Kevyn Adams has botched the Eichel situation horribly

[Doohickie]

48 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

But it's fair to say that the team was like "you know what? screw it. we don't want to wait. we're not his hostage."

That says better what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

I'm going to say this:  The "Eichel situation" is not the most important factor in this team's future success (or lack thereof).

 

[dudacek]

Vogl with a thought-provoking opinion piece on why even though the Sabres are within their contractual rights, they are ethically wrong in denying a human being the choice over what to do with his body and his health.

https://theathletic.com/2845419/2021/09/23/vogl-jack-eichel-should-be-allowed-to-live-the-life-he-wants-not-the-life-the-sabres-want-for-him/
 

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Vogl with a thought-provoking opinion piece on why even though the Sabres are within their contractual rights, they are ethically wrong in denying a human being the choice over what to do with his body and his health.

https://theathletic.com/2845419/2021/09/23/vogl-jack-eichel-should-be-allowed-to-live-the-life-he-wants-not-the-life-the-sabres-want-for-him/
 

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. 

[thewookie1]

2 minutes 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. 

100% this.

 

I lost a lot of respect for him over this article; he does the age old annoying thing of yelling about moral platitudes and demonizing the other party while ignoring anything contrary to his emotional response to the surface level appearance.

The Sabres don't have a gun to his head nor have reps at every hospital to prevent him from getting a surgery. He can get the surgery at any time but he'd be suspended without pay more than likely until either he works out a deal with the Sabres and/or the NHLPA to solve the problem amicably. 

[sabremike]

27 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

100% this.

 

I lost a lot of respect for him over this article; he does the age old annoying thing of yelling about moral platitudes and demonizing the other party while ignoring anything contrary to his emotional response to the surface level appearance.

The Sabres don't have a gun to his head nor have reps at every hospital to prevent him from getting a surgery. He can get the surgery at any time but he'd be suspended without pay more than likely until either he works out a deal with the Sabres and/or the NHLPA to solve the problem amicably. 

Remember how he was one of the media guys who helped run ROR out of town on a rail because "Vortex of sadness"?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[dudacek]

1 hour 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. 

Respectfully as well, thought-provoking meant exactly that: raising questions worthy of debate.

The question being raised for me was whether or not the Sabres degree of risk in this situation morally justifies the action of denying an individual the right to make an informed decision about a life-altering health issue.

Your second paragraph is a red herring. Or do you actually think the Sabres would let Jack have the surgery if he released them from the contract? I bet Jack would void the contract and take the surgery if he could.

Aren’t the Sabres also trying to have their cake (medical control) and eat it too (full value trade return)? They certainly have the contractual right to do that, but should they be exercising it?

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by dudacek

[Hoss]

48 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Respectfully as well, thought-provoking meant exactly that: raising questions worthy of debate.

The question being raised for me was whether or not the Sabres degree of risk in this situation morally justifies the action of denying an individual the right to make an informed decision about a life-altering health issue.

Your second paragraph is a red herring. Or do you actually think the Sabres would let Jack have the surgery if he released them from the contract? I bet Jack would void the contract and take the surgery if he could.

Aren’t the Sabres also trying to have their cake (medical control) and eat it too (full value trade return)? They certainly have the contractual right to do that, but should they be exercising it?

 

I agree with your view of the article. It's thought-provoking and something that has been discussed pretty extensively among OTHER fanbases that I've seen (but not so much this one, or at least here). This is something that's going to impact his life likely forever so it's at worst morally questionable to deny it (freeman says it's not medically advised which isn't accurate, it's just not advised by the Sabres doctors).

I do believe the Sabres should be negotiating a way to get Jack the surgery he desires. They should demand a modification to the NMC and maybe get some language in there as to what happens should the surgery go wrong.

I don't believe the bold is accurate for a second, though. That's far too much risk for Jack.

[drnkirishone]

I can understand the arguement for allowing him to get the surgery he wants. It sits in the same ballpark as some of the horror stories of insurance companies letting people suffer and or die instead of approving procedures.

It just rings hollow to my ears that John boy is the victim here.

Also I am reminded of when the sabres would not approve patty to return to hockey. How many games did he last with the rangers after insisting he was fine?

[dudacek]

50 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I agree with your view of the article. It's thought-provoking and something that has been discussed pretty extensively among OTHER fanbases that I've seen (but not so much this one, or at least here). This is something that's going to impact his life likely forever so it's at worst morally questionable to deny it (freeman says it's not medically advised which isn't accurate, it's just not advised by the Sabres doctors).

