Jack Eichel and 2023 3rd Traded to Vegas for F Alex Tuch, C Peyton Krebs, 2022 1st Top Ten Protected and 2023 2nd

[Cheektorado]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Why? The team is at 61.5 according to capfriendly without the ghost of Boychuk.  It better be a decent draft pick.

Spotrac has it at 60.3 right at the floor.  All these secondary sites are not always "exact".

[Standing Room Smoking Cigs]

 Boychuk - This is all about moving more players this year, if you're a veteran I have no doubt that GMKA has talked about the possible movement of you from the Sabres by the deadline. The Sabres were cap floor compliant this morning after the trade. When Tuch comes off IR his cap number is already spoken for... this deal means more Sabres are in play as the season goes... This is literally giving the keys to the kids... I was kid in the Sabres first year, my parents had season tickets. Donnie Marshall, Phil  Goyette, Floyd Smith and Roger Crozier were in the lineup...  the Sabres are better off if they can hit on some these prospects... Granted no Perreault, but if this works the Sabres with all the young talent should compete for years or not

Edited November 4, 2021 by Standing Room Smoking Cigs

[LabattBlue]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I read it as we are giving THEM the future considerations, no?

Arent we helping them out, or am I mot understanding what is going on here?

[Doohickie]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Dude. pick any player you want - you are ignoring the substance of my argument willfully. my point is that, "not retaining" is definitely not an unmatchable asset in a hypothetical trade. my point is MERELY that, assuredly there's something someone could offer you, The Ghost of Yuri, that would make you retain, correct?

Or is there literally no asset league wide that would make you retain. Actually asking. If there's literally no asset that would have you consider retention, I withdraw my argument. 

I think you're the one who's ignoring willfully.  I said, "He doesn't want singular assets, he's building depth.  So what is salary retention going to get him?"  Retaining salary to get a current player of any significance doesn't make financial sense considering the paydays coming for the young talent over the next 5 years.  So what's he going to get then?  Another lottery ticket?  For $10 million?  It's just not worth it.

I do understand your point about hearing out the other side, even with retention involved, then if the overall package is attractive enough, try to negotiate the retention part down, hopefully to nothing.  But I also see the value in not even listening to an offer that involves retention if retention is truly not on the table. 

I want to buy a car.  A Kia Soul fits my budget and my needs.  Do I want to waste my time listening to a salesman expound the benefits of a Telluride?

Part of your arguments in this thread is the implication that the only reasonable take is the one you're proposing.  There are multiple reasonable takes.  And just because I disagree with you, does not mean I'm being unreasonable.  But you seem to think it does.

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, Standing Room Smoking Cigs said:

 Boychuk - This is all about moving more players this year, if you're a veteran I have no doubt that GMKA has talked about the possible movement of you from the Sabres by the deadline. The Sabres were cap floor compliant this morning after the trade. When Tuch comes off IR his cap number is already spoken for... this deal means more Sabrs are in play as the season goes... This is literally giving the keys to the kids...

Yea, they will probably trade 1 if not 2 defenders and 2 forwards at the deadline if they can. 

Another reason not to retain on Eichel. You can only retain on I think 3 guys so this leaves all that open for the trade deadline. You want Butcher, sure we can retain 50% for that 2nd round pick. Or something like that. 

[Thorny]

Just now, LabattBlue said:

Arent we helping them out, or am I mot understanding what is going on here?

I'm not sure, aren't they already getting cap relief from him? 

Honestly I just find the wording curious. It says we got Johnny "for" future considerations. I read that as, we gave those up to get the player

[Cheektorado]

1 minute ago, Standing Room Smoking Cigs said:

 Boychuk - This is all about moving more players this year, if you're a veteran I have no doubt that GMKA has talked about the possible movement of you from the Sabres by the deadline. The Sabres were cap floor compliant this morning after the trade. When Tuch comes off IR his cap number is already spoken for... this deal means more Sabrs are in play as the season goes... This is literally giving the keys to the kids...

Agree but I wouldn't totally remove a chance for the right type of player that fits the future being acquired since they have the room.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

I think you're the one who's ignoring willfully.  I said, "He doesn't want singular assets, he's building depth.  So what is salary retention going to get him?"  Retaining salary to get a current player of any significance doesn't make financial sense considering the paydays coming for the young talent over the next 5 years.  So what's he going to get then?  Another lottery ticket?  For $10 million?  It's just not worth it.

I do understand your point about hearing out the other side, even with retention involved, then if the overall package is attractive enough, try to negotiate the retention part down, hopefully to nothing.  But I also see the value in not even listening to an offer that involves retention if retention is truly not on the table. 

