What we’ve learned from the Jack Eichel conclusion

[Brawndo]

43 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I agree with most of this but not the bolded.

Refusing to take the risk on the ADR was not "holding Jack's health hostage" or "handcuffing the GM."  There was simply no reason for TP to take the risk on the ADR.  LeBrun has reported that only a few teams -- apparently maybe only 3 -- were willing to do so, and those were the teams that were going to acquire Eichel -- i.e. the teams that would get the upside of a healed Eichel in exchange for taking the risk.

If there is any evidence or even hints of evidence in support of the bolded, I'd like to hear it. 

I'd also point out that TP paid Eichel in full despite Eichel's refusal to get the medically recommended procedure -- we never heard any indication that the Sabres were considering suspending him.  That is the opposite of petty.

 

This is just semantics, but I'd call offering only a 1- or 2-year term (and Vogl reported that it was only 1 or 2 years) lowballing him.

The Sabres Offered a 3 year deal at 4 Million AAV which is the reason why he wasn’t moved at the deadline. The plan was for Him to be the starter for the next two seasons and transition to one of the goalies in the latter half of the deal. They were willing to match the AAV of 5 Million, but not the extra year once Boston’s Offer came in. 
 

Ullmark followed the pattern of Jack, Reinhart, Risto and McCabe wanting out, an extra year and a chance to play for a winner made the decision that much easier.

With all due to respect to Vogl, He really doesn’t appear to have any team sources, He  doesn’t break any Sabres related news. Having to cover this team for a living would make anyone jaded against the organization and any opportunity to portray it in bad light is seemingly taken.
 

 

[Weave]

23 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

The Sabres Offered a 3 year deal at 4 Million AAV which is the reason why he wasn’t moved at the deadline. The plan was for Him to be the starter for the next two seasons and transition to one of the goalies in the latter half of the deal. They were willing to match the AAV of 5 Million, but not the extra year once Boston’s Offer came in. 
 

Ullmark followed the pattern of Jack, Reinhart, Risto and McCabe wanting out, an extra year and a chance to play for a winner made the decision that much easier.

With all due to respect to Vogl, He really doesn’t appear to have any team sources, He  doesn’t break any Sabres related news. Having to cover this team for a living would make anyone jaded against the organization and any opportunity to portray it in bad light is seemingly taken.
 

 

This is why you make those decisions to re sign while they still have term.  If they don’t, move while they have value.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I agree with most of this but not the bolded.

Refusing to take the risk on the ADR was not "holding Jack's health hostage" or "handcuffing the GM."  There was simply no reason for TP to take the risk on the ADR.  LeBrun has reported that only a few teams -- apparently maybe only 3 -- were willing to do so, and those were the teams that were going to acquire Eichel -- i.e. the teams that would get the upside of a healed Eichel in exchange for taking the risk.

If there is any evidence or even hints of evidence in support of the bolded, I'd like to hear it. 

I'd also point out that TP paid Eichel in full despite Eichel's refusal to get the medically recommended procedure -- we never heard any indication that the Sabres were considering suspending him.  That is the opposite of petty.

 

This is just semantics, but I'd call offering only a 1- or 2-year term (and Vogl reported that it was only 1 or 2 years) lowballing him.

Would agree that a reduced term is effectively lowballing the offer, which is the reason for insisting that doing either will leave the team on the outside looking in with the particular player.  And find it disingenuous to claim that they really wanted the guy and tried to land him when it was highly likely the offer would be exceeded rather significantly.

And a 4 year term when the one prospect that's playing professional hockey & presumably close has looked like trash at the higher professional levels and the other 2 are still lowerclassmen in college is not excessive at all.  Had they signed Ullmark, there was a VERY real possibility that he'd be the starter for at least 3 years rather than just the 1-1/2 - 2 years they planned/ hoped he'd be signed for.  And if they lucked out & all 4 would be NHL capable by year 3, well that's a good problem to have.  It helped SJ stay in the mix as they traded away good goaltending prospects.  Sabres could've traded Linus & a respect if they truly had a glut when the time came.

