Kevyn Adams has botched the Eichel situation horribly

[Peter]

19 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Respectfully, the thought that piece provoked in me was “holy mackerel, how can Vogl ignore the $50MM elephant in the room and mischaracterize the issue so badly?”

He utterly failed to mention, let alone discuss, the key issue, which is who bears the $50MM risk of this surgery — which is not medically advised — going wrong?

He also repeatedly, and wrongly, asserted that the Sabres were preventing Eichel from making decisions as to his own medical care.  That is simply false.  Jack can have whatever surgery or acupuncture or leeches treatment he wants tomorrow.  He just can’t do so AND require the Sabres to pay him $50MM.

If Vogl thinks players should have the right to decide on their own medical care and hold the teams to their contracts — I don’t agree, but he’s certainly welcome to his opinion.  It’s not from outer space.  But ignoring the issue — or, even worse, not even recognizing the issue — is very weak sauce editorializing indeed, IMHO. 

You are 100% correct.

So well stated.

[PromoTheRobot]

5 hours ago, K-9 said:

Mike Traikos, author of the hit piece in The National and every other myopic writer on this subject should be made to read this post. There are so many legal and medical complications to this and they need to be respected. But no, instead we get hacks like Traikos who accuse the Sabres of “acting out of spite” in relieving Eichel of his captaincy. Acting out of spite? Is Traikos stuck in 8th grade?

I gotta wonder if Eichel and Co. aren’t seeking out sympathetic “journalists” in their quest to manipulate public perception. They certainly did in the summer with ex-agent Fish. Would Brisson stoop as low?

 

5 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Yes.  Is this even in doubt?

Fish & Co were relieved from their roles for going down that path. But here we are, on that same road again? If so it's out or frustration on Jack's part. They have to keep shaming Adams and the Sabres, even if what they are accusing him of doing isn't true. But I guess getting journalists to do your dirty work is pretty easy. Most reporters rely on agents for scoops. They will gladly do a Pat Brisson a solid for a future exclusive. After all he has a superstar roster of clients. Even Vogl at The Athletic, who I mistakenly thought had some scruples. I was wrong.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Why would it be in a violation if both parties agree to the change?

There are all kinds of league rules that say who's responsible and liable and everything.  Do you know it?  I don't.  I'm just saying, it has stuff in there we don't know.  So when someone says, "Why can't they just change the contract?"  That's easier said than done.  Part of my job involves negotiating contracts.  I'm an engineer, not a program manager, so I don't know all the ins and outs, but let me tell you there's a lot to that fine print.

[Doohickie]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Why would it be in a violation if both parties agree to the change? It's not unusual for a player to waive or modify their NMC or trade clause in the signed contract. So if both parties agree to it then I don't see what the issue is. 

The contract is not between just two parties (the team and the player), it's also between the league and the players association through the CBA.  I'm sure the CBA has provisions in the fine print for waiving NMCs, but that doesn't mean the player and team can do whatever they want if it's not in accordance with the CBA.

[Hoss]

7 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

With 5 years left on his contract his NMC means nothing imo buffalo has all the power  It has shown through this whole process that they will not give in.

 

Buffalo has made it clear they have to move Jack and want to do so. It will resolve before the NMC kicks in but if it gets to that point they do not hold all the power. This is a toxic situation that will absolutely have some impact on the franchise image and morale until it ends.