Shopping Jack Eichel: Los Angeles

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

While all you greedy SOBs are trading second overall pick, generational player Jack Eichel… The team you are trading with is actually receiving broken Jack Eichel and his jacked up neck and $50M in future salary. 

I’m not confident anyone here is baking in that risk. The same risk that causes him to be on the trading block in the first place.

This, this, a thousand times this!

We can all stamp our feet and demand a king's ransom for Eichel -- but I don't think anyone is going to deliver that without seeing him play NHL games at a high level, which isn't going to happen by trading season.  So we are going to get less, perhaps much less, than we want.

 

11 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I would imagine any team giving legitimate offers understands that while its a risk; prospects are just as much if not more of a risk.

Likewise, Adams or whomever is running the team is likely to understand that the Sabres MUST get top value/near top value for Eichel or they are not only going to be bad for the foreseeable future but will further destroy the remaining passionate fans. You can't see the 34% drop as anything but a shot across the bow telling them we demand better. Otherwise it may actually start to infest their successful venture with the Bills.  (Plus they can't sell/move the team due to the sheer outrage it would cause)

OK, but the Kings aren't going to give up Byfield, the Rangers aren't going to give up Lafreniere and other teams aren't going to give up their crown jewels for a guy with this much injury uncertainty.

[dudacek]

19 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m not sure who you are responding to, but the totality of your post says he is untradable.

Is Jack's career potentially over? Because no one in the industry is saying that but people on the internet are talking about the trade as if that is a possibility.

If it is a possibility, then we are talking about a Lafontaine situation. They may offer a token pick, but no team will be making a legitimate offer for Jack and his $50 million contract.

Seems to me it comes down to the doctors. If they 80 per cent chance he returns to full value, does that mean you offer 80 per cent of his value?

If I'm the GM and I get that report, I'm not trading for him at all.

Edited June 7, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

While all you greedy SOBs are trading second overall pick, generational player Jack Eichel… The team you are trading with is actually receiving broken Jack Eichel and his jacked up neck and $50M in future salary. 

I’m not confident anyone here is baking in that risk. The same risk that causes him to be on the trading block in the first place.

I'm not sure we can definitively say they are moving Jack for primarily injury concerns - and it wouldn't be my first guess. The injury just increases KA's desire to move him, and quick 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure we can definitively say they are moving Jack for primarily injury concerns - and it wouldn't be my first guess. The injury just increases KA's desire to move him, and quick 

Or that both sides are using it as a PR cover to justify the break-up.

And, in the Sabres case, the willingness to take on a poor return.

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure we can definitively say they are moving Jack for primarily injury concerns - and it wouldn't be my first guess. The injury just increases KA's desire to move him, and quick 

Why does the injury concern have to be the primary one? Los Angeles or New York or Carolina doesn’t really care why Adams wants to move Jack. Their only concern is his ability to play up to a $10 million a year contract.

[LGR4GM]

At this point we don't even know if Jack is still injured or if his disc was re-absorbed. 

Just now, SDS said:

Why does the injury concern have to be the primary one? Los Angeles or New York or Carolina doesn’t really care why Adams wants to move Jack. Their only concern is his ability to play up to a $10 million a year contract.

LA aready pays Kopitar that and has 20mil in cap next year. 

Carolina isn't making this trade unless they suddenly decide they need more up front. I think it would be a mistake on their end. 

NYR don't care about paying money out the ass. They do it constantly to all kinds of players and UFA's.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

Why does the injury concern have to be the primary one? Los Angeles or New York or Carolina doesn’t really care why Adams wants to move Jack. Their only concern is his ability to play up to a $10 million a year contract.

Well, you were talking about risk re: his injury and said that same risk is why he's on the block. 

[SDS]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Is Jack's career potentially over? Because no one in the industry is saying that but people on the internet are talking about the trade as if that is a possibility.

If it is a possibility, then we are talking about a Lafontaine situation. They may offer a token pick, but no team will be making a legitimate offer for Jack and his $50 million contract.