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

The Sabres Offered a 3 year deal at 4 Million AAV which is the reason why he wasn’t moved at the deadline. The plan was for Him to be the starter for the next two seasons and transition to one of the goalies in the latter half of the deal. They were willing to match the AAV of 5 Million, but not the extra year once Boston’s Offer came in. 
 

Ullmark followed the pattern of Jack, Reinhart, Risto and McCabe wanting out, an extra year and a chance to play for a winner made the decision that much easier.

With all due to respect to Vogl, He really doesn’t appear to have any team sources, He  doesn’t break any Sabres related news. Having to cover this team for a living would make anyone jaded against the organization and any opportunity to portray it in bad light is seemingly taken.
 

 

And if they really were willing to go to $5MM, considering where are capwise at present, that should've been in the offer to dissuade other teams from making an offer.  

And only going to 3 years was a mistake as well.  This wasn't Hutton being brought in to start for a single year w/ the expectation that he'd be claimed by Seattle in year 3 because there wasn't a single Sabre worth taking after the handful of guys that were worth protecting & needed to be protected were.  Ullmark had already performed well in the A and he was ready to be at least the backup.

There are a lot of things Adams seems to be on the right track about.  Finding and landing goalies that are ready to be THE guy today is not one of them.  (And the offer he made to Linus adds support to the idea we're watching a stealth &/or mini-tank.)

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

The Sabres Offered a 3 year deal at 4 Million AAV which is the reason why he wasn’t moved at the deadline. The plan was for Him to be the starter for the next two seasons and transition to one of the goalies in the latter half of the deal. They were willing to match the AAV of 5 Million, but not the extra year once Boston’s Offer came in. 
 

Ullmark followed the pattern of Jack, Reinhart, Risto and McCabe wanting out, an extra year and a chance to play for a winner made the decision that much easier.

With all due to respect to Vogl, He really doesn’t appear to have any team sources, He  doesn’t break any Sabres related news. Having to cover this team for a living would make anyone jaded against the organization and any opportunity to portray it in bad light is seemingly taken.

Vogl took an very active and vocal stance on the side of Eichel in which he wrote several one sided and honestly bad articles. His credibility took a bit of a hit for me. I get he agreed with Eichel and thought the Sabres were not treating him fairly but he got on a soapbox and that was that. 

[dudacek]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Refusing to take the risk on the ADR was not "holding Jack's health hostage" or "handcuffing the GM."  There was simply no reason for TP to take the risk on the ADR.  LeBrun has reported that only a few teams -- apparently maybe only 3 -- were willing to do so, and those were the teams that were going to acquire Eichel -- i.e. the teams that would get the upside of a healed Eichel in exchange for taking the risk.

If there is any evidence or even hints of evidence in support of the bolded, I'd like to hear it. 

 

 

Don't you think it's weird how in the aftermath of the trade virtually no one has talked about the terrible risk Vegas has taken on?

Jack Eichel is getting ADR. To me that is indisputable evidence ADR was a viable option. He built a case supporting his stance and had multiple teams buy in. I think risk exists, just as it does with fusion, but the above, added to the price Vegas was willing to pay in assets, has convinced me that the risk was not to the degree many on here have posited.

If I'm the Pegulas, I see two reasons to allow ADR.

One is moral. I believe that ideally the choice over what to do with one's body lies with that individual; that's my default. I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows a stupidity in Jack's choice, leading to me making a father-knows-best exception.

The other is practical, a surgically repaired Jack would increase the bidders and offers for my GM. Again while I am rolling the dice somewhat, I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows that to be a huge risk.

You'll get no argument from me that the Pegulas were within their legal rights to reject the surgery. But they had a choice. Of that, there is strong evidence.

As to direct evidence that this got personal and nasty, there is none. As for hints, you have Jack's obvious body language in his follow-up interviews, the Insider reports indicating it was, the large number of industry folks questioning how this situation will affect the Pegula's reputation in the league and the general track record of how this ownership group has done business. It's just smoke, but in the context, it has my attention.

If the financial risk of ADR wasn't too much for Vegas and Calgary, I'm not buying that it was too much for Buffalo. And I just don't see this being a situation where a benign Terry is/was saying "gosh, it's so sad what Jack wants to do to his body. I'm going to have to take a stand for his own good."

