erickompositör72

I'm not pretending anything. I'm illustrating Eichel's leverage.

Yes. If you thought Darcy had a bad rap after letting Breier and Drury walk, would you wanna be the GM who let Eichel walk? How do you think Mr. and Mrs. Pegula would respond to that? I guess I'm thinking, at this point, Botterill should just give him what he wants and get this over with. I think? But hey, I'm not a GM...

I wouldn't take the picks & cap space. But no, I'm not really worried about him re-signing ;) Or, maybe just offer him as much or more than what he's theoretically asking for right now, and Botterill is holding out on. Basically, I'm theorizing that whatever he's asking for now, another team would be willing to pay, plus the draft picks.

bingo

It has been pointed out before: a bottom-feeder team would be happy to offer-sheet him. Consider him 1 year away from free agency, practically speaking.

Not only that, but he will wait until he gets whatever he's asking for. He has 100% of the leverage

Bet we coulda had both. Eichel is just going to wait Botterill out and get whatever he demands, so the delay will not have made a difference. But just to clarify: my Vanek excitement was more out of nostalgia than team need ;)

I'm sure every team tries the same against Ovechkin. Doesn't work. They're both too good/know how to get open, however you try to cover them.

I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, but I'm troubled seeing Foligno's name and "speedy" so close together

I blame the Eichel negotiations for why we didn't sign him :censored:

disclaimer: hockey fan talking football Just some overly-optimistic speculation: how good could the Bills be if Peterman is forced to start game 1, and actually performs to the utmost potential we've seen in the preseason? It seems that [especially] McDermott & Co are not going to undermine Tyrod, and will keep publicly voicing their confidence in him. It makes sense, as there is a chance he'll be ready for game 1, and it's critical he feels all of the team & coaching's support. However, they must be quite a bit intrigued by Peterman.

There's always the really-off-chance that Housley's system creates a whole new attacking offensive style that allows Moulson to find some of his old form. Moulson hurt us a lot, IMO, because he was too slow to attack in Bylsma's system, and he was not strong in the corners and not strong on the puck. If we truly have a 5-man attack, that might put less pressure on Moulson's weaknesses and allow him to do what he is good at: get open and shoot, or clean up garbage in front of the net. Just a thought...

Leverage for Vanek deal? :D honestly, idk

but........ depending on the type of contract he is offered, wouldn't it be perhaps more desirable for him to play somewhere where he might not make the team right away, but has a better chance at winning a championship down the road? The $ could be the same, either way, depending on the contract offered. Just speculating. Wouldn't playing somewhere he has "a better chance of making [the] team" possibly mean a team that's not good?

I didn't like how he used the word "amicable" ...that's how I describe exchanges with my ex-wife :P Vanek's still not signed... hoping him and Sabres have been in touch and are waiting to see how the Eichel contract unfolds! ...if not, Stafford is still available :lol:

Why would that be? Don't we have an owner who'd be more than happy to pay the entire contract upfront, if it were allowed? I hope that's the case. I can't take the drama anymore...

Remember, Kane outscored him (by 10 goals and 2 total points) last season, having played 7 less games. I know CO was awful, but still, in 7 less games. So I don't even think Kane, straight-up, would be worth it. + McCabe? Get outahere

Some people truly live in a bubble

Np, I wasn't sure if I wasn't getting it (quite probable) or I actually said something truly in bad taste... !

I'm actually glad you replied to that extent, because what you say sounds well reasoned and believable, and it's an element of the business that fascinates me. It also piques my curiosity to consider the fact that Jack is 20 years old. At that age, there are probably people in hear ear, advising him on how to proceed at this juncture. How many 20-year-old's would know how to approach a deal worth tens of millions? It's a pretty fascinating scenario. We're all on pins and needles waiting to find out what reasoning from his end prevails.

Ok, let's back up a little bit. I'm intrigued by the whole discussion, and here's where I'm coming from: Jack Eichel is 20 years old. Are you saying you know for a fact that he cannot be influenced at all by an experience agent? I'm not saying I know, for a fact, he will be. I'm just asking the question. Just curious how you seem to be so sure of the answer. I'm assuming that the differences in contract amounts will amount to much more than just "chump change" for his agent, right?

Players (especially stars) hire agents who will get them the most $

Is this sarcasm/irony? Not following...

They don't work for money? They're completely altruistic? Wow, amazing. Must be the only profession with such characters.

I think this could be true. It seems GMTM was hot for Lehner the minute he got the Buffalo job, and thought he had golden insider info--would be seen as a genius for acquiring him. GMBot, on the other hand, has a modus operandi that seems much more broad and thorough.