I do believe the Sabres should be negotiating a way to get Jack the surgery he desires. They should demand a modification to the NMC and maybe get some language in there as to what happens should the surgery go wrong.

I don't believe the bold is accurate for a second, though. That's far too much risk for Jack.

Jack has more than enough money to walk away from a situation that is making his life miserable if he wants to.

It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’s a choice I might make if I had the opportunity and was in his shoes.

Its really about how much faith he has in ADR and how adamant he is against fusion.

I’m curious about how many teams are open to ADR and if the league is opposed to it.

[dudacek]

26 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

I can understand the arguement for allowing him to get the surgery he wants. It sits in the same ballpark as some of the horror stories of insurance companies letting people suffer and or die instead of approving procedures.

It just rings hollow to my ears that John boy is the victim here.

Also I am reminded of when the sabres would not approve patty to return to hockey. How many games did he last with the rangers after insisting he was fine?

I’ve been thinking of that too.

The Sabres and Patty disagreed on the medical course of action. Instead of forcing him to adhere to his contract and their diagnosis, the Sabres traded him for well below expected market value to a team who was willing to let Patty play.

Player got what he wanted, Sabres got better in spite of that.

Edited September 24, 2021 by dudacek

[Hoss]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Jack has more than enough money to walk away from a situation that is making his life miserable if he wants to.

It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’s a choice I might make if I had the opportunity and was in his shoes.

Its really about how much faith he has in ADR and how adamant he is against fusion.

I’m curious about how many teams are open to ADR and if the league is opposed to it.

My guess is the financial cost to doing so would be far more than just the $50M he's giving up. I think the Sabres would likely sue the ***** out of him.

I think we've heard Minnesota (and maybe Anaheim?) are willing to have him do the ADR.

[COSabreFan]

8 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. 

Jack would love for Sabres to void his contract, Sabres won’t do it getting nothing for him.  In fact I think this is one way this ends, Jack just has his surgery anyway and dares Sabres to do something.   
 

Sabres may have short term leverage, and have the NHL CBA on their side.   Yet, it only gets worse for them in terms of trade return and lasting damage to team as a franchise long term.

If they had just let him have his surgery in April it would have either worked and he is back or traded.  If it didn’t work he would just now be having the fusion surgery the Sabres wanted and on his way back and tradable.  He is literally nothing to the Sabres now and for foreseeable future, that is horrible for the Sabres as a team now and in the future.

But yeah, at least he showed them right?  Held the line!  Classic case of wanting to be right, instead of getting it right.

Edited September 24, 2021 by COSabreFan

[nfreeman]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Respectfully as well, thought-provoking meant exactly that: raising questions worthy of debate.

The question being raised for me was whether or not the Sabres degree of risk in this situation morally justifies the action of denying an individual the right to make an informed decision about a life-altering health issue.

Your second paragraph is a red herring. Or do you actually think the Sabres would let Jack have the surgery if he released them from the contract? I bet Jack would void the contract and take the surgery if he could.

Aren’t the Sabres also trying to have their cake (medical control) and eat it too (full value trade return)? They certainly have the contractual right to do that, but should they be exercising it?

 

I agree that the article raised questions worthy of debate.  I do think it was so deeply flawed as to constitute a poor work product though, for the reasons I stated earlier.

Having said that, I do not think Jack would void his contract if the Sabres would agree to do so.  If he were willing to void it, I think we would’ve heard that approach floated as a trial balloon by his agents (although of course this could still happen as time drags on and Jack’s frustration increases).  I think Jack’s approach has been and is that he wants the ADR and he wants the Sabres to bear the risk.

For that matter, I don’t see why the Sabres would, or should, agree to void the contract ahead of time.  I think they would be entirely in the right, if Jack has the ADR without their permission, to void the contract if it doesn’t work or, if it does work, to retain his rights and then trade him for full value.

Bottom line is that if Jack wants this operation, he should be the one bearing the risk, not the Sabres.

 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

Vogl with a thought-provoking opinion piece on why even though the Sabres are within their contractual rights, they are ethically wrong in denying a human being the choice over what to do with his body and his health.

https://theathletic.com/2845419/2021/09/23/vogl-jack-eichel-should-be-allowed-to-live-the-life-he-wants-not-the-life-the-sabres-want-for-him/
 

And Vogl would be wrong here. Jack is free to get any surgery he wants. All he has to do risk the remainder of his contract. The Sabres are not obligated to guarantee Jack's future earnings. Furthermore, the last thing the NHL needs is one of it's own ignoring the CBA because once they do it, precedent is set and it obliterates that clause for every team.