As I said upthread, your my mileage may vary.

 

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by dudacek

[Brawndo]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

This is why you make those decisions to re sign while they still have term.  If they don’t, move while they have value.

 

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Would agree that a reduced term is effectively lowballing the offer, which is the reason for insisting that doing either will leave the team on the outside looking in with the particular player.  And find it disingenuous to claim that they really wanted the guy and tried to land him when it was highly likely the offer would be exceeded rather significantly.

And a 4 year term when the one prospect that's playing professional hockey & presumably close has looked like trash at the higher professional levels and the other 2 are still lowerclassmen in college is not excessive at all.  Had they signed Ullmark, there was a VERY real possibility that he'd be the starter for at least 3 years rather than just the 1-1/2 - 2 years they planned/ hoped he'd be signed for.  And if they lucked out & all 4 would be NHL capable by year 3, well that's a good problem to have.  It helped SJ stay in the mix as they traded away good goaltending prospects.  Sabres could've traded Linus & a respect if they truly had a glut when the time came.

And if they really were willing to go to $5MM, considering where are capwise at present, that should've been in the offer to dissuade other teams from making an offer.  

And only going to 3 years was a mistake as well.  This wasn't Hutton being brought in to start for a single year w/ the expectation that he'd be claimed by Seattle in year 3 because there wasn't a single Sabre worth taking after the handful of guys that were worth protecting & needed to be protected were.  Ullmark had already performed well in the A and he was ready to be at least the backup.

There are a lot of things Adams seems to be on the right track about.  Finding and landing goalies that are ready to be THE guy today is not one of them.  (And the offer he made to Linus adds support to the idea we're watching a stealth &/or mini-tank.)

In Adams Defense at the Trade Deadline He was flying solo in the Front Office. As inexperienced as He is at the GM Position, Ralph Krueger was the de facto AGM until He was fired. Jason Karmanos wasn’t hired until after the TDL and Sam Ventura came on board in July. 
 

The parameters of 3 year deal were discussed and Adams felt confident enough to move forward without moving Him. 
As UFA approached, Reinhart and Risto were traded, McCabe was leaving and Jack was as good as gone. 
Boston came in with the 4 year 5 Million Offer, which Buffalo probably would have had to gone to at least  5 x 5 to beat. 


Given the current situation at goaltender, this is a negative against Adams, let’s see what happens with UPL as well as the goalie trade market this summer. I imagine Portillo will be with Buffalo for a few games this year and in Rochester next year, but until one proves at in the NHL, it means nothing.

[Marvin]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

Don't you think it's weird how in the aftermath of the trade virtually no one has talked about the terrible risk Vegas has taken on?

Jack Eichel is getting ADR. To me that is indisputable evidence ADR was a viable option. He built a case supporting his stance and had multiple teams buy in. I think risk exists, just as it does with fusion, but the above, added to the price Vegas was willing to pay in assets, has convinced me that the risk was not to the degree many on here have posited.

If I'm the Pegulas, I see two reasons to allow ADR.

One is moral. I believe that ideally the choice over what to do with one's body lies with that individual; that's my default. I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows a stupidity in Jack's choice, leading to me taking a father-knows-best stance.

The other is practical, a surgically repaired Jack would increase the bidders and offers for my GM. Again while I am rolling the dice somewhat, I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows that to be a huge risk.

You'll get no argument from me that the Pegulas were within their legal rights to reject the surgery. But they had a choice. Of that, there is strong evidence.

As to direct evidence that this got personal and nasty, there is none. As for hints, you have Jack's obvious body language in his follow-up interviews, the Insider reports indicating it was, the large number of industry folks questioning how this situation will affect the Pegula's reputation in the league and the general track record of how this ownership group has done business. It's just smoke, but in the context, it has my attention.

If the financial risk of ADR wasn't too much for Vegas and Calgary, I'm not buying that it was too much for Buffalo. And I just don't see this being a situation where a benign Terry is/was saying "gosh, it's so sad what Jack wants to do to his body. I'm going to have to take a stand for his own good."

As I said upthread, your my mileage may vary.

