What we’ve learned from the Jack Eichel conclusion

[Thorny]

Just now, dudacek said:

Broke out 2 years ago, slumped badly last year.

Not sure what’s done this year.

Ah ok. 

looks like a bit of a Push, then. 

[Doohickie]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

How is Rob Thomas doing these days, anyways? Is he playing like a Superhero or like he's feeling a little bit Unwell? 

From memory he was the potential diamond there and Tage was seen as a lesser prospect 

Thomas:

Tage: 

Tage is two years older.

[Porous Five Hole]

Instant Trade Analysis (O’Reilly deal)

 

yikes.  People thought this was a fair deal.  O’Reilly market value was severely depressed. 
 

There are some similarities between that one and the Eichel deal.  I still think this works out better for Buffalo long term.  

Edited November 11, 2021 by Porous Five Hole

[Zamboni]

The Spittin Chicklets interview on Tuesday was interesting. And Matt Moulson chimed in on a few things too.

[Indabuff]

42 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ah ok. 

looks like a bit of a Push, then. 

He must be lonely, especially at 3 am.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

If you're constantly a bubble team and you prune out the right bits and replace the with the right better bits year on year, you move from bubble to playoffs to contender.  I think what messed with that mindset was the loss of Briere and Drury with no return.  I think Adams just experienced the same thing (to a lesser degree) with Ullmark. 

I never got why you would trade a good player away, but if you know you can't sign them at a level that fits with your overall cap strategy, you have to realize that prior to the trade deadline and get whatever assets you can for that expiring asset.  If you get nothing you're throwing capital away.

But when we lost both Briere and Drury in the same year, with nothing back, it set the team back.  They peaked then regressed without winning the Cup.  I think that spooked the management into tanking.  There was no reason to do that really, and we all know what that got us.

We don't know how long he will remain in good graces, but I expect Kevyn Adams to foster the approach of pruning out the bits he doesn't want and replacing them with improved bits every year until the team is damned good.  But when he lets go of prime assets he can't do it unless he gets something in return, or the cupboard will not be adequately stocked and it will be harder to bring in those "right bits."

Totally am missing the correlation of the events that occurred on 7/1/7 under 1 ownership group & the decision to tank ~6 years later.

Especially when the team won a division in the interim & was leading the division again the following year until the Miller-Lucic "incident."

[Weave]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

If you're constantly a bubble team and you prune out the right bits and replace the with the right better bits year on year, you move from bubble to playoffs to contender.  I think what messed with that mindset was the loss of Briere and Drury with no return.  I think Adams just experienced the same thing (to a lesser degree) with Ullmark. 

I never got why you would trade a good player away, but if you know you can't sign them at a level that fits with your overall cap strategy, you have to realize that prior to the trade deadline and get whatever assets you can for that expiring asset.  If you get nothing you're throwing capital away.

But when we lost both Briere and Drury in the same year, with nothing back, it set the team back.  They peaked then regressed without winning the Cup.  I think that spooked the management into tanking.  There was no reason to do that really, and we all know what that got us.

We don't know how long he will remain in good graces, but I expect Kevyn Adams to foster the approach of pruning out the bits he doesn't want and replacing them with improved bits every year until the team is damned good.  But when he lets go of prime assets he can't do it unless he gets something in return, or the cupboard will not be adequately stocked and it will be harder to bring in those "right bits."

I’ve posted in these pages many times that if you let a player get to deadline day and then move him for lottery tickets you’ve failed to manage the roster.

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Totally am missing the correlation of the events that occurred on 7/1/7 under 1 ownership group & the decision to tank ~6 years later.

Especially when the team won a division in the interim & was leading the division again the following year until the Miller-Lucic "incident."

I think the idea was losing valuable players with no return was a mistake repeated with Ullmark.

10 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

The Spittin Chicklets interview on Tuesday was interesting. And Matt Moulson chimed in on a few things too.

Go on…..

[Zamboni]

Episode 359: Featuring Jack Eichel + Matt Moulson
Spittin Chiclets

On Episode 359 of Spittin’ Chiclets the guys are joined by Jack Eichel and Matt Moulson. Jack joined (00:20:31) just hours after he was traded to the Vegas Golden Knights and breaks down what went wrong in Buffalo. The guys open the show giving their takes on the Eichel trade, along with breaking down all the other NHL news including the Blackhawks firing their Head Coach. The boys are then joined by Matt Moulson, who joined (01:30:56) to discuss his NHL career, his captaincy in Hershey, living with Jack Eichel and tons more.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets/id1112425552?i=1000541215263

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Zamboni

[woods-racer]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

The Spittin Chicklets interview on Tuesday was interesting. And Matt Moulson chimed in on a few things too.