I want to buy a car.  A Kia Soul fits my budget and my needs.  Do I want to waste my time listening to a salesman expound the benefits of a Telluride?

Part of your arguments in this thread is the implication that the only reasonable take is the one you're proposing.  There are multiple reasonable takes.  And just because I disagree with you, does not mean I'm being unreasonable.  But you seem to think it does.

Bolded is BS. Moving on..

As for the first bit, you jumped into a discussion I was having with someone else, about whether retention could hypothetically be worth it. You are having a discussion I am not having, that's why there's a struggle here

[Doohickie]

32 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Future considerations??  It better be at least a 3rd round pick.  Why help them with a guy who has no chance of playing. 

It helps us.  Someone upthread said that somehow the Sabres were at the cap floor after the trade.  I didn't look at the numbers but that didn't seem right at the time.  Apparently it wasn't.  Without taking the salary of a retired player, the Sabres were below the floor.  They needed a cap dump to make it to the floor and didn't want to take on another active player.

EDIT:  According to Capfriendly, the Sabres cap hit minus Krebs is $60,211,942.  The salary floor is $60,200,000.  So without Boychuck they're still above the floor, but if they send down/waive someone else to make room for Mitts or Joki, they would drop below the floor.  That's probably what they're worried about.

Edited November 4, 2021 by The Ghost of Yuri

[Sabel79]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure, aren't they already getting cap relief from him? 

Honestly I just find the wording curious. It says we got Johnny "for" future considerations. I read that as, we gave those up to get the player

As they are future considerations, nothing has been given up yet.  Nothing may be given up (and likely the high end would probably be a literal bag of pucks) ever, but there has to be at least a nominal amount of consideration on either side, so there you go.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

9 minutes ago, Cheektorado said:

Spotrac has it at 60.3 right at the floor.  All these secondary sites are not always "exact".

Regardless we still don’t need the contract

[Thorny]

@The Ghost of Yuri

my SINGULAR point in the entire discussion was that, hypothetically retention COULD at some point be worth it, because an asset could hypothetically be offered that is worth more than that, if a team gets crazy. The KEY piece in the Eichel deal got added late, which supports the argument that deals can change a lot, later in the process.

therefore, ruling out retention full stop doesn't make sense to me, if it was me, I'd like to at least hear what other teams would offer for me doing that. If you disagree that listening is worth it, and you are ok with "full stop" outruling retention, should that be what happened, then we disagree. 

And that's fine. 

[K-9]

Just now, The Ghost of Yuri said:

I think you're the one who's ignoring willfully.  I said, "He doesn't want singular assets, he's building depth.  So what is salary retention going to get him?"  Retaining salary to get a current player of any significance doesn't make financial sense considering the paydays coming for the young talent over the next 5 years.  So what's he going to get then?  Another lottery ticket?  For $10 million?  It's just not worth it.

I do understand your point about hearing out the other side, even with retention involved, then if the overall package is attractive enough, try to negotiate the retention part down, hopefully to nothing.  But I also see the value in not even listening to an offer that involves retention if retention is truly not on the table. 

I want to buy a car.  A Kia Soul fits my budget and my needs.  Do I want to waste my time listening to a salesman expound the benefits of a Telluride?

Part of your arguments in this thread is the implication that the only reasonable take is the one you're proposing.  There are multiple reasonable takes.  And just because I disagree with you, does not mean I'm being unreasonable.  But you seem to think it does.

Can you imagine the outrage in a couple years when, in a playoff spot and approaching the trade deadline or needing that piece in free agency that we think might put us over the top to contend or having to extend several young players who have panned out and KA can’t pull the trigger on a deal because he is hamstrung by cap retention dollars for a player no longer in the organization? 
 

Given the commitment to the rebuild and the willingness to commit to the futures already here, it makes perfect sense why salary retention was a non starter. 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

As they are future considerations, nothing has been given up yet.  Nothing may be given up (and likely the high end would probably be a literal bag of pucks) ever, but there has to be at least a nominal amount of consideration on either side, so there you go.  

just curious as to what side that would be, that would be giving up those considerations in said future 

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

@The Ghost of Yuri

my SINGULAR point in the entire discussion was that, hypothetically retention COULD at some point be worth it, because an asset could hypothetically be offered that is worth more than that, if a team gets crazy. The KEY piece in the Eichel deal got added late, which supports the argument that deals can change a lot, later in the process.

therefore, ruling out retention full stop doesn't make sense to me, if it was me, I'd like to at least hear what other teams would offer for me doing that. If you disagree that listening is worth it, and you are ok with "full stop" outruling retention, should that be what happened, then we disagree. 