I would have done absolutely positively the same thing that the Pegulas did once the medical advisors said that it was too risky.  As a non-medical specialist, I defer to them 100%.  And I would have gone down with that ship.  It is because the worst-case scenario is so bad that I would not want any part if it -- even if he were staying with the Sabres.  That's how bad it is to me.  There is nothing personal in that analysis.  IMHO, there is no reason to ascribe malice to the Pegulas in this case because the percentage thing to do is what the Sabres did from the point of view of their experts.  If the Pegulas are going to over-rule the experts, then what the hell are they on the payroll for?

Yes, I understand the morality of the issue.  But if Jack wants it, he can get it, pay for it, and take all the risk.  That's how my employer and insurance treats me -- so I want the treatment, pay for it, and take all the risk.  I do not see why the Sabres and their insurers should change the rules for him.  In fact, I am glad they treated him the way they would treat me because it is eminently fairer than making an exception.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I would have done absolutely positively the same thing that the Pegulas did once the medical advisors said that it was too risky.  As a non-medical specialist, I defer to them 100%.  And I would have gone down with that ship.  It is because the worst-case scenario is so bad that I would not want any part if it -- even if he were staying with the Sabres.  That's how bad it is to me.  There is nothing personal in that analysis.  IMHO, there is no reason to ascribe malice to the Pegulas in this case because the percentage thing to do is what the Sabres did from the point of view of their experts.  If the Pegulas are going to over-rule the experts, then what the hell are they on the payroll for?

Yes, I understand the morality of the issue.  But if Jack wants it, he can get it, pay for it, and take all the risk.  That's how my employer and insurance treats me -- so I want the treatment, pay for it, and take all the risk.  I do not see why the Sabres and their insurers should change the rules for him.  In fact, I am glad they treated him the way they would treat me because it is eminently fairer than making an exception.

What do you think led to Calgary, Vegas and perhaps others to decide otherwise.

[Dr. Who]

Just now, dudacek said:

What do you think led to Calgary, Vegas and perhaps others to decide otherwise.

Jumping in; IDK, but the Vegas GM gave an interview where he seemed to me pretty clueless on any details. He appeared to simply defer to Eichel and trusted the player's judgement on the issue. Maybe that was a form of public evasion of the question, but he's a pretty good actor in that case. The Pegulas have been dopes with the Sabres. There's a decade of misery to corroborate that determination, but I am sympathetic to them here. I would have been ultra cautious as well, and their own in house doctor is supposedly an expert on this specific surgery. No doubt that had a lot of weight in their conclusions.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

…Jack Eichel is getting ADR. To me that is indisputable evidence ADR was a viable option. He built a case supporting his stance and had multiple teams buy in. I think risk exists, just as it does with fusion, but the above, added to the price Vegas was willing to pay in assets, has convinced me that the risk was not to the degree many on here have posited. …

Is the risk to the degree that Dr. Cappuccino posited? 

I would think the assessment of a pioneer of the procedure, who has performed more ADRs than anyone on the planet and who is recognized worldwide as a preeminent authority in the field, might be persuasive to those having to make the decision. 

Eichel was getting traded whether he was ever injured or not. But he was and it makes sense the Sabres would want him healthy and back on the ice as quickly as possible to facilitate a trade and maximize the return. And yet, they insisted on a procedure that offered the least advantage in that regard. They listened to their doctor. Simple as that.

[Marvin]

40 minutes ago, dudacek said:

What do you think led to Calgary, Vegas and perhaps others to decide otherwise.

What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rhinoceros?  Eliphino.

Seriously, I assume they were deferring to Jack and hope their actuaries are correct in their models.  They may also have a higher tolerance for risk than the Pegulas do.  Also, I imagine Pegula's thought process was, "we will be trading Jack Eichel and my hockey team is not going to get the benefit of Jack Eichel.  Thus, why would I take the risk and be on the hook legally if it leads to a permanent injury to him when he is playing for someone else?"  Selfish, but logical.

CAVEAT: Because I have been the first person who has done a lot of things, I would not want a player on my team to be the first hockey player to get a surgical procedure.  It is just my temperament.  So the doctors' opinions would over-ride hockey decisions for me, no if's, and's, or but's.