Buffalo didn't want to retain salary, may have been petty about ...

Or... Buffalo knew how bad the cap situation was in Vegas and was asking for the moon to do it. 

 

Jack was only doing the ADR and requested a trade long before the injury and said he would play for Buffalo post surgery so they could get their value in a trade for him.

[kas23]

The ROR trade was never about Tage Thompson. He may have been someone JB asked to have thrown in, but the main targets were the vets. Back then, we were operating under the assumption that all the kids needed to succeed was “veteran presence”. 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

Episode 359: Featuring Jack Eichel + Matt Moulson
Spittin Chiclets

On Episode 359 of Spittin’ Chiclets the guys are joined by Jack Eichel and Matt Moulson. Jack joined (00:20:31) just hours after he was traded to the Vegas Golden Knights and breaks down what went wrong in Buffalo. The guys open the show giving their takes on the Eichel trade, along with breaking down all the other NHL news including the Blackhawks firing their Head Coach. The boys are then joined by Matt Moulson, who joined (01:30:56) to discuss his NHL career, his captaincy in Hershey, living with Jack Eichel and tons more.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets/id1112425552?i=1000541215263

 

Holy *****.  Matty Mo was a 9th rd pick?  Never knew.  Helluva career for a long shot.

[woods-racer]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

I’ve posted in these pages many times that if you let a player get to deadline day and then move him for lottery tickets you’ve failed to manage the roster.

I think the idea was losing valuable players with no return was a mistake repeated with Ullmark.

Go on…..

If we trade Anderson for a 4th round pick while he is still playing well at some point this year are we tanking or are we managing the roster( we are not in the playoff hunt and we are not resigning Anderson)? It's a fine line to walk,

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

If we trade Anderson for a 4th round pick while he is still playing well at some point this year are we tanking or are we managing the roster( we are not in the playoff hunt and we are not resigning Anderson)? It's a fine line to walk,

There is no option to manage the roster re: Anderson.  The premise is, if you know he's going into his last season and you can't get him to re-sign, you move him while he has the value of a full season.  Anderson is on a 1 yr deal and is an obvious 1 season stopgap.  Not the same scenario at all.

Example:

Moving Reinhart while he has the value of a full season, or Risto with term, is managing the roster.

Moving any one of the pre-tank core for picks the deadline before they become FA's is failing to manage your roster.  We all knew they weren't going to be re-signed.  Trade them with a full season of value and get a much better return.

[woods-racer]

Just now, Weave said:

There is no option to manage the roster re: Anderson.  The premise is, if you know he's going into his last season and you can't get him to re-sign, you move him while he has the value of a full season.  Anderson is on a 1 yr deal and is an obvious 1 season stopgap.  Not the same scenario at all.

Example:

Moving Reinhart while he has the value of a full season, or Risto with term, is managing the roster.

Moving any one of the pre-tank core for picks the deadline before they become FA's is failing to manage your roster.  We all knew they weren't going to be re-signed.  Trade them with a full season of value and get a much better return.

There was a  miss-understanding on my part.  I thought you where advocating for signing players because the trade was for peanuts.

I completely agree.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

I’ve posted in these pages many times that if you let a player get to deadline day and then move him for lottery tickets you’ve failed to manage the roster.

Agree. In the case of Ullmark though, for instance, once he got close to deadline day with no deal, trade him, don't lose him for nothing 

[kas23]

9 minutes ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Agree. In the case of Ullmark though, for instance, once he got close to deadline day with no deal, trade him, don't lose him for nothing 

I actually think the Sabres believed they would/could re-sign Ulmark, thus didn’t trade him. Maybe he gave off an attitude this was indeed possible or even likely. However, once Linus saw the money involved, he bolted. Lesson learned: have the deal signed before the deadline or ship out. Pinky Promises don’t mean anything. 

[Taro T]

59 minutes ago, kas23 said:

I actually think the Sabres believed they would/could re-sign Ulmark, thus didn’t trade him. Maybe he gave off an attitude this was indeed possible or even likely. However, once Linus saw the money involved, he bolted. Lesson learned: have the deal signed before the deadline or ship out. Pinky Promises don’t mean anything. 

OR the lesson should be DON'T lowball &/or give a shorter term than the going rate for the guy you've identified as your Biron to hold the fort while waiting for your Miller to develop.

[kas23]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

OR the lesson should be DON'T lowball &/or give a shorter term than the going rate for the guy you've identified as your Biron to hold the fort while waiting for your Miller to develop.

