Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, kas23 said:

So, why exactly why doesn’t Terry allow him to get the surgery then? Is it because he’s worried about Jack’s well being? Not money? You’ve seen the posts about players receiving fusion; it’s pretty bad. At least if he gets the ADR, he could opt to retire with a surgery that is becoming standard for the regular public. In the long-run, the ADR is probably best for him. 

But why do you think TP is preventing Jack from having the surgery?  Jack can have the surgery tomorrow if he wants to do so — he just can’t do so AND make the Sabres pay him the $50MM left on his contract.  

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

No need to get snippy.  

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So Jack can now have his big shot agent file his grievance and they can rule and then, I think, there are no other avenues of appeal so one side will get their way.

Actually if he files the grievance and it goes his way, it would be win-win-win I think.  The Pegulas could be forced to allow the ADR procedure, Jack could get it, be successfully traded, and.... really what happens to Jack doesn't matter to the Pegulas anymore.

[SDS]

50 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But why do you think TP is preventing Jack from having the surgery?  Jack can have the surgery tomorrow if he wants to do so — he just can’t do so AND make the Sabres pay him the $50MM left on his contract.  

Has it really been proven that Jack can get the surgery if he wants to, with the mentioned contract repercussion, or is all of this just repeated fan supposition?

50 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But why do you think TP is preventing Jack from having the surgery?  Jack can have the surgery tomorrow if he wants to do so — he just can’t do so AND make the Sabres pay him the $50MM left on his contract.  

Has it really been proven that Jack can get the surgery if he wants to, with the mentioned contract repercussion, or is all of this just repeated fan supposition?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Actually if he files the grievance and it goes his way, it would be win-win-win I think.  The Pegulas could be forced to allow the ADR procedure, Jack could get it, be successfully traded, and.... really what happens to Jack doesn't matter to the Pegulas anymore.

If that surgery works. There is no guarantee of that, which is the problem. 

[Hoss]

3 hours ago, SDS said:

Has it really been proven that Jack can get the surgery if he wants to, with the mentioned contract repercussion, or is all of this just repeated fan supposition?

Has it really been proven that Jack can get the surgery if he wants to, with the mentioned contract repercussion, or is all of this just repeated fan supposition?

This has been a point I’ve made a handful of times. I get the feeling there are more penalties involved for doing something like this without team approval. If that weren’t the case I think Jack would have gotten the surgery already.

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

If that surgery works. There is no guarantee of that, which is the problem. 

But after watching both videos (ugh), is there really a likelihood that one is more successful than the other?

 

[That Aud Smell]

On 10/22/2021 at 4:56 PM, nfreeman said:

That's all they gave away. 

It's not so cut and dried, as I read the provisions in the CBA.

Eichel's situation seems like a peculiar one (as if we didn't already know that). And the absurd example that you provide is just that.

The paradigm is set up such that the team's physician makes the diagnosis and sets the course of treatment. The player can then bring his own expert to the table to discuss the plan with the team's physician. The player can then ask that a third expert be consulted. But, at the end of the day, the team's physician doesn't have to listen to either the player's expert or the third physician - there's some process there, but not a lot of substance. 

In many diagnosis/treatment scenarios, reasonable minds can and will differ. For NHL players, there's only one reasonable mind who controls what happens to them. It's pretty remarkable, to me.

Now, as you say: This is about the owners bearing risk. But this sort of system tends to drive the point home to me that these athletes are effectively treated like livestock in a lot of ways -- exceedingly valued, prized, and cherished livestock. But livestock. Actually ... maybe it's more like that they're treated like thoroughbred race horses.

[nfreeman]

10 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It's not so cut and dried, as I read the provisions in the CBA.

Eichel's situation seems like a peculiar one (as if we didn't already know that). And the absurd example that you provide is just that.

The paradigm is set up such that the team's physician makes the diagnosis and sets the course of treatment. The player can then bring his own expert to the table to discuss the plan with the team's physician. The player can then ask that a third expert be consulted. But, at the end of the day, the team's physician doesn't have to listen to either the player's expert or the third physician - there's some process there, but not a lot of substance. 

In many diagnosis/treatment scenarios, reasonable minds can and will differ. For NHL players, there's only one reasonable mind who controls what happens to them. It's pretty remarkable, to me.

Now, as you say: This is about the owners bearing risk. But this sort of system tends to drive the point home to me that these athletes are effectively treated like livestock in a lot of ways -- exceedingly valued, prized, and cherished livestock. But livestock. Actually ... maybe it's more like that they're treated like thoroughbred race horses.