[kas23]

I think Terry would’ve supported Jack getting the ADR surgery if Jack was to be a significant player in the future success of the Sabres. Meaning, he had no attitude issues, was a key leader of the Sabres, wanted to be here and have the team succeed. And most importantly, wasn’t pining to be traded. Think McDavid with the Oilers. Jack failed in all these criteria. So, why would Terry stick his neck out? It would be akin to sticking his neck out for a player on another team. 

[Doohickie]

7 hours ago, Weave said:

This is why you make those decisions to re sign while they still have term.  If they don’t, move while they have value.

Yes that was my point.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, kas23 said:

I think Terry would’ve supported Jack getting the ADR surgery if Jack was to be a significant player in the future success of the Sabres. Meaning, he had no attitude issues, was a key leader of the Sabres, wanted to be here and have the team succeed. And most importantly, wasn’t pining to be traded. Think McDavid with the Oilers. Jack failed in all these criteria. So, why would Terry stick his neck out? It would be akin to sticking his neck out for a player on another team. 

I disagree. I think Dr. Cappuccino’s opinion was paramount and that’s what they were gonna adhere to, regardless. Following his advice from the beginning was a major disadvantage to the Sabres and yet they stuck with it the entire time. 

[Marvin]

44 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I disagree. I think Dr. Cappuccino’s opinion was paramount and that’s what they were gonna adhere to, regardless. Following his advice from the beginning was a major disadvantage to the Sabres and yet they stuck with it the entire time. 

This is where I am.  Terry Pegula became  billionaire in part by normally listening to his experts and following their advice.  He did that here too.

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

This is where I am.  Terry Pegula became  billionaire in part by normally listening to his experts and following their advice.  He did that here too.

I really do think it was as simple as listening to their doctor the entire time. Nothing about listening to that advice helped them in any way. In fact, it hurt them from a trading perspective. And yet, they stuck to the advice from Dr. Cappuccino. 

All the noise about insurance, risk, other opinions favoring ADR was just that; noise. Made for an interesting narrative in some parts, but nothing more.

Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense. And it does here. 

[dudacek]

39 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

This is where I am.  Terry Pegula became  billionaire in part by normally listening to his experts and following their advice.  He did that here too.

Hmmm...

Do you think he applies that mantra to his hockey department?

Edited November 12, 2021 by dudacek

[Marvin]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Hmmm...

Do you think he applies that mantra to his hockey department?

I wish.

[Brawndo]

51 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Hmmm...

Do you think he applies that mantra to his hockey department?

 

23 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I wish.

He’s starting to

[nfreeman]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

Don't you think it's weird how in the aftermath of the trade virtually no one has talked about the terrible risk Vegas has taken on?

Jack Eichel is getting ADR. To me that is indisputable evidence ADR was a viable option. He built a case supporting his stance and had multiple teams buy in. I think risk exists, just as it does with fusion, but the above, added to the price Vegas was willing to pay in assets, has convinced me that the risk was not to the degree many on here have posited.

If I'm the Pegulas, I see two reasons to allow ADR.

One is moral. I believe that ideally the choice over what to do with one's body lies with that individual; that's my default. I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows a stupidity in Jack's choice, leading to me making a father-knows-best exception.

The other is practical, a surgically repaired Jack would increase the bidders and offers for my GM. Again while I am rolling the dice somewhat, I don't think the preponderance of evidence in this instance clearly shows that to be a huge risk.

You'll get no argument from me that the Pegulas were within their legal rights to reject the surgery. But they had a choice. Of that, there is strong evidence.

As to direct evidence that this got personal and nasty, there is none. As for hints, you have Jack's obvious body language in his follow-up interviews, the Insider reports indicating it was, the large number of industry folks questioning how this situation will affect the Pegula's reputation in the league and the general track record of how this ownership group has done business. It's just smoke, but in the context, it has my attention.

If the financial risk of ADR wasn't too much for Vegas and Calgary, I'm not buying that it was too much for Buffalo. And I just don't see this being a situation where a benign Terry is/was saying "gosh, it's so sad what Jack wants to do to his body. I'm going to have to take a stand for his own good."

As I said upthread, your my mileage may vary.

