Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Curt]

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m looking at it from a strictly practical viewpoint.  IMO, one cannot say a person has full authority to do something and then proceed to give reasons why he can’t. Adams doesn’t have final say as he keeps deferring to the medical professionals that do.

Adams probably does not actually have full authority to OK Eichel’s surgery.  The owners would probably need to sign off on the decision.

Regardless, Adams could have full authority to do so, but still have many reasons why he does not want to.

[Doohickie]

9 hours ago, COSabreFan said:

If he can’t overrule this, it might help to publicly say so.  Something like, “I understand Jacks position, but I don’t have the authority to make it happen.  It’s out of my hands.”

How would it help? 

[nucci]

18 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

We still hold his rights if we void his  contract 

How can you terminate a contract and still keep the player? 

[PromoTheRobot]

27 minutes ago, nucci said:

How can you terminate a contract and still keep the player? 

I guess there's a difference between termination and voiding.

[nucci]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I guess there's a difference between termination and voiding.

Yeah , trying to find out but either way there is no longer a contract between team and player...as far as I know

[thewookie1]

You cannot terminate a contract without losing the player. The most you can do is suspend him without pay. That would prevent him from being paid but also keep him from signing elsewhere. 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, nucci said:

Yeah , trying to find out but either way there is no longer a contract between team and player...as far as I know

Voiding means you are go longer bound by the terms (paying money) of a contract but the contract is still in effect.

[nucci]

1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Voiding means you are go longer bound by the terms (paying money) of a contract but the contract is still in effect.

If that's true it doesn't make sense. Sabres can void Eichel's contract but can keep him on the team and not pay him?  That would mean teams can void all contracts and keep them but not pay anyone?

[Doohickie]

20 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

We still hold his rights if we void his  contract 

[darksabre]

16 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Your lack of a substantive response is telling.

Look at this way...  the only way KA gets anything close to his desired return for him is if he's healthy.     If Jack goes rogue and gets the ADR and it's successful,  it benefits the Sabres if their doctors examine him and declare him healthy.     What does Buffalo gain by voiding his contract at that point?   If the surgery is a success, they have everything to gain if he passes a physical, and nothing if he fails it.  

I don't know how many more times I have to explain this. Jack's health in the immediate aftermath of the surgery is not the only deciding factor. Jack's health over the length of the contract is the concern. If Jack gets the ADR surgery against the terms of the CBA, and then the Sabres doctors decide to accept the surgery and clear him to play, other teams could then turn around and say "well, let's just see how this goes". And then the Sabres could be stuck with Jack not just for a few games but for as much as the length of his contract. And if the ADR suddenly fails after, let's say, a year, the Sabres can no longer void his contract or suspend him or take ANY recourse. They become fully liable because they allowed him to be cleared by their doctors.

They will NEVER do this.

It's insane to me that anyone could conceive of the Sabres doing anything other than voiding Jack's contract if he violates the CBA. Because not only would the Sabres want to not be seen making a mockery of it, the league AND the NHLPA won't want it. They will support the Sabres voiding his contract and the "nothing" the Sabres get is, in fact, that Jack will not be playing ANYWHERE in the NHL for the remainder of his contract and they don't have to pay him or deal with his cap hit. Sure, it's not picks and prospects, but denying other teams the opportunity to have him if he's healthy will be good enough. There's politics involved here that are not insignificant, not to mention all the liability issues.

[PromoTheRobot]

9 minutes ago, nucci said:

If that's true it doesn't make sense. Sabres can void Eichel's contract but can keep him on the team and not pay him?  That would mean teams can void all contracts and keep them but not pay anyone?

You need cause to void a deal. Jack not adhering to team medical decisions is cause.

[darksabre]

Just now, Doohickie said:

You say that, but you need to go read the CBA.

The CBA expressly states what happens when a contract is terminated via the waiver process. The player becomes a UFA. It is very clearly laid out.

When a team voids a players contract for a "material breach" it doesn't not expressly state that the player becomes a UFA, which by default means the team still possesses his signing rights until what would have been the end of that contract.

Unless some kind of internal clarification has been issued that we are not privy to as fans, the CBA maintains that voiding a player's contract due to "material breach" does not make them a UFA.

[Doohickie]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

You say that, but you need to go read the CBA.

The CBA expressly states what happens when a contract is terminated via the waiver process. The player becomes a UFA. It is very clearly laid out.

When a team voids a players contract for a "material breach" it doesn't not expressly state that the player becomes a UFA, which by default means the team still possesses his signing rights until what would have been the end of that contract.

Unless some kind of internal clarification has been issued that we are not privy to as fans, the CBA maintains that voiding a player's contract due to "material breach" does not make them a UFA.

[darksabre]

11 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I mean, listen, I could be wrong. But given the language of the CBA and how things have played out so far between Jack and the team, I believe that there is no way Jack goes rogue and gets the ADR. I just don't see him doing it unless he accepts that he won't be in the NHL for quite some time. I think if he wanted to do it, he would have done so by now.