[Archie Lee]

I think that hockey “journalists” have done a poor job of covering this story. Two items in particular:

 

1). I know that the Sabres’ medical team opposes ADR. I know that Eichel has seen a neurosurgeon who prefers and recommends ADR. Presumably there is some level of split in the field of neurosurgery on this. What Is the split?  Is it 50/50?  60/40?  90/10?  Why has no journalist taken the time to speak to 10-20 experts in the field to try and get a sense of what the general expert opinion is on ADR for an individual who fits Eichel’s profile? 
 

2). I know that the CBA gives NHL teams final authority on treatment for their players. I also know that player contracts are often insured. What I don’t know is, what are the potential consequences of Eichel just having the surgery he wants without Sabre approval?  Can the Sabres void the contract?  If they can, when would they have to do that?  Could they wait for a definitive outcome or would there be some sort of deadline to void the contract?  What are the likely insurance implications?

I’ve read a lot of speculation on these things but not much in the way of facts. Without answers to these and other questions I don’t know how any outside observer can have a definitive opinion on who is in the right here. 

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

Vogl with a thought-provoking opinion piece on why even though the Sabres are within their contractual rights, they are ethically wrong in denying a human being the choice over what to do with his body and his health.

https://theathletic.com/2845419/2021/09/23/vogl-jack-eichel-should-be-allowed-to-live-the-life-he-wants-not-the-life-the-sabres-want-for-him/
 

 

9 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. 

Well hell is freezing over because I am agreeing with Nfreeman here. 

The Vogl piece is some of the worst writing I have seen on the Athletic and after reading that, I lost a little respect for Vogl. I usually enjoy reading John and hearing his thoughts. His pieces tend to have some decent research behind them but this was one sided trash. He explains in detail why the fusion is bad for Jack but mentions ALMOST NOTHING about the concerns with disc replacement. The headline is some amazing bs spewed out and it leads into my next thought. 

 

This fanbase and its media have completely lost the plot and their minds. The last 24 hours have been what amounts to a fanbase throwing a temper tantrum. Blinded by the desire to vilify the Sabres for everything and anything, it has been a logically voided attack on the franchise with almost no regards for the facts or the consequences. Multiple doctors have said get the fusion and if Jack had gotten the fusion he would be 3 months into recovery right now. There is no way an insurance company is going to pay out if Eichel gets some random non team approved surgery or if he gets hit and because of that the artificial disc has an issue. There are 50million dollars at on the line for both the team and the player. If it were 10, this would be over and Jack could have stopped throwing his fit and gotten whatever he wanted. On top of that Jack trying to flame out of Buffalo all Sabre with his agent dumping gas all over the fire hurt even more. Yet I am supposed to sit here and be mad at Kevyn Adams for not trading Jack Eichel for whatever ***** offer the NYR have or allowing Jack to get a surgery that could end his playing career. 

Further I think we are seeing some weight from his new agent being placed on media sources. Hey you want access to my clients in the future, play ball and side with Eichel. Do I wish Adams had traded Jack for the best offer at the draft, yes. But only if that offer was good and clearly from the rumors rolling around a teams 4th best prospect, 2nd line young player, and a cap dump isn't good enough. 

I hope Adams refuses to trade him at this point. Sit and do nothing Jack because you torpedoed your trade prospects this summer by mouthing off through your agent. If your agent went rogue, good thing you fired them. All in all though Adams might be responsible for not pulling the trigger but Eichel is the one who tried to load the gun with blanks. You cave on the Eichel trade and this league will eat you alive from here on out. Adams has one option, stick to his guns. Eichel has multiple options and all summer he chose poorly. 

You know the best part of this all? If Kevyn Adams listens to the mob and just trades Eichel so he can go have his surgery and the return isn't great, that same mob will descend upon the interwebs to say what a crap GM he is and how he should have waited. This is truly a Kobayashi Maru moment. 

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

Jack has more than enough money to walk away from a situation that is making his life miserable if he wants to.

It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’s a choice I might make if I had the opportunity and was in his shoes.

Its really about how much faith he has in ADR and how adamant he is against fusion.

