Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Hoss]

9 minutes ago, tom webster said:

I actually forgot I owe you a jersey but the clause means nothing in this situation. It only becomes leverage at the end or when you are the party desperate to end the relationship. The Sabres want to move on, Jack is desperate.

And for the record, I twice tried to arrange a meet up with you to give you that jersey. I pay my debts and people on here who know me can attest to that. 

There’s no reasonable argument to support “the clause means nothing.” That clause is very powerful. The absolute mess that this situation already is has every chance of getting even worse at that point. We can say “naw, My Favorite Team is ballsy and manly and doesn’t sweat when it eats the hottest hot sauce so they don’t have to bend to John Jacob Eichel’s demands,” but it’s a bad look for the team and would only further destroy the image the team has to other players/teams and curate an even more toxic environment within the franchise. Nobody sane is okay with this.

(I live in NC so my time spent in Buffalo is very limited)

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, Hoss said:

Nonsense is claiming you'll reward someone with a jersey for winning a contest and never doing it. 😘 We can act like the No Movement Clause means nothing, but it absolutely does not.

A NMC isn't meant to help a player with a 8 year contract go the place he wants; the idea of a NMC is to prevent your team from trading you, only when the NMC ends up in the last year of a contract does it become what Hall used it for. Even with a NMC, Eichel's leverage is practically nil with the NMC as his threat is rather toothless. Oh, so you won't accept a trade to Calgary, then I guess you can sit on your hands. If he tries to pull a Hall, the Sabres will just let him kick dirt and I doubt many players would hold that against them seeing as the Bruins are in our division.

[Derrico]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

Adams may be considering:

• Tuch, Krebs, Coghlan, conditional 1st based on Jack’s games played
• Monahan, Zary, Dube, 1st, maybe an additional pick

I easily take the better high end from the Knights over the deeper Calgary offer.

What say you?

What in the hell happened to Monahan?  I dont' want Flames games at all but he was a great C prospect coming into the league a few years ago.  I take it he has disappointed thus far?

[tom webster]

53 minutes ago, Hoss said:

There’s no reasonable argument to support “the clause means nothing.” That clause is very powerful. The absolute mess that this situation already is has every chance of getting even worse at that point. We can say “naw, My Favorite Team is ballsy and manly and doesn’t sweat when it eats the hottest hot sauce so they don’t have to bend to John Jacob Eichel’s demands,” but it’s a bad look for the team and would only further destroy the image the team has to other players/teams and curate an even more toxic environment within the franchise. Nobody sane is okay with this.

(I live in NC so my time spent in Buffalo is very limited)

My God, everyone that disagrees with you is either insane or blindly following their team. The black and white world of Twitter, Facebook et al.

The Sabres hired three of the hottest names available for their front office positions, Kyle reinvented himself to help facilitate change when he could of just gone through the motions, others have committed to the change. Apparently not everyone thinks the franchise is a joke. I’d be surprised if less the 40% of the league’s players sided with Jack. They may believe on the right to choose their medical options but a lot of them probably think he’s a jackass. It’s the real world. No position, no person has unanimous support. Franchises are a joke till they aren’t anymore. I remember a local broadcaster feeling sorry for a Patriots fan way back when.

[Curt]

51 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

A NMC isn't meant to help a player with a 8 year contract go the place he wants; the idea of a NMC is to prevent your team from trading you, only when the NMC ends up in the last year of a contract does it become what Hall used it for. Even with a NMC, Eichel's leverage is practically nil with the NMC as his threat is rather toothless. Oh, so you won't accept a trade to Calgary, then I guess you can sit on your hands. If he tries to pull a Hall, the Sabres will just let him kick dirt and I doubt many players would hold that against them seeing as the Bruins are in our division.

The team wants to trade Eichel.  A NMC makes that more difficult, as it’s designed to do.  It’s in their best interest to find a deal before then.  I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.

It doesn’t automatically mean that Eichel gets to hand pick his team of choice and goes there for 20 cents on the dollar, but it certainly gives Eichel more control over the situation.  It certainly means something and makes a real difference.

Those scenarios you outlined (bolded) as what the Sabres can do if Eichel gets picky are simply terrible results for the Sabres as well.  They don’t want that.  They want to successfully trade him, get some assets and get him out.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Hoss said:

Nonsense is claiming you'll reward someone with a jersey for winning a contest and never doing it. 😘 We can act like the No Movement Clause means nothing, but it absolutely does not.

I agree with @tom websterthat the NMC is an insignificant factor in the trading of Jack. The player wants out of this organization as badly as the organization wants him out. His mind-set is that staying with the Sabres is not an acceptable option. His hope is that he is traded before the NMC kicks in because he desperately wants out sooner rather than later so that he can get his preferred surgery and get back on the ice.  As it stands there is one option that Jack is not going to consider. And that is staying anchored to the team that he is currently contractually obligated to. He is not going to say no to any other location that will get him out of here. 

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

So 0.75 x .51 (majority, most) = 38%

Hard to argue with this computation.  Well played.

[SDS]

3 hours ago, Hoss said:

Nonsense is claiming you'll reward someone with a jersey for winning a contest and never doing it. 😘 We can act like the No Movement Clause means nothing, but it absolutely does not.

