Taro T Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 While I think your characterization of TM wanting to accelerate the rebuild is accurate, I can't see anyway he would trade Eichel for anything less than a guaranteed long term superstar. Without the ability to extend SS he would be looking for a job today had he made that move. There seems to be a strong sense that the rebuild is over. I think the tear down has been completed and there is still work to do on the foundation. This. There was a chart on TSN showing production for all NHL players peaking at 22. After that you have a slow decline. If Jack makes the transition to elite sooner, the economics are a no brainier. Agreed to an extent. Which is basically what I'd stated upthread. Without knowing he'd have Stamkos signed LT, he'd want a lot more assets that would make the Sabres a guaranteed contender. He'd need too much from TB to make a deal work from their perspective. And it all leads to the rumor of someone making a legit offer including a 1st liner for Eichel (+?) which TM considered and then made a counter that the original offerer couldn't accept, in the words of Jamie Hynemann (sp?), that myth is plausible. One of the issues with deals like this from the perspective of the team dealing the prospect is simply economics. Of course at this point in time Stamkos is a better player than Eichel, but he's also going to turn 26 this season and start making $10 million or so per year for the next 7-8 years, whereas Eichel is going to be at most a hair over $3 million for the next 3, and after still has a good chance of coming in cheaper than Stamkos (and even if he doesn't, the age difference is non-negligible). Just looking at the near term, is 26-29 year old Stamkos $21 million better than Eichel? Even if that answer is yes, I'm very confident that 30-35 year old Stamkos will not be more valuable than 21-26 year old Eichel regardless of price (and seeing as Eichel's next deal will be buying mostly RFA years, I have a hard time seeing him making what Stamkos will get). For the life of me I can't remember who said it, but one of my favorite recent sports quotes is "In a cap system you don't win championships by paying players what they're worth...you win championships by paying them less." I think that principle is very applicable in discussions like this. Realistically, for a deal like this to work / get consumated, the team getting the current stud needs to be on the rise (Sabres are on rise) but team getting the future stud needs to be rebuilding (Bolts aren't). The most recent example of this working out for both ottomh was Niewendyk for Iginla (& whatever schlock evened the deal) and that was pre-cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 For the life of me I can't remember who said it, but one of my favorite recent sports quotes is "In a cap system you don't win championships by paying players what they're worth...you win championships by paying them less." I think that principle is very applicable in discussions like this. It's a very apt quote, but how do you reconcile it with your desire to pay mediocrities like Stafford high-market salaries? You can't! Hah! If I was as big of Lightning fan as I am the Sabres I would not want them trading for Eichel. That is not a knock on Eichel I just watch a lot of Lightning games and trading such a proven commodity (team captain with playoff experience ) for a kid who has never played in the league would be a pretty ballsy move. The only reason for TB to do it is if they think they can't re-sign Stamkos -- which seems unlikely but not impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 It's a very apt quote, but how do you reconcile it with your desire to pay mediocrities like Stafford high-market salaries? You can't! Hah! The only reason for TB to do it is if they think they can't re-sign Stamkos -- which seems unlikely but not impossible. And for the millionth time, Stafford's salary isn't even in the realm of "high market." But apparently you hate math ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7+6=13 Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Tampa was not trading one of the best (if not the best) player in the league a few weeks removed from the Cup finals. They definitely were not adding pieces such as Hedman, Bishop, Johnson, etc. The owner here has made it well known he wants him signed at whatever cost. Eichel is going to be great but i think putting him in a category that would require Stamkos + might be setting the bar a little high. Who are you referring to? Stamkos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 And for the millionth time, Stafford's salary isn't even in the realm of "high market." But apparently you hate math ;) Perhaps we have different definitions of "high market." I mean in the upper range of the comparable group. Surely you will admit that your general approach of pointing to others around the league to justify the salaries of non-difference-makers does not jibe with what you quoted above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Who are you referring to? Stamkos? Yes, sorry I live in Tampa. Just the other day they were talking about trying to get a Toews/Kane style deal done. I think they will have to pay more than those deals because I am not sure how badly he wants to be here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Perhaps we have different definitions of "high market." I mean in the upper range of the comparable group. Surely you will admit that your general approach of pointing to others around the league to justify the salaries of non-difference-makers does not jibe with what you quoted above? On the first point, we simply had our wires crossed. I thought by "high market" you were referring to absolutes in the league, not his peer group. To the second point, in general, sure that's fair to say. But I didn't mean it in the extreme sense that in order to win a championship you have to pay every player less than they're worth (and let's be real, if you try to do that, you're not icing a team). How I read the quote is you have to have a group of important contributors, be they your superstars or secondary players, making less than their market value because if everyone is making market value you're not going to be able to ice a deep and talented enough team to win. I'm okay with paying a guy like Stafford his market value (and every team has contracts like this), I'm just not okay with paying every guy like Stafford his market value. I will say that paying your secondary players market value now and into the future is going to be more difficult since you can't give cap-circumventing deals to your stars anymore, so my "enthusiasm" going forward for paying Staffords $4 million is probably going to be reduced, but you're always going to have to have a couple on your roster unless you have an unbelievable hit rate in the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 If Murray doesn't phone around to see how his assets are valued around the league he isn't doing his job. If he can pull off a trade to improve this team he will and has. Thats what this was imo. Simply seeing what was out there and what it would take. Perhaps he was just fielding questions from other G.M.s and this rumour sprung from that. Just doing his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 I just don't believe this at all. Taking a phone call doesn't elude to much more than a conversation and a quick and resounding "no". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 On the first point, we simply had our wires crossed. I thought by "high market" you were referring to absolutes in the league, not his peer group. To the second point, in general, sure that's fair to say. But I didn't mean it in the extreme sense that in order to win a championship you have to pay every player less than they're worth (and let's be real, if you try to do that, you're not icing a team). How I read the quote is you have to have a group of important contributors, be they your superstars or secondary players, making less than their market value because if everyone is making market value you're not going to be able to ice a deep and talented enough team to win. I'm okay with paying a guy like Stafford his market value (and every team has contracts like this), I'm just not okay with paying every guy like Stafford his market value. I will say that paying your secondary players market value now and into the future is going to be more difficult since you can't give cap-circumventing deals to your stars anymore, so my "enthusiasm" going forward for paying Staffords $4 million is probably going to be reduced, but you're always going to have to have a couple on your roster unless you have an unbelievable hit rate in the draft. OK -- that's reasonable. Although how are we supposed to argue about this now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 I didn't see this being discussed anywhere. According to this (probably stupid) report from The Fourth Period, the Sabres were seriously considering a package for Eichel. Well, there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Yes, sorry I live in Tampa. Just the other day they were talking about trying to get a Toews/Kane style deal done. I think they will have to pay more than those deals because I am not sure how badly he wants to be here. If Stamkos wants to leave, he's going to leave. And if he does, they're going to trade him near the deadline. They cannot let him walk for nothing. I feel like he'd give them the courtesy of letting them know if it was indeed his plan to leave. Granted he was much older, but they've already made a similar move recently with the St. Louis trade, a franchise icon. It would be tough, but they will if they have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 No. Tim Murray wasn't going to trade Eichel plus for Stamkos. It goes against his careful planning. Also, in 2 years I think Eichel will be a better overall player than Stamkos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Yeah I'm sure offers were flying around I don't believe Buffalo was as interested as the article claims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 OK -- that's reasonable. Although how are we supposed to argue about this now? Shouldn't be too hard, we'll just do what causes seemingly half of all Internet arguments: we'll talk past each other. Stafford isn't mediocre, dammit, have you seen the man's relative Corsi?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7+6=13 Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 No. Tim Murray wasn't going to trade Eichel plus for Stamkos. It goes against his careful planning. Also, in 2 years I think Eichel will be a better overall player than Stamkos. Do you think it's possible Buffalo would take a run at Stamkos in a trade later in the year or if he becomes a FA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 (edited) Seriously this sounds like an Eklund type article. I'm sure you take calls all the time about just about anyone, but it is sad when these things see any light. Edited September 26, 2015 by TheCerebral1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted September 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 (edited) Do you think it's possible Buffalo would take a run at Stamkos in a trade later in the year or if he becomes a FA? I highly doubt it. If we were to trade for him with pending UFA status, he is essentially a rental, which doesn't really fit the plan unless somehow the team convinces TM with their play that they are capable of winning the cup this year. Even then it is unlikely because of what it may cost. And extending him or signing him as a FA is going to cost north of $10m a year and a long term deal, which would interfere with eventually extending Eichel/Samson/ROR/Kane/Risto/Etc. I don't see it happening. Edited September 26, 2015 by thesportsbuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 I highly doubt it. If we were to trade for him with pending UFA status, he is essentially a rental, which doesn't really fit the plan unless somehow the team convinces TM with their play that they are capable of winning the cup this year. Even then it is unlikely because of what it may cost. And extending him or signing him as a FA is going to cost north of $10m a year and a long term deal, which would interfere with eventually extending Eichel/Samson/ROR/Kane/Risto/Etc. I don't see it happening. I think a trade doesn't happen unless a deal is in place. That said, he's going to cost a TON. Say goodbye to two or three of those shiny new toys we are all really starting to like. I'm glad you are thinking forward but 7 years from now when O'Reilly's is up may be a bit much. ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 I sat next to Morgan Fairchild at a hotel bar once. I guess that means I almost went up to her room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtDart Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 (edited) I sat next to Morgan Fairchild at a hotel bar once. I guess that means I almost went up to her room.Details Eleven. That would be more interesting than the current fairy tale being discussed. Edited September 26, 2015 by DirtDart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Details Eleven. That would be more interesting than the current fairy tale being discussed. Sorry; that's really it. We didn't have a conversation. Probably a good thing since I was waiting for my then-girlfriend. I can confirm that she is absolutely beautiful in person; strikingly so. So it's not just good makeup and camera angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Details Eleven. That would be more interesting than the current fairy tale being discussed. Eleven received a "significant" offer once at a hotel bar from Morgan Fairchild. It is unclear how large the overall package was :flirt: , but if the offer went through, it would have seen Eleven going up to Morgan's room, one source told Robins Egg. The offer, another source confirmed, was "seriously" considered by Eleven, but the deal was later "nixed" by Fairchild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7+6=13 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Eleven received a "significant" offer once at a hotel bar from Morgan Fairchild. It is unclear how large the overall package was :flirt: , but if the offer went through, it would have seen Eleven going up to Morgan's room, one source told Robins Egg. The offer, another source confirmed, was "seriously" considered by Eleven, but the deal was later "nixed" by Fairchild. Do you think Fairchild would hinder us in extending O'Reilly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Do you think Fairchild would hinder us in extending O'Reilly? :w00t: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.