I’m curious about how many teams are open to ADR and if the league is opposed to it.

You ask a very penetrating question regarding how many teams are open to the ADR procedure? What if the answer is not many, at least to the extent that they would be willing to give up substantial assets until the results are known? 

Jack can get the ADR procedure but it will be at the expense of invalidating his contract. So far he hasn't been willing to take that course of action. When one looks at this situation it is not too difficult to understand the stances of each side. The problem for Jack is because of the CBA the contract favors the organization's side. 

I do believe there can be a resolution in this stalled situation. In order for there to be movement he will have to modify the contract where he will be assuming the financial risk if the end result doesn't work out. So far he hasn't been willing to do that. 

[PromoTheRobot]

45 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Well hell is freezing over because I am agreeing with Nfreeman here. 

The Vogl piece is some of the worst writing I have seen on the Athletic and after reading that, I lost a little respect for Vogl. I usually enjoy reading John and hearing his thoughts. His pieces tend to have some decent research behind them but this was one sided trash. He explains in detail why the fusion is bad for Jack but mentions ALMOST NOTHING about the concerns with disc replacement. The headline is some amazing bs spewed out and it leads into my next thought. 

 

This fanbase and its media have completely lost the plot and their minds. The last 24 hours have been what amounts to a fanbase throwing a temper tantrum. Blinded by the desire to vilify the Sabres for everything and anything, it has been a logically voided attack on the franchise with almost no regards for the facts or the consequences. Multiple doctors have said get the fusion and if Jack had gotten the fusion he would be 3 months into recovery right now. There is no way an insurance company is going to pay out if Eichel gets some random non team approved surgery or if he gets hit and because of that the artificial disc has an issue. There are 50million dollars at on the line for both the team and the player. If it were 10, this would be over and Jack could have stopped throwing his fit and gotten whatever he wanted. On top of that Jack trying to flame out of Buffalo all Sabre with his agent dumping gas all over the fire hurt even more. Yet I am supposed to sit here and be mad at Kevyn Adams for not trading Jack Eichel for whatever ***** offer the NYR have or allowing Jack to get a surgery that could end his playing career. 

Further I think we are seeing some weight from his new agent being placed on media sources. Hey you want access to my clients in the future, play ball and side with Eichel. Do I wish Adams had traded Jack for the best offer at the draft, yes. But only if that offer was good and clearly from the rumors rolling around a teams 4th best prospect, 2nd line young player, and a cap dump isn't good enough. 

I hope Adams refuses to trade him at this point. Sit and do nothing Jack because you torpedoed your trade prospects this summer by mouthing off through your agent. If your agent went rogue, good thing you fired them. All in all though Adams might be responsible for not pulling the trigger but Eichel is the one who tried to load the gun with blanks. You cave on the Eichel trade and this league will eat you alive from here on out. Adams has one option, stick to his guns. Eichel has multiple options and all summer he chose poorly. 

You know the best part of this all? If Kevyn Adams listens to the mob and just trades Eichel so he can go have his surgery and the return isn't great, that same mob will descend upon the interwebs to say what a crap GM he is and how he should have waited. This is truly a Kobayashi Maru moment. 

[Georgia Blizzard]

2 hours ago, COSabreFan said:

Jack would love for Sabres to void his contract, Sabres won’t do it getting nothing for him.  In fact I think this is one way this ends, Jack just has his surgery anyway and dares Sabres to do something.   
 

Sabres may have short term leverage, and have the NHL CBA on their side.   Yet, it only gets worse for them in terms of trade return and lasting damage to team as a franchise long term.

If they had just let him have his surgery in April it would have either worked and he is back or traded.  If it didn’t work he would just now be having the fusion surgery the Sabres wanted and on his way back and tradable.  He is literally nothing to the Sabres now and for foreseeable future, that is horrible for the Sabres as a team now and in the future.

But yeah, at least he showed them right?  Held the line!  Classic case of wanting to be right, instead of getting it right.

 

Agree.  If I were Eichel and I wanted to get leverage and I had the confidence he claims in this procedure, I would be running to have the surgery and putting the pressure back on the Sabres.  There is NO WAY under that scenario that the Sabres void his contract. (Unless someone tells me if they void his contract he remains under Sabres control, anyone know this answer ?)