Nothing you said refutes what Tom Webster said. He is absolutely right.

[Thorny]

25 minutes ago, SDS said:

Nothing you said refutes what Tom Webster said. He is absolutely right.

The NMC only doesn't matter if you don't think it causes Jack to "rule out" any teams (and it may not - he can only be itching to get out by now). But if he were to, say, veto Calgary, and next summer it's still a song and dance between Vegas and Calgary, of course it matters - it could affect the return. 

The biggest myth running is that the Sabres will be in "the same" spot next summer as they are now. It's not status quo by failing to find a return on the asset. The further it goes, the longer we go with an unmaximized asset, of a very high value. Having Jack sitting on the sidelines next summer is a worse situation than Jack sitting on the sidelines right now. Extending the time frame an asset goes un-utilized isn't a neutral progression. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

A NMC isn't meant to help a player with a 8 year contract go the place he wants; the idea of a NMC is to prevent your team from trading you, only when the NMC ends up in the last year of a contract does it become what Hall used it for. Even with a NMC, Eichel's leverage is practically nil with the NMC as his threat is rather toothless. Oh, so you won't accept a trade to Calgary, then I guess you can sit on your hands. If he tries to pull a Hall, the Sabres will just let him kick dirt and I doubt many players would hold that against them seeing as the Bruins are in our division.

"Letting him kick dirt" isn't a good result for Buffalo. That's the leverage the player has. NO ONE is in strong standing in the negotiation, both parties are in an unfortunate spot. 

[PromoTheRobot]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

There are more people in the world that Kevyn Adams and Pat Brisson.  Reporters get information from many sources.

Not everyone who might leak information to a reporter does so with the pure motivation of gaining advantage in a trade negotiation.

Going to disagree on this. 95% of the news on Eichel the last year has come from his agents

[WildCard]

15 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Going to disagree on this. 95% of the news on Eichel the last year has come from his agents

What is the proof on this?

[ndirish1978]

3 hours ago, tom webster said:

I actually forgot I owe you a jersey but the clause means nothing in this situation. It only becomes leverage at the end or when you are the party desperate to end the relationship. The Sabres want to move on, Jack is desperate.

And for the record, I twice tried to arrange a meet up with you to give you that jersey. I pay my debts and people on here who know me can attest to that. 

I can settle this amicably for all parties. Send me the jersey and we'll call it even!

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Only 99 yards to go... or they score a safety

 

3 hours ago, Hoss said:

Important note on Kaplan’s report: she never clarified which one-yard line the trade is on.

[Indabuff]

10 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

I can settle this amicably for all parties. Send me the jersey and we'll call it even!

 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Going to disagree on this. 95% of the news on Eichel the last year has come from his agents

How do you know?  Prove it.

I just don’t think there is any way that you can say that with any degree of certainty.

[pi2000]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

How do you know?  Prove it.

I just don’t think there is any way that you can say that with any degree of certainty.

Well for one my source has been right all along and maintains the stance that nothing is close and Brisson is trying to stoke a bidding war through the media to get his client traded.

[Mr. Allen]

9 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Well for one my source has been right all along and maintains the stance that nothing is close and Brisson is trying to stoke a bidding war through the media to get his client traded.

Sorry, but your source is wrong about that.

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Well for one my source has been right all along and maintains the stance that nothing is close and Brisson is trying to stoke a bidding war through the media to get his client traded.

Best proof I’ve seen so far.

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

How do you know?  Prove it.

I just don’t think there is any way that you can say that with any degree of certainty.

Absolute proof? Don't have that. Circumstantial evidence? Plenty. First, it's a given reporters work agents for scoops. And agents use reporters to float stories to help their clients. Then look at the lean of those stories. 100% positive for Eichel. Third, how many of those scoops panned out? None.

Edited November 3, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[Broken Ankles]

46 minutes ago, Mr. Allen said:

Sorry, but your source is wrong about that.

 

You have dismissed Pi’s source on multiple occasions as well as alluded to Vegas not being the leader in trade talks.  Tell us more.

[Buffalonill]

 seeing how this deal was supposed to be done a week ago  How can anybody trust any sources ? 

All clicks 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

Well for one my source has been right all along and maintains the stance that nothing is close and Brisson is trying to stoke a bidding war through the media to get his client traded.

I hate to say it, but this strikes me as probably correct.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

We’ll, it doesn’t seem like they’re at the 1 yard line in Calgary…

Edited November 3, 2021 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[SDS]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

The NMC only doesn't matter if you don't think it causes Jack to "rule out" any teams (and it may not - he can only be itching to get out by now). But if he were to, say, veto Calgary, and next summer it's still a song and dance between Vegas and Calgary, of course it matters - it could affect the return. 

The biggest myth running is that the Sabres will be in "the same" spot next summer as they are now. It's not status quo by failing to find a return on the asset. The further it goes, the longer we go with an unmaximized asset, of a very high value. Having Jack sitting on the sidelines next summer is a worse situation than Jack sitting on the sidelines right now. Extending the time frame an asset goes un-utilized isn't a neutral progression. 

This was not the scenario presented that I was responding to.