That's why I believe this whole situation is in the hands of a great number of lawyers. I believe they are trying to find a way to make the ADR surgery acceptable to everyone involved or, failing that, make if very clear to Jack that he has no choice but the fusion.

[Doohickie]

Just now, darksabre said:

That's why I believe this whole situation is in the hands of a great number of lawyers. I believe they are trying to find a way to make the ADR surgery acceptable to everyone involved or, failing that, make if very clear to Jack that he has no choice but the fusion.

Oh I'm totally onboard with that.  It's the doctors, lawyers and insurance underwriters that are calling the shots, not Adams or Brisson.

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, darksabre said:

I don't know how many more times I have to explain this. Jack's health in the immediate aftermath of the surgery is not the only deciding factor. Jack's health over the length of the contract is the concern. If Jack gets the ADR surgery against the terms of the CBA, and then the Sabres doctors decide to accept the surgery and clear him to play, other teams could then turn around and say "well, let's just see how this goes". And then the Sabres could be stuck with Jack not just for a few games but for as much as the length of his contract. And if the ADR suddenly fails after, let's say, a year, the Sabres can no longer void his contract or suspend him or take ANY recourse. They become fully liable because they allowed him to be cleared by their doctors.

They will NEVER do this.

It's insane to me that anyone could conceive of the Sabres doing anything other than voiding Jack's contract if he violates the CBA. Because not only would the Sabres want to not be seen making a mockery of it, the league AND the NHLPA won't want it. They will support the Sabres voiding his contract and the "nothing" the Sabres get is, in fact, that Jack will not be playing ANYWHERE in the NHL for the remainder of his contract and they don't have to pay him or deal with his cap hit. Sure, it's not picks and prospects, but denying other teams the opportunity to have him if he's healthy will be good enough. There's politics involved here that are not insignificant, not to mention all the liability issues.

If the ADR is successful there's only a very slim chance the disc fails at some point in the future.... and if it does, then he simply has the fusion surgery and he's good to go.    So there's no reason for the Sabres immediately to void his contract the moment he decides to have the ADR.    If allowing him to play increases his trade value, then they will clear him.      

[darksabre]

9 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

If the ADR is successful there's only a very slim chance the disc fails at some point in the future.... and if it does, then he simply has the fusion surgery and he's good to go.    So there's no reason for the Sabres immediately to void his contract the moment he decides to have the ADR.    If allowing him to play increases his trade value, then they will clear him.      

Except that his doing so violates the CBA. What part of this do you not understand?

[K-9]

3 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Oh I'm totally onboard with that.  It's the doctors, lawyers and insurance underwriters that are calling the shots, not Adams or Brisson.

Yeah, but Adams has “full authority” over the situation!😀

[Doohickie]

12 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

then he simply has the fusion surgery and he's good to go.

Isn't one scenario that a failure of the AD would be spinal cord injury leading to paralysis?

[inkman]

WHY THE ***** DOES THIS THREAD STILL HAVE LEGS. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN MONTHS. I’D BE MORR INTERESTED IN D-ZONE BREAKOUT PERCENTAGES FROM OUT D-MEN.  THIS THREAD SUCKS THE WILL TO LIVE OUTTA ME, ALTHOUGH THERE WASN’T MUCH THERE TO BEGIN WITH. 

[K-9]

53 minutes ago, inkman said:

WHY THE ***** DOES THIS THREAD STILL HAVE LEGS. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN MONTHS. I’D BE MORR INTERESTED IN D-ZONE BREAKOUT PERCENTAGES FROM OUT D-MEN.  THIS THREAD SUCKS THE WILL TO LIVE OUTTA ME, ALTHOUGH THERE WASN’T MUCH THERE TO BEGIN WITH. 

The thread has become a needed repository for general opinions regarding the Eichel situation more than it is about any specific trade scenarios at the moment and I don’t see that as a negative, necessarily. Perhaps a thread title change would help? 

[pi2000]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Isn't one scenario that a failure of the AD would be spinal cord injury leading to paralysis?

Sure, but that could happen with any organic disc as well.   Failure of the AD doesn't necessarily mean paralysis.

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Except that his doing so violates the CBA. What part of this do you not understand?

Just because it violates the CBA doesn't mean the Sabres must void his contract, what part of that don't you understand?

[Weave]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

WHY THE ***** DOES THIS THREAD STILL HAVE LEGS. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN MONTHS. I’D BE MORR INTERESTED IN D-ZONE BREAKOUT PERCENTAGES FROM OUT D-MEN.  THIS THREAD SUCKS THE WILL TO LIVE OUTTA ME, ALTHOUGH THERE WASN’T MUCH THERE TO BEGIN WITH. 

Dude, I’m like 2’ away.  Use your indoor voice.

[Buffalonill]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Yes thats how it works 

[darksabre]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

Sure, but that could happen with any organic disc as well.   Failure of the AD doesn't necessarily mean paralysis.

Just because it violates the CBA doesn't mean the Sabres must void his contract, what part of that don't you understand?

It absolutely does. 

I don't know why I'm arguing this with you anyway.

Jack is not going to do it so the point is moot.