So there is no grievance procedure where the team’s doctors can be overruled by some kind of medical arbitrator?  If that is the case, why do we keep hearing that Brisson may be filing a grievance in the next couple of weeks?  I suppose it could just be more sound and fury from Brisson without any real weight to it.

If the players really have zero recourse in a situation where the team is employing Dr Nick Riviera, then I agree that they screwed up this issue in their CBA negotiations.  But that doesn’t seem likely.

I agree on the racehorse analogy (hello GoDD).  

[That Aud Smell]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So there is no grievance procedure where the team’s doctors can be overruled by some kind of medical arbitrator?  If that is the case, why do we keep hearing that Brisson may be filing a grievance in the next couple of weeks?  I suppose it could just be more sound and fury from Brisson without any real weight to it.

If the players really have zero recourse in a situation where the team is employing Dr Nick Riviera, then I agree that they screwed up this issue in their CBA negotiations.  But that doesn’t seem likely.

I agree on the racehorse analogy (hello GoDD).  

Oh, no - for sure there's arbitration regarding things over which the players are aggrieved. I do wonder whether the arbitrator assesses the medical issue "de novo" (basically, with a fresh set of eyes) or whether deference is given to the team's physician. I haven't dug into the CBA that deep to find out.

My point is that the majority of cases will probably exist in grey areas, where reasonable minds can differ. And, in those circumstances, what the team doc says goes. And that is some sh1t.

Edited to add: A player could elect arbitration in a situation where reasonable minds can differ. But, in such a circumstance, I tend to doubt he would prevail in an arbitration.

Edited October 25, 2021 by That Aud Smell

[PromoTheRobot]

37 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So there is no grievance procedure where the team’s doctors can be overruled by some kind of medical arbitrator?  If that is the case, why do we keep hearing that Brisson may be filing a grievance in the next couple of weeks?  I suppose it could just be more sound and fury from Brisson without any real weight to it.

If the players really have zero recourse in a situation where the team is employing Dr Nick Riviera, then I agree that they screwed up this issue in their CBA negotiations.  But that doesn’t seem likely.

I agree on the racehorse analogy (hello GoDD).  

My guess is Brisson is using every avenue to create public pressure on the Sabres to shame then into doing something, either take a bad deal or allow surgery and then take a bad deal.

Mike Harrington took Ryan Callahan to task in his Buffalo News Sunday Inside the NHL column for accusing the Sabres of "generating a lot of noise" around Jack Eichel when the Sabres have said nothing since the presser that removed him from the captaincy.

But that didn't stop Callahan from wrecking the Sabres during that ESPN+ exclusive game against the Bruins. Was it just a guy on his first network broadcast looking to say something profound? Or was it someone doing someone else a favor?

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/inside-the-nhl-when-it-comes-to-eichel-the-money-is-as-big-an-issue/article_30dbdfc4-33fb-11ec-95a2-ab8b258b1b26.html

"Callahan, naturally, took the player's side even though the CBA gives Eichel no leg to stand on. And then he admonished the Sabres for "putting a lot of things out there that don't need to be out there, that just make a lot of noise around your team when you're trying to focus on training camp and getting ready for a season."

Pretty ill-informed comment. The Sabres haven't talked about Eichel for one second since the first day of training camp, so no idea what Callahan is talking about. It was the Rochester native's first game on the mic and the inexperience showed. Don't be vague. Say what you mean. If you don't like they took the 'C' away, that's fine. Fair point. But that's one thing. That's not a lot of things. And there was zero noise about it after the first day. Implying otherwise is simply wrong."

Edited October 25, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

My guess is Brisson is using every avenue to create public pressure on the Sabres to shame then into doing something, either take a bad deal or allow surgery and then take a bad deal.

Mike Harrington took Ryan Callahan to task in his Buffalo News Sunday Inside the NHL column for accusing the Sabres of "generating a lot of noise" around Jack Eichel when the Sabres have said nothing since the presser that removed him from the captaincy.

But that didn't stop Callahan from wrecking the Sabres during that ESPN+ exclusive have against the Bruins. Was it just a guy on his first network broadcast looking to say something profound? Or was it someone doing someone else a favor?