And that's fine. 

You also forget that you can only retain on I think 3 players. If Eichel is retained for 5 years that cut your ability to retain in a trade later. 

[SDS]

35 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I understand we can't be "sure" but to think retention being a "non-starter" in Adams own words, didn't potentially limit SOME discussion with teams would be stretching believability to the breaking point. He doesn't need to "cut them out completely" for that to be the case. 

I feel the degree of difficulty I'm needing to reach here a little extreme. When the GM says it was a "non-starter" in negotiations, ie, the negotiations didn't start, I think the burden of proof falls on the other side. It would need to be satisfactorily explained why a non-starter WOULDN'T limit options

imo

 particularly when the KEY piece in this trade came at the END of discussions 

He also said it didn’t stop many of these GM’s from submitting their proposals anyway. 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Arent we helping them out, or am I mot understanding what is going on here?

They are helping us

2 minutes ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

It helps us.  Someone upthread said that somehow the Sabres were at the cap floor after the trade.  I didn't look at the numbers but that didn't seem right at the time.  Apparently it wasn't.  Without taking the salary of a retired player, the Sabres were below the floor.  They needed a cap dump to make it to the floor and didn't want to take on another active player.

I don’t know if this is right, but regardless we are close to the floor.

This gives us about $6 million in cushion to move out salary without dropping below the floor at no real cost and it doesn’t hurt us on the other end since we aren’t hitting the ceiling.

Not sure what the benefit is for the Islanders because I haven’t checked, but I imagine it gives them flexibility at the other end and an opportunity accrue cap space.

I doubt the futures will be anything at all, or if they are, it will be negligible.

4 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Regardless we still don’t need the contract

But we might.

[Sabel79]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

just curious as to what side that would be, that would be giving up those considerations in said future 

Sabres.  If considerations are indeed made in the future.  

[LabattBlue]

Guys on NHL on Sirius acting like Eichel will be 100% healthy.  Calling him a 100 point player.  No talk of the potential for him never being the same again.  
 

Full blown Eichel circle jerk. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by LabattBlue

[Cheektorado]

4 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Regardless we still don’t need the contract

I know a lot about NFL contracts and cap situations BUT I admit I do not know the NHL.  I just have to go along with the move as something that the Sabres need to do to not concern themselves with future moves.  I can see that happening when/if they want to bring some more kids up during the year.

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You also forget that you can only retain on I think 3 players. If Eichel is retained for 5 years that cut your ability to retain in a trade later. 

lmao!

I'm not forgetting anything! My argument is not that they should objectively have retained. It is not that they most likely should have retained. It's not that retaining definitely makes sense. Many posts ago I said, "not retaining very well may have been the best route"

• How can I say things like, "not retaining very well may have been the best route", and be told by @The Ghost of Yuriin that very thread that I'm posting as if only my viewpoint is reasonable, when I said I WANTED retention? I literally typed "what I didn't want KA to do may have been the correct way, actually". 
• you are posting "you also forget" as if I don't understand the value of retention, when I have clearly explained that it could very well have been the correct play from Adams

- - - 

purplemonkeydishwasher

^ this is literally as valuable as anything else I post b/c it's not being read anyways. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Thorny

[JoeSchmoe]

I've been working all day and haven't had a chance to follow these threads too closely... But has anyone been posting any future lineups with Krebs, Tuch, JJ, Quinn, and Power?

Holy crap... We have a chance to be good... Maybe real good... and maybe by the end of this year (though I still don't trust the goaltending).

[Doohickie]

10 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Regardless we still don’t need the contract

If they send someone down when Joki/Mitts comes back, they will be below the floor. 

[LabattBlue]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I've been working all day and haven't had a chance to follow these threads too closely... But has anyone been posting any future lineups with Krebs, Tuch, JJ, Quinn, and Power?

Holy crap... We have a chance to be good... Maybe real good... and maybe by the end of this year (though I still don't trust the goaltending).

Lot of “IF’s” have to occur for the Sabres to be really good next season. 

[Thorny]

8 minutes ago, SDS said:

He also said it didn’t stop many of these GM’s from submitting their proposals anyway. 

I wonder if it's believable that some that were ruled out, didn't, though. I wonder if that's possible. Or are we thinking every team that wanted retention assuredly kept submitting updated, negotiated lists up until the end? That Adams might as well have said nothing about "non-starters" to these GMs, for all the good it did?