As for GMKA, those folks that are bitching about him not making a deal will be the first people to bitch about the deal he does make.  The guy is in a no win situation.  The one truth, over the short term it really doesn't matter to the Sabres if they make a deal, the bottom line, they are going to stink this year and Eichel's salary keeps them above the salary floor, so, what's the harm.  To me, under this scenario, Eichel is more harmed by not being able to address his injury and play again, which reverts me back to my first point.

 

 

 

[Trettioåtta]

55 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I think that hockey “journalists” have done a poor job of covering this story. Two items in particular:

 

1). I know that the Sabres’ medical team opposes ADR. I know that Eichel has seen a neurosurgeon who prefers and recommends ADR. Presumably there is some level of split in the field of neurosurgery on this. What Is the split?  Is it 50/50?  60/40?  90/10?  Why has no journalist taken the time to speak to 10-20 experts in the field to try and get a sense of what the general expert opinion is on ADR for an individual who fits Eichel’s profile? 
 

2). I know that the CBA gives NHL teams final authority on treatment for their players. I also know that player contracts are often insured. What I don’t know is, what are the potential consequences of Eichel just having the surgery he wants without Sabre approval?  Can the Sabres void the contract?  If they can, when would they have to do that?  Could they wait for a definitive outcome or would there be some sort of deadline to void the contract?  What are the likely insurance implications?

I’ve read a lot of speculation on these things but not much in the way of facts. Without answers to these and other questions I don’t know how any outside observer can have a definitive opinion on who is in the right here. 

As for part two, they could suspend him without pay for breach of contract. Therefore they would not be on the hook to pay Jack, and Jack would not be able to sign with another team. This is the same logic that stops players refusing to report to terminate their contract and sign with a new team. Should they do this, they could then unsuspend him when he passed a medical - however, I don't know what would happen if Jack then got paralysed from the ADR slipping whilst making a hockey play. Perhaps the Sabres could refuse to pay the rest of the contract? Voiding the contract would require full negotiation of a new contract I believe.

Technicalities aside the point is clear - if Eichel gets the surgery without Sabres' approval, he is no longer guaranteed the $50 million he is owed. Which is why he hasn't done it.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

I agree that the article raised questions worthy of debate.  I do think it was so deeply flawed as to constitute a poor work product though, for the reasons I stated earlier.

Having said that, I do not think Jack would void his contract if the Sabres would agree to do so.  If he were willing to void it, I think we would’ve heard that approach floated as a trial balloon by his agents (although of course this could still happen as time drags on and Jack’s frustration increases).  I think Jack’s approach has been and is that he wants the ADR and he wants the Sabres to bear the risk.

For that matter, I don’t see why the Sabres would, or should, agree to void the contract ahead of time.  I think they would be entirely in the right, if Jack has the ADR without their permission, to void the contract if it doesn’t work or, if it does work, to retain his rights and then trade him for full value.

Bottom line is that if Jack wants this operation, he should be the one bearing the risk, not the Sabres.

 

 

Some good stuff in this thread recently. The bolded seems to be the most logical compromise to this prisoner's dilemma.

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Well hell is freezing over because I am agreeing with Nfreeman here. 

The Vogl piece is some of the worst writing I have seen on the Athletic and after reading that, I lost a little respect for Vogl. I usually enjoy reading John and hearing his thoughts. His pieces tend to have some decent research behind them but this was one sided trash. He explains in detail why the fusion is bad for Jack but mentions ALMOST NOTHING about the concerns with disc replacement. The headline is some amazing bs spewed out and it leads into my next thought. 

 

This fanbase and its media have completely lost the plot and their minds. The last 24 hours have been what amounts to a fanbase throwing a temper tantrum. Blinded by the desire to vilify the Sabres for everything and anything, it has been a logically voided attack on the franchise with almost no regards for the facts or the consequences. Multiple doctors have said get the fusion and if Jack had gotten the fusion he would be 3 months into recovery right now. There is no way an insurance company is going to pay out if Eichel gets some random non team approved surgery or if he gets hit and because of that the artificial disc has an issue. There are 50million dollars at on the line for both the team and the player. If it were 10, this would be over and Jack could have stopped throwing his fit and gotten whatever he wanted. On top of that Jack trying to flame out of Buffalo all Sabre with his agent dumping gas all over the fire hurt even more. Yet I am supposed to sit here and be mad at Kevyn Adams for not trading Jack Eichel for whatever ***** offer the NYR have or allowing Jack to get a surgery that could end his playing career. 