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/inside-the-nhl-when-it-comes-to-eichel-the-money-is-as-big-an-issue/article_30dbdfc4-33fb-11ec-95a2-ab8b258b1b26.html

"Callahan, naturally, took the player's side even though the CBA gives Eichel no leg to stand on. And then he admonished the Sabres for "putting a lot of things out there that don't need to be out there, that just make a lot of noise around your team when you're trying to focus on training camp and getting ready for a season."

Pretty ill-informed comment. The Sabres haven't talked about Eichel for one second since the first day of training camp, so no idea what Callahan is talking about. It was the Rochester native's first game on the mic and the inexperience showed. Don't be vague. Say what you mean. If you don't like they took the 'C' away, that's fine. Fair point. But that's one thing. That's not a lot of things. And there was zero noise about it after the first day. Implying otherwise is simply wrong."

I agree on Brisson. 

I noticed that comment by Callahan during the Bruins game -- I just thought it was a player naturally enough sticking up for another player, especially against a poorly run franchise.

[Hoss]

10 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

My guess is Brisson is using every avenue to create public pressure on the Sabres to shame then into doing something, either take a bad deal or allow surgery and then take a bad deal.

Mike Harrington took Ryan Callahan to task in his Buffalo News Sunday Inside the NHL column for accusing the Sabres of "generating a lot of noise" around Jack Eichel when the Sabres have said nothing since the presser that removed him from the captaincy.

But that didn't stop Callahan from wrecking the Sabres during that ESPN+ exclusive game against the Bruins. Was it just a guy on his first network broadcast looking to say something profound? Or was it someone doing someone else a favor?

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/inside-the-nhl-when-it-comes-to-eichel-the-money-is-as-big-an-issue/article_30dbdfc4-33fb-11ec-95a2-ab8b258b1b26.html

"Callahan, naturally, took the player's side even though the CBA gives Eichel no leg to stand on. And then he admonished the Sabres for "putting a lot of things out there that don't need to be out there, that just make a lot of noise around your team when you're trying to focus on training camp and getting ready for a season."

Pretty ill-informed comment. The Sabres haven't talked about Eichel for one second since the first day of training camp, so no idea what Callahan is talking about. It was the Rochester native's first game on the mic and the inexperience showed. Don't be vague. Say what you mean. If you don't like they took the 'C' away, that's fine. Fair point. But that's one thing. That's not a lot of things. And there was zero noise about it after the first day. Implying otherwise is simply wrong."

Harrington not being able to recognize that organizations and individuals release information beyond just what is said in press conferences comes as no surprise.

[PromoTheRobot]

37 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Harrington not being able to recognize that organizations and individuals release information beyond just what is said in press conferences comes as no surprise.

Maybe you can cite some of those news releases for me? I'm just as dense as Harrington.

[Hoss]

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

Maybe you can cite some of those news releases for me? I'm just as dense as Harrington.

The presumption from the board seems to be every single piece of leaked information has come from Jack’s representation. The board is almost guaranteed to be wrong in that presumption.

[PromoTheRobot]

5 minutes ago, Hoss said:

The presumption from the board seems to be every single piece of leaked information has come from Jack’s representation. The board is almost guaranteed to be wrong in that presumption.

So no proof. Just a feeling. Check. To be fair you can say the same of me. But you'd think anything the Sabres would leak would be helpful to them. So far it's been all Pro-Jack.

Edited October 25, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[Hoss]

11 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So no proof. Just a feeling. Check. To be fair you can say the same of me. But you'd think anything the Sabres would leak would be helpful to them. So far it's been all Pro-Jack.

Where’s Harrington’s proof? Where’s Callaghan’s proof? Every single post on this subject is made up conversation.

There’s plenty of reason for the team to leak information that appears slightly favorable for Jack but ultimately does nothing to actually help him. If everybody thinks your opposition is the one leaking info thus convincing the masses you’re handling it professionally …

[nfreeman]

So, the Leafs are maybe the richest team in the NHL, play in the most pressurized market in the NHL, are inclined towards making splashy moves, are 2-4, have lost 3 in a row, including a 7-1 blowout loss on HNIC this weekend and are playing Carolina tonight for another likely loss.

Mitch Marner has 1 assist in 6 games this year despite averaging almost 22 min per game.  He is a dynamic, exciting, highly skilled C/RW who doesn't turn 25 until next May.  He's under contract at $10.9MM per year for 3 more years after this one, and then will be a UFA.

If KA were somehow able to confirm that Marner would welcome a trade to Buffalo, would you trade Eichel straight up for Marner?  Would you sweeten the pot with, say, Ryan Johnson or Mattias Samuelsson or the Sabres' #2 in 2022?

