early in his career to the tune of Ryan Getzlaf being a great comparable (even stylistically not far off, also both big bodied playmakers), until that big “21” shows up on Jack’s dB page. Like intimated earlier - if he gets back to 65/70 a year, if he can match Getzlaf’s will, could have an answer 

They even both had 82 in 77 early on and then a 90 point (78 in 68, COVID) season right after. 

Striking actually 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorner]

Through first 5 seasons: 

Getzlaf: 363 games 339 points 

Eichel: 354 games, 337 points 

come on now 

everything went off track when he hurt his neck. So far 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Thorny

[mjd1001]

Even when Eichel had his hot start, was 'on a tear', he still wasn't elite.  His hot start ended at game 21 this year, after which is points per game production started to slip. EVEN THEN, at his PPG peak during his hot start, he was getting 1.23 PPG. At that rate, he would still be 12th -14th in the league.  When you cherry pick the part of the season where he was playing the best and absolute healthiest, and compare that to the rest of the league when it is likely other players have had hot and cold streaks and have been playing injured, the best you can do with Eichel is get him to peak, at one given moment, at 12th-14th in the league.

When he was with Buffalo before his surgery, he was 22nd in points per game in the league over that time.

Since he was traded to Vegas, he is 89th in the league in Points per game, including his hot start this year of course.

For his entire career, (Vegas and Buffalo combined) he is 27th in points per game.

Even before his neck injury (throw out that last season with Buffalo and only look at his stats up through the 2019-2020 year (statistically his best) and even THEN he is still only 21st in the league in points per game production. Before he got hurt, he still wasn't generational, still not even close to elite.

And Points per game is the most generous way to look at him. Look at pure production, and he is farther down the list due to his games missed.

He is who he is.  A guy that on occasion can look like he has extreme talent, but in the end, is a good-to-very good player in terms of putting up points, but thats it. Not generational, not elite, not even a half step below elite.  We have 8 seasons now of seeing him with very good linemates, with different coaches, with different teams, and he is what he is.

The 2nd best thing that can happen for any team Eichel plays for is for them to realize he isn't going to carry the team, and instead view him as a 2nd or 3rd best forward.   The BEST thing that can happen for any team Eichel plays for is for Jack himself to realize he isn't good enough to carry a team and to play that 'supporting role'.  

Edited January 29, 2023 by mjd1001