I don’t think they lowballed him - the Bruin’s offer really wasn’t that much more, but the term was. They planned on re-signing him. They were confident enough that they didn’t unload him at the deadline. I just think it’s unlikely that both parties didn’t speak numbers prior to the deadline. However, once Ulmark saw what Boston suddenly came up with, he suddenly experienced a financial epiphany. The Sabres weren’t going to budge though. Linus probably should’ve been more transparent: “I’m 100% going to test the market”. But, who knows what actually happened. 

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, kas23 said:

I actually think the Sabres believed they would/could re-sign Ulmark, thus didn’t trade him. Maybe he gave off an attitude this was indeed possible or even likely. However, once Linus saw the money involved, he bolted. Lesson learned: have the deal signed before the deadline or ship out. Pinky Promises don’t mean anything. 

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making.

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, kas23 said:

I don’t think they lowballed him - the Bruin’s offer really wasn’t that much more, but the term was. They planned on re-signing him. They were confident enough that they didn’t unload him at the deadline. I just think it’s unlikely that both parties didn’t speak numbers prior to the deadline. However, once Ulmark saw what Boston suddenly came up with, he suddenly experienced a financial epiphany. The Sabres weren’t going to budge though. Linus probably should’ve been more transparent: “I’m 100% going to test the market”. But, who knows what actually happened. 

They DIDN'T lowball him.  But they absolutely offered him a ridiculously short term.  You can't do either if you actually want the guy to sign.  Hopefully Adams learned that lesson.

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

OR the lesson should be DON'T lowball &/or give a shorter term than the going rate for the guy you've identified as your Biron to hold the fort while waiting for your Miller to develop.

Why?  If your plan is to go with your prospects in a couple years, why offer him term?  Managing your player contracts also means deciding when to say no.

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Why?  If your plan is to go with your prospects in a couple years, why offer him term?  Managing your player contracts also means deciding when to say no.

Why?  Because he signs elsewhere if you don't offer term.  If you actually want him as your starter the next 2 years & Adams said he wanted him back, then you give him a legit offer.  Not one that will assuredly get topped.

You need TWO capable goalies.  IF somehow in year 3 or 4 of the deal there're 2 kids that are both ready and better than Ullmark, then you trade him to fill a different need.  He was reportedly offered a 2 year deal.  There's no way a guy that expects to be the starter who has been in your organization for years and has never Sen more than a glimmer of hope you can get the shop righted is going to take a 2 year deal unless the money is outrageous.

[Doohickie]

Not disputing that, but first of all, Adams has a plan and he stuck with it.  Secondly, it sounds like Ullmark wanted out anyway, he just didn't burn his bridge until he knew he could.  Even if Adams offered more than the Bs you don't know that Ullmark would have taken it.  He was, it turned out, another one of those guys who didn't want to be here, and Adams is not going to overpay for that kind of player.

[SwampD]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It was awful barely making the playoffs and getting destroyed in round 1 or just missing the playoffs every year. It felt like futility, like watching the Sabres under Krueger but more exciting. 

JFC. Wha? The last decade has been the most brutal hockey to ever be witnessed by a fanbase. I think that's even backed up by stats.

If we had taken the tack back then, of drafting the right way and rebuilding the right way, that you have been advocating now, instead of the scorched earth approach that was the Tank, we'd be winning cups by now.

[nfreeman]

On 11/9/2021 at 9:56 AM, dudacek said:

This encapsulates well where I thought you were coming from.

I think where we differ most significantly is how we would personally frame the truth in the bolded. Your way is fair comment, my way would be more aligned with a Veruca Salt GIF.

I think Eichel put himself above the crest. That's his right, I understand his frustration and it doesn't make him a bad person. It does make him a bad captain and a bad Sabre and it will forever colour how I remember him.

I also think Terry Pegula decided to hold Jack's health and his manager's ability to trade him hostage for petty, personal reasons. Handcuffing the manager is just more fuel for the burning tire fire that's built up over the past decade. It's sad but expected. The messing with the health thing is just being a bad human being.

I think time has slowly revealed what a steaming pile Kevyn Adams was handed. It has given me a better understanding of his choices and I am impressed by the way he managed to steer his way through this. It gives me hope.

Your mileage may vary. Onward and upward.

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.

 

7 hours ago, Taro T said:

They DIDN'T lowball him.  But they absolutely offered him a ridiculously short term.  You can't do either if you actually want the guy to sign.  Hopefully Adams learned that lesson.

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.