erickompositör72
-
Posts
1,651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by erickompositör72
-
-
Leverage isn't defined by what someone wants. It's defined as what someone's last resort options are, and that's why Jack has all the leverage.
Doesn't necessarily mean he uses it, but he has it.
-
Briere and Drury were UFAs, Eichel and Pasternak, well, aren't. It's nearly impossible for a player like Eichel, Pasternak, McDavid, etc. to ever leave the team that drafted them
Unless I am mistaken on Briere and Drury here
Eichel, Pastrnak, and McDavid (before he extended) could receive offer sheets from any team in the NHL, and the team with their rights would have to match it. If not, the other team could sign them, but owe the team they are coming from a certain number of 1st round draft picks.
-
Compared to them, he has no leverage.
In general he really has no leverage at all. Look at what Pasternak is going through
You were critical me for bringing up Drury/Briere vis a vis a potential Eichel walk, and now you're comparing Eichel's contract situation to Pastrnak's?
I'm not sure your line of reasoning, but mine is pretty clear if you go through the previous posts. I'm curious of yours. Please elaborate.
-
Briere and Drury were much different circumstances than Eichel. Not that I'm condoning letting them walk, but let's not pretend the situation is the same
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...
-
Fine I'll take the lottery picks and the cap,space.
You're not really worried about Jack re-signing are you?
I wouldn't take the picks & cap space. But no, I'm not really worried about him re-signing ;)
Or are you saying they offer him like $14 million?
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.
-
Which is the main reason why I blame Bylsma for our lack of 5-on5 scoring.
bingo
-
Not really. If the Sabres want to play hardball, they have four more years to do it.
That would be foolish, but until you hit UFA, the deck is stacked in favour of the team.
That said, it would,be foolish to,###### with the franchise.
And it would,be foolish for the franchise to hold the team for ransom unless he hates it here.
It will get done.
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.
-
Jack will win tha argument.
Not only that, but he will wait until he gets whatever he's asking for. He has 100% of the leverage
-
What's more important to the Sabres, getting Eichel's contract right or having Vanek for 1 year?
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 ;)
-
And fourth, as far as this year, I think what you're going to see is opposing teams watching tape. Eichel's not going to get the open one-timer he got last year.
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 see him filling Foligno's role. Speedy power forward who hits and contributes a few goals here and there, playing in the middle six.
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...
-
What's the advantage in waiting until September?
Leverage for Vanek deal? :D
honestly, idk
-
No one said we don't need him. The conversation is around where he fits. He would have a better chance of making a team in other places.
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:
-
The sticking points are most likely bonuses ...
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?
@JeremyWGRQuick note - Forecast calls for an Eichel contract watch this weekend.I hope that's the case. I can't take the drama anymore...
-
somewhat better than Kane...
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
-
Just read and article saying that Eichel should only get between 7.2 to 8.5 million... I didn't know that it was still 2014.
Some people truly live in a bubble
-
Ha, my bad, misread the first time, failed attempt at humour.
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?
Vanek: Is this anything?
in The Aud Club
Posted
Of course they report that. If they weren't go well, it wouldn't be in anybody's interest to admit that.