It’s a closely guarded secret isn’t it? All I can say is that contemplation of that surgery is a strong indication of how serious it is. I had planned to get the same surgery because I had lost 40% of the strength in my left arm and it was numb 24/7. I was afraid of losing its use. When the numbness went away I vanquished the thought of that surgery.

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Well, you were talking about risk re: his injury and said that same risk is why he's on the block. 

Fair enough.

I would probably apply occam‘s razor here. I believe the guy is injured and I believe there is a disagreement how it should be addressed as reported. So, regardless of any dissatisfaction, I think it’s the primary driver.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

It’s a closely guarded secret isn’t it? All I can say is that contemplation of that surgery is a strong indication of how serious it is. I had planned to get the same surgery because I had lost 40% of the strength in my left arm and it was numb 24/7. I was afraid of losing its use. When the numbness went away I vanquished the thought of that surgery.

If we believe the contemplation to be sincere 

In a league where a team literally saying a GM is safe and then firing him a week later is not just occasional, but commonplace, I struggle to put full stock in Jack's stated intentions 

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If we believe the contemplation to be sincere 

In a league where a team literally saying a GM is safe and then firing him a week later is not just occasional, but commonplace, I struggle to put full stock in Jack's stated intentions 

I don’t find those scenarios to be equal. I don’t expect any organization to stand in front of a microphone and think out loud. Your GM is your GM until he is not. It’s binary. I expect nothing less from any team.

I have a hard time fitting this scenario into that paradigm.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

Fair enough.

I would probably apply occam‘s razor here. I believe the guy is injured and I believe there is a disagreement how it should be addressed as reported. So, regardless of any dissatisfaction, I think it’s the primary driver.

I like the principle, don't know if I agree it's properly applied. We heard so, so much smoke about a potential Jack deal well before this injury situation - indeed there are plenty of (un?)confirmed rumours Adams was fielding offers for Jack as recently as TWO off seasons ago (Rangers). 

Speaking for myself, Occam's Razor tells me that when considering a team that is committed to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (and we know how Pegula feels about wasting even a few million, in the form of a bonus), and a player in their YOUNG TWENTIES, an alpha, that in a situation that was probably contentious to begin with, any sort of disagreement about a newly developing situation is liable to explode, frankly. 

The injury could be reasonably concerning, but still have a likely positive outcome, and it still yield/contribute to a ridiculously contentious environment while not being the primary driver of the contention. I think the combustible environment led to the falling out over the injury, I do not believe the injury to have caused the combustible environment. 

6 minutes ago, SDS said:

I don’t find those scenarios to be equal. I don’t expect any organization to stand in front of a microphone and think out loud. Your GM is your GM until he is not. It’s binary. I expect nothing less from any team.

I have a hard time fitting this scenario into that paradigm.

My bad. I've tried again, above, with a better argument 

[thewookie1]

Biron on NHL Network Radio said that while he still expects Eichel to be a Sabre by opening day that if traded; Byfield would be a must in a LAK trade. Kouleas added he doubts the Sabres will even entertain offers from this time zone due to it mere appearance.

[Ruff Around The Edges]

22 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Biron on NHL Network Radio said that while he still expects Eichel to be a Sabre by opening day that if traded; Byfield would be a must in a LAK trade. Kouleas added he doubts the Sabres will even entertain offers from this time zone due to it mere appearance.

I really think expecting to get Byfield in an Eichel trade plus more is a pipe dream.

Eichel + 10M + injury history does drive down his value a bit. Cap hits are king in the NHL these days. Turcotte and more IMO is a more realistic return.

[Hoss]

58 minutes ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

I really think expecting to get Byfield in an Eichel trade plus more is a pipe dream.

Eichel + 10M + injury history does drive down his value a bit. Cap hits are king in the NHL these days. Turcotte and more IMO is a more realistic return.

In an ideal world the Kings will basically have the choice of Byfield + a little more or Turcotte + a LOT more. Whatever they prefer. They have the pieces to satisfy us in either scenario.