First and 2nd bolded:  LeBrun reported that very few, and possibly only 3, teams were interested in taking the risk on the surgery.  (He also reported that Carolina was probably only interested at a bargain-basement price, which I'd guess would've required substantial economics in the form of either salary retention or the Sabres taking back bad contracts.)  You are right that Vegas finally ponied up a big price, and that there hasn't been much discussion in the hockey media of the injury risk, just as there wasn't much on this board at first, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't very real.  It was real enough to scare off 28 NHL teams and for that matter to scare off Vegas until now.

Third bolded:  respectfully, this is a straw man.  As I and many others here have said, Jack is 100% free to do whatever he likes with his body.  He's just not free to do so AND continue to be entitled to $50MM of TP's money. 

Fourth bolded:  of course they had a choice.  You are, I believe, implying that they should've chosen to take the risk on the ADR surgery and have Jack return to play for the Sabres as an audition for other teams in order to increase the trade return.  I think that while in theory this might have been feasible, in practice it would've been a pretty toxic situation that would've frozen the Sabres in Mickey Mouse franchise status and torpedoed yet another entire season.  When you add the ADR risk I think the course they chose is quite rational and certainly not unreasonable.

Fifth bolded:  I don't think I've seen anything credible to the effect that this was personal to TP, who I believe has stayed quiet about this the whole time.  (Not doubting that you have, but I'd be curious to see these reports.)

Last bolded:  I don't think anyone is pretending that TP was benignly protecting Jack from himself.  The Sabres haven't been dishonest about this.  KA has been pretty clear that he's approached this situation with the goal protecting the team's interests.

[DarthEbriate]

++: I've just learned a terrible truth. I think Chancellor Palpatine GM Sheevyn is the GM.

Mace Windu: The G. M.?    (Casting note: MW played by either AGM Sexton or ROC HC Taylor.)

++: Yes. The one we've been looking for. He knows the ways of The Concept (of Ehrhoff) aka The Process. He has been trained to use The Cap.

I've also learned that this weird SW/BS headcanon I've been generating for the amusement of a Sabres message board through the utter deconstruction and rebuild of a franchise has provided a ton of content and SW/reality name and scene crossover. I mean... I basically have the entire cast at this point. It's alarming.

I think with a couple months' effort (depending on real-life workload in Q4/Q1) I could probably write out the Sabres Wars prequel trilogy scripts showcasing the draft, rise, and fall of one Jackikin Eichwalker.

Edited November 12, 2021 by DarthEbriate

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

First and 2nd bolded:  LeBrun reported that very few, and possibly only 3, teams were interested in taking the risk on the surgery.  (He also reported that Carolina was probably only interested at a bargain-basement price, which I'd guess would've required substantial economics in the form of either salary retention or the Sabres taking back bad contracts.)  You are right that Vegas finally ponied up a big price, and that there hasn't been much discussion in the hockey media of the injury risk, just as there wasn't much on this board at first, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't very real.  It was real enough to scare off 28 NHL teams and for that matter to scare off Vegas until now.

Third bolded:  respectfully, this is a straw man.  As I and many others here have said, Jack is 100% free to do whatever he likes with his body.  He's just not free to do so AND continue to be entitled to $50MM of TP's money. 

Fourth bolded:  of course they had a choice.  You are, I believe, implying that they should've chosen to take the risk on the ADR surgery and have Jack return to play for the Sabres as an audition for other teams in order to increase the trade return.  I think that while in theory this might have been feasible, in practice it would've been a pretty toxic situation that would've frozen the Sabres in Mickey Mouse franchise status and torpedoed yet another entire season.  When you add the ADR risk I think the course they chose is quite rational and certainly not unreasonable.

Fifth bolded:  I don't think I've seen anything credible to the effect that this was personal to TP, who I believe has stayed quiet about this the whole time.  (Not doubting that you have, but I'd be curious to see these reports.)

Last bolded:  I don't think anyone is pretending that TP was benignly protecting Jack from himself.  The Sabres haven't been dishonest about this.  KA has been pretty clear that he's approached this situation with the goal protecting the team's interests.

Lebrun reported that three teams remained in on Eichel at the end. That’s not the same as reporting only three teams were willing to risk ADR. He also talked to 9 unnamed NHL execs for their take on the deal. Not one mentioned Vegas taking an unreasonable risk on the surgery. I don’t think your first point has been substantiated.