Further I think we are seeing some weight from his new agent being placed on media sources. Hey you want access to my clients in the future, play ball and side with Eichel. Do I wish Adams had traded Jack for the best offer at the draft, yes. But only if that offer was good and clearly from the rumors rolling around a teams 4th best prospect, 2nd line young player, and a cap dump isn't good enough. 

I hope Adams refuses to trade him at this point. Sit and do nothing Jack because you torpedoed your trade prospects this summer by mouthing off through your agent. If your agent went rogue, good thing you fired them. All in all though Adams might be responsible for not pulling the trigger but Eichel is the one who tried to load the gun with blanks. You cave on the Eichel trade and this league will eat you alive from here on out. Adams has one option, stick to his guns. Eichel has multiple options and all summer he chose poorly. 

You know the best part of this all? If Kevyn Adams listens to the mob and just trades Eichel so he can go have his surgery and the return isn't great, that same mob will descend upon the interwebs to say what a crap GM he is and how he should have waited. This is truly a Kobayashi Maru moment. 

@LGR4GMI mostly enjoy what you bring to this place, but you've got this tendency to make these grand sweeping proclamations apropos of god knows what.

There have been hundreds of posts about this situation on Sabrespace, I'd be surprised if there are a dozen that come close to approximating blind, logically void temper tantrums. Unless you feel that anyone who disagrees with your position on Eichel/Adams is, by definition, throwing a tantrum?

This thread you just bombed has more posts defending Adams than it does criticizing him, and by a clear margin. And the vast majority on either side are of the nature of "I disagree with you man, and here's why"

Edited September 24, 2021 by dudacek

[Flashsabre]

The fact that the NHL, NHLPA, Sabres and Jack’s camp all got together and had a meeting and nothing was resolved tells me this lies at Jack’s feet.  The NHLPA would be very loud in their defence of Jack if they felt the Sabres were railroading him here.

[LGR4GM]

59 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Some good stuff in this thread recently. The bolded seems to be the most logical compromise to this prisoner's dilemma.

@LGR4GMI mostly enjoy what you bring to this place, but you've got this tendency to make these grand sweeping proclamations apropos of god knows what.

There have been hundreds of posts about this situation on Sabrespace, I'd be surprised if there are a dozen that come close to approximating blind, logically void temper tantrums. Unless you feel that anyone who disagrees with your position on Eichel/Adams is, by definition, throwing a tantrum?

This thread you just bombed has more posts defending Adams than it does criticizing him, and by a clear margin. And the vast majority on either side are of the nature of "I disagree with you man, and here's why"

You know there are other sources of Sabres fandom outside this forum correct? Maybe it wasn't directed at ppl here specifically but at the fanbase at large which if you read twitter, the vogl article, the vogl articles comments, etc... there is a clear thrashing about by a large majority of the fanbase. WGR yesterday was a tire fire. 

No idea what the bolded is about. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by LGR4GM
spelling

[COSabreFan]

25 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

As for part two, they could suspend him without pay for breach of contract. Therefore they would not be on the hook to pay Jack, and Jack would not be able to sign with another team. This is the same logic that stops players refusing to report to terminate their contract and sign with a new team. Should they do this, they could then unsuspend him when he passed a medical - however, I don't know what would happen if Jack then got paralysed from the ADR slipping whilst making a hockey play. Perhaps the Sabres could refuse to pay the rest of the contract? Voiding the contract would require full negotiation of a new contract I believe.

Technicalities aside the point is clear - if Eichel gets the surgery without Sabres' approval, he is no longer guaranteed the $50 million he is owed. Which is why he hasn't done it.

They won’t terminate his contract if he just goes had has his surgery, he then is no longer an asset to them.  Jack has already made over 50 million, if he has been smart with his money he could let Sabres suspend him without pay.  Even if it was for a year my guess Jack would be just fine financially and the Sabres as a franchise would be tanked for years.  No player would ever sign here unless the had to, and none of our good players would ever sign a contract extension here.  It would be irresponsible to the franchise in the long term, and that’s what KA job is right?
 

If I were Jack I would just go have surgery and put it back on Sabres, and hope to be ready for the Olympics.  If I was KA I would have either let him have it right away or held the line till trading deadline.  If all I got was bag of pucks offers I would let him have his surgery and work tirelessly to restore as much of his value as possible to trade him.  That’s what’s best for the Sabres in short and long term.

Edited September 24, 2021 by COSabreFan

[PromoTheRobot]