[LabattBlue]

8 hours ago, nfreeman said:

This, this, a thousand times this!

We can all stamp our feet and demand a king's ransom for Eichel -- but I don't think anyone is going to deliver that without seeing him play NHL games at a high level, which isn't going to happen by trading season.  So we are going to get less, perhaps much less, than we want.

 

OK, but the Kings aren't going to give up Byfield, the Rangers aren't going to give up Lafreniere and other teams aren't going to give up their crown jewels for a guy with this much injury uncertainty.

I said something similar upthread.  Unfortunately, some think they are trading 2019-2020 Jack...not broken Jack. 

[Hoss]

3 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I said something similar upthread.  Unfortunately, some think they are trading 2019-2020 Jack...not broken Jack. 

I don’t remember who noted it but we don’t know that Jack is broken. Teams will get a chance to review the medicals here and will each got an opportunity to make a measured decision about where they value him. It’s hard to speculate without really knowing what’s in that review but there’s a good chance some teams will pass and others will not.

[thewookie1]

14 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I said something similar upthread.  Unfortunately, some think they are trading 2019-2020 Jack...not broken Jack. 

I think that's a bit inaccurate; I highly doubt the Sabres would deal him from an extremely weak position regardless the situation.

[Huckleberry]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

I think that's a bit inaccurate; I highly doubt the Sabres would deal him from an extremely weak position regardless the situation.

Same, have him play few games next year and trade him then if you still want.

To be honest I don't want to trade Jack, but if he doesn't want to be with this team anymore no point in keeping him around.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

I don’t remember who noted it but we don’t know that Jack is broken. Teams will get a chance to review the medicals here and will each got an opportunity to make a measured decision about where they value him. It’s hard to speculate without really knowing what’s in that review but there’s a good chance some teams will pass and others will not.

This is it. Teams will make offers (or not) based on the medical report. The Sabres respond based on the offers. We will see what happens.

[French Collection]

Don’t overvalue Byfield folks, he’s a 2nd overall pick with lots of potential but he has not proven anything yet.

Turcotte outscored him in the AHL this season. By only one point but….

I’ve seen him play a lot and he was a driver of play in the OHL. In two World Juniors he looked pedestrian other than one big game (6 points). 20 points in 32 AHL games and 1 point in 6 NHL games is not how “franchise” players break in. I like him and think he will be fine, just not a superstar. A lot of people are drawn to his size which is happening with Power.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Don’t overvalue Byfield folks, he’s a 2nd overall pick with lots of potential but he has not proven anything yet.

Turcotte outscored him in the AHL this season. By only one point but….

I’ve seen him play a lot and he was a driver of play in the OHL. In two World Juniors he looked pedestrian other than one big game (6 points). 20 points in 32 AHL games and 1 point in 6 NHL games is not how “franchise” players break in. I like him and think he will be fine, just not a superstar. A lot of people are drawn to his size which is happening with Power.

Quinton Byfield is 18. He won't be 19 until August 19th. 

Turcotte is 18 months older. 

Considering his age, his AHL production is impressive. 

[Hoss]

39 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is it. Teams will make offers (or not) based on the medical report. The Sabres respond based on the offers. We will see what happens.

*hand twitches over holstered gun as tumbleweed rolls between last place and the other 31 teams above us in the standings and western music plays*

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Quinton Byfield is 18. He won't be 19 until August 19th. 

Turcotte is 18 months older. 

Considering his age, his AHL production is impressive. 

Always appreciate this perspective

[LabattBlue]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

I think that's a bit inaccurate; I highly doubt the Sabres would deal him from an extremely weak position regardless the situation.

I’m not referring to what the Sabres will or won’t do, I’m referring to what some posters think Eichel would return in a trade this summer. 

[LabattBlue]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Same, have him play few games next year and trade him then if you still want.

To be honest I don't want to trade Jack, but if he doesn't want to be with this team anymore no point in keeping him around.

Trading him in-season is unlikely to happen...or will severely limit the number of teams who can fit $10mil cap hit once rosters get finalized as the season draws close.