I considered expanding the “control of your own body” knowing I’d get that response. This is hardly as black-and-white as your statement suggests. You are asking Eichel to make an either/or choice between his health and his livelihood when an option clearly exists that asks neither. There are situations where making such a difficult demand is morally justified. I don’t believe the difference in risk to the Pegulas between ADR and fusion, based on one group of expert opinions versus another, constitutes such a situation.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by dudacek

[Marvin]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Lebrun reported that three teams remained in on Eichel at the end. That’s not the same as reporting only three teams were willing to risk ADR. He also talked to 9 unnamed NHL execs for their take on the deal. Not one mentioned Vegas taking an unreasonable risk on the surgery. I don’t think your first point has been substantiated.

I considered expanding the “control of your own body” knowing I’d get that response. This hardly as black-and-white as your statement suggests. You are asking Eichel to make an either/or choice between his health and his livelihood. There are situations where making such a difficult demand is morally justified. I don’t believe the difference in risk to the Pegulas between ADR and fusion, based on one group of expert opinions versus another, constitutes such a situation.

 

FWIW, I had heard that only a few teams (at most 5) were OK with ADR.

[nfreeman]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Lebrun reported that three teams remained in on Eichel at the end. That’s not the same as reporting only three teams were willing to risk ADR. He also talked to 9 unnamed NHL execs for their take on the deal. Not one mentioned Vegas taking an unreasonable risk on the surgery. I don’t think your first point has been substantiated.

I considered expanding the “control of your own body” knowing I’d get that response. This is hardly as black-and-white as your statement suggests. You are asking Eichel to make an either/or choice between his health and his livelihood when an option clearly exists that asks neither. There are situations where making such a difficult demand is morally justified. I don’t believe the difference in risk to the Pegulas between ADR and fusion, based on one group of expert opinions versus another, constitutes such a situation.

 

Out of those 9 NHL execs in the LeBrun piece, 6 of them referred to the injury in a manner that I’d say indicated it was a significant factor (recognizing that YMMV on that interpretation) and a 7th mentioned it as well.  And LeBrun also said that 1 of the 3 teams at the end, Carolina, was likely only staying in the game in case the price fell to a bargain level.

I think it’s pretty likely that only Vegas and Calgary were willing to take the full $50MM risk, and that everyone else was only interested if the Sabres kept at least $20MM or so via either salary retention or taking back bad contracts.

As to your second point, I disagree that Eichel was asked to choose between his health and his livelihood.  Fusion surgery is the prescribed approach by the substantial majority of the medical community.  Taking that route wouldn’t have been sacrificing his health.  And if he had taken the risk on the ADR — a risk that a very small minority of NHL teams were willing to take — and it worked, he would’ve been able to play hockey for millions of dollars.   He has wanted all along for someone else to bear that risk.    

[dudacek]

9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Out of those 9 NHL execs in the LeBrun piece, 6 of them referred to the injury in a manner that I’d say indicated it was a significant factor (recognizing that YMMV on that interpretation) and a 7th mentioned it as well.  And LeBrun also said that 1 of the 3 teams at the end, Carolina, was likely only staying in the game in case the price fell to a bargain level.

I think it’s pretty likely that only Vegas and Calgary were willing to take the full $50MM risk, and that everyone else was only interested if the Sabres kept at least $20MM or so via either salary retention or taking back bad contracts.

As to your second point, I disagree that Eichel was asked to choose between his health and his livelihood.  Fusion surgery is the prescribed approach by the substantial majority of the medical community.  Taking that route wouldn’t have been sacrificing his health.  And if he had taken the risk on the ADR — a risk that a very small minority of NHL teams were willing to take — and it worked, he would’ve been able to play hockey for millions of dollars.   He has wanted all along for someone else to bear that risk.    

Hadn’t seen this before, but a quote from an NHL GM in here that he wanted in on Eichel but his medical team said NFW.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/insider/story/_/id/32550032/nhl-trade-grades-golden-knights-trade-jack-eichel-send-peyton-krebs-alex-tuch-picks-sabres

Supports your position.