I would.

[Marvin]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So, the Leafs are maybe the richest team in the NHL, play in the most pressurized market in the NHL, are inclined towards making splashy moves, are 2-4, have lost 3 in a row, including a 7-1 blowout loss on HNIC this weekend and are playing Carolina tonight for another likely loss.

Mitch Marner has 1 assist in 6 games this year despite averaging almost 22 min per game.  He is a dynamic, exciting, highly skilled C/RW who doesn't turn 25 until next May.  He's under contract at $10.9MM per year for 3 more years after this one, and then will be a UFA.

If KA were somehow able to confirm that Marner would welcome a trade to Buffalo, would you trade Eichel straight up for Marner?  Would you sweeten the pot with, say, Ryan Johnson or Mattias Samuelsson or the Sabres' #2 in 2022?

I would.

Leaf fans want 1st round picks as offsets if Eichel does not play in a given season.  They think Marner now is worth more than Jack at 100%  The Sabres can not afford that.

Besides, I don't see how this helps the Leafs unless Jack is ready to play -- which he apparently is not.  They need help now.  Unless, of course, they are doing this to clear cap space for a splashy acquisition.  Even so, this is a rather ciruitous way to go about it.

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

Harrington not being able to recognize that organizations and individuals release information beyond just what is said in press conferences comes as no surprise.

I think the issue where he might be coming from... Not sure but my guess, is something that I also agree with.

The Sabres have not said anything publicly since the first press conference that we spoke about. However, Eichel has had his agent or agents out there doing radio interviews, and openly talking to some of these so-called hockey insiders.

If the Sabres are doing the same thing, they are being much more quiet about it. Eichel and his camp are being much more public about talking about the situation.

[PromoTheRobot]

11 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I think the issue where he might be coming from... Not sure but my guess, is something that I also agree with.

The Sabres have not said anything publicly since the first press conference that we spoke about. However, Eichel has had his agent or agents out there doing radio interviews, and openly talking to some of these so-called hockey insiders.

If the Sabres are doing the same thing, they are being much more quiet about it. Eichel and his camp are being much more public about talking about the situation.

Naw. I think it's @Hoss being upset someone is defending the Sabres.

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

But after watching both videos (ugh), is there really a likelihood that one is more successful than the other?

 

We're all doctors now, smh.

[PromoTheRobot]

51 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So, the Leafs are maybe the richest team in the NHL, play in the most pressurized market in the NHL, are inclined towards making splashy moves, are 2-4, have lost 3 in a row, including a 7-1 blowout loss on HNIC this weekend and are playing Carolina tonight for another likely loss.

Mitch Marner has 1 assist in 6 games this year despite averaging almost 22 min per game.  He is a dynamic, exciting, highly skilled C/RW who doesn't turn 25 until next May.  He's under contract at $10.9MM per year for 3 more years after this one, and then will be a UFA.

If KA were somehow able to confirm that Marner would welcome a trade to Buffalo, would you trade Eichel straight up for Marner?  Would you sweeten the pot with, say, Ryan Johnson or Mattias Samuelsson or the Sabres' #2 in 2022?

I would.

Marner is disliked by many Leafs fans for not giving 100% and not caring enough. I saw one Twitter fan rant about him playing golf the day after being eliminated from the playoffs. The fan pointed out that not only was it a bad look playing golf one day after elimination, but if Marner could even play a round that soon he must not have been trying that hard during the playoffs.

Edited October 25, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[Hoss]

51 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So, the Leafs are maybe the richest team in the NHL, play in the most pressurized market in the NHL, are inclined towards making splashy moves, are 2-4, have lost 3 in a row, including a 7-1 blowout loss on HNIC this weekend and are playing Carolina tonight for another likely loss.

Mitch Marner has 1 assist in 6 games this year despite averaging almost 22 min per game.  He is a dynamic, exciting, highly skilled C/RW who doesn't turn 25 until next May.  He's under contract at $10.9MM per year for 3 more years after this one, and then will be a UFA.

If KA were somehow able to confirm that Marner would welcome a trade to Buffalo, would you trade Eichel straight up for Marner?  Would you sweeten the pot with, say, Ryan Johnson or Mattias Samuelsson or the Sabres' #2 in 2022?

I would.

Jesus Christ no.

[Hoss]

10 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Naw. I think it's @Hoss being upset someone is defending the Sabres.

Just trying to offer some balance.