Jack vs Tuch/Krebs - Has this hockey trade improved either team?

[K-9]

On 3/6/2022 at 10:53 AM, dudacek said:

Expectations are a funny thing.

His play this winter has changed things, but lack of hype over Power last summer and fall seemed unprecedented for a 1st overall pick. I think it can be explained by a fan base tired of being falsely told some kid was going to save them.

I wonder if the same thing is a factor with Ryan Johnson and Isak Rosen. I can’t recall a pair of 1st rounders being less talked up. Compare them to a young Mark Pysyk or Drew Stafford, who were very similar-level prospects.

Per the bold, I think that’s entirely on us as a fan base. We are naive to think that any kid short of a Gretzky, Lemieux, or Crosby is gonna save anyone. I don’t blame the team for hyping up their prospects, but it’s on us to be smarter about an 18 year old’s ability to immediately impact change. We fans need to be smarter. 

[Thorny]

12 minutes ago, fiftyone said:

Agree that you can make the "correct" decision and still end up being wrong (hitting on 15 in blackjack vs a 10, for example). 

Still, my question is around when it would be fair to litigate that decision from the Sabres perspective. Agree on everything else. 

From a Sabres perspective, given what they were trying to accomplish re: the formerly-theirs, Jack Eichel asset, I’d argue they’ve already been “proven correct” when it comes to their decisions made handling the injury. Again, in context. 

I don’t believe personally they can ever be proven “right” or “wrong” by how Jack responds to the surgery in the long term because frankly I think they’d have let Jack get the surgery in the scenario where they assume he returns to the ice a Sabre, ie, in the hypothetical situation the injury takes place where neither side is at odds. 

The injury disconnect was a symptom of the broader struggle and not the other way around 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, fiftyone said:

Agree that you can make the "correct" decision and still end up being wrong (hitting on 15 in blackjack vs a 10, for example). 

Still, my question is around when it would be fair to litigate that decision from the Sabres perspective. Agree on everything else. 

My opinion is assuming Jack remains healthy and regains his forms I would say that Vegas got the better of the deal. Even assuming he returns to form I am comfortable on the return for Jack. 

[freester]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

My opinion is assuming Jack remains healthy and regains his forms I would say that Vegas got the better of the deal. Even assuming he returns to form I am comfortable on the return for Jack. 

At this pointe we have no idea how good Krebs or the draft picks will be. I do like Tuch

[K-9]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

My opinion is assuming Jack remains healthy and regains his forms I would say that Vegas got the better of the deal. Even assuming he returns to form I am comfortable on the return for Jack. 

If winning the trade means the team that got the best player, it’s Vegas hands down. Full stop.

But that is a shortsighted view.

My barometer is what team is improved more? Vegas is a vastly superior team with less room for improvement, so it’s a taller order for Eichel. Can he improve Vegas more than Tuch, Krebs, and whatever future draft pick can improve the Sabres? Vegas has been to a cup finals already, so it could be argued that unless Eichel leads them to a cup then his addition will have improved the Golden Knights less than if Tuch and Krebs can help improve the Sabres enough just to reach the playoffs. 

[Doohickie]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

But that is a shortsighted view.

Yep.  Look at Tage.  Sure, St. Louis easily won the trade in the short term but over the long term it still remains to be seen.

[nfreeman]

19 minutes ago, Thorny said:

From a Sabres perspective, given what they were trying to accomplish re: the formerly-theirs, Jack Eichel asset, I’d argue they’ve already been “proven correct” when it comes to their decisions made handling the injury. Again, in context. 

I don’t believe personally they can ever be proven “right” or “wrong” by how Jack responds to the surgery in the long term because frankly I think they’d have let Jack get the surgery in the scenario where they assume he returns to the ice a Sabre, ie, in the hypothetical situation the injury takes place where neither side is at odds. 

The injury disconnect was a symptom of the broader struggle and not the other way around 

I don't agree with the bolded.  From the Sabres' perspective, the decision on letting Jack get the surgery was significantly affected by his asking out prior to the injury.  The surgery carried a substantial degree of risk.  Once Jack asked out, letting him get the surgery would've meant taking on that risk without getting the potential reward -- i.e. a healthy Jack on the ice.  OTOH, if he hadn't asked out, then their assessment of the risk/reward would've included the potential reward.

So, if the surgery doesn't work, I think that supports the Sabres' evaluation of the risk and in turn their decision that it didn't make sense for them to bear that risk.

 

[Marvin]

Based on the information available at the time, I am very comfortable with what the Sabres did.  I am not clairvoyant enough to guess the long-term ramifications of the surgery.

The Sabres need to hope that Tuch, Krebs and the picks make the team better overall.

In partial defence of the fans contracting Mighty Mouse Syndrome ("here I come to save the day!") over Eichel and, to a lesser extent, Reinhart, O'Reilly, and Kane, I think we should note that the XGMTM acted like he suffered from it.  The owner OK-ed it.  The fans largely followed their lead.

[GASabresIUFAN]

On 3/6/2022 at 10:53 AM, dudacek said:

Expectations are a funny thing.

His play this winter has changed things, but lack of hype over Power last summer and fall seemed unprecedented for a 1st overall pick. I think it can be explained by a fan base tired of being falsely told some kid was going to save them.

I wonder if the same thing is a factor with Ryan Johnson and Isak Rosen. I can’t recall a pair of 1st rounders being less talked up. Compare them to a young Mark Pysyk or Drew Stafford, who were very similar-level prospects.

The Stafford hype train really started when he, like Quinn now, blew-up in Rochester with 22 goals in 34 games.  Stafford had the add benefit on coming into the best team in the NHL.  I don't remember any real hype on Pysyk.  In fact it was rather subdued on him as well because he looked like a boring (in a good way) stay at home D, much like the expectations for Johnson.   I think there was more hype around McCabe who was better in his college seasons then Johnson was in his 3.  

Rosen is a different story.  He is suffering from a fanbase inundated with highly rated young forwards lately (Quinn, Mitts, JJP, Krebs and Cozens) plus top prospects on defense and in goal. He is also being overshadowed by guys drafted after him in the same draft class like Kisakov with 26 MHL goals, Bloom 24 in the OHL, and Nadeau with 28 in Q compared to his 7 across 3 different leagues.  It also doesn't help that he is playing in relative obscurity in a second level Swedish league while guys like Bloom and Nadeau are succeeding here in NA.  If Rosen was a Capitals prospect, give their lack of top prospects, the hype train would be in full motion. 

 

[Thorny]

19 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don't agree with the bolded.  From the Sabres' perspective, the decision on letting Jack get the surgery was significantly affected by his asking out prior to the injury.  The surgery carried a substantial degree of risk.  Once Jack asked out, letting him get the surgery would've meant taking on that risk without getting the potential reward -- i.e. a healthy Jack on the ice.  OTOH, if he hadn't asked out, then their assessment of the risk/reward would've included the potential reward.

So, if the surgery doesn't work, I think that supports the Sabres' evaluation of the risk and in turn their decision that it didn't make sense for them to bear that risk.

 

I agree their decision was significantly affected by Jack telling them he didn’t want to stay for another rebuild - said as much. 

I don’t need to wait and see what happens, in my mind they already, from their perspective, approached their handling of the injury the correct way in terms of what they wanted to accomplish - they got the deal they wanted. 

I believe the OP was searching for comments on whether they were “right or wrong” regarding their actual views of the merits of the injury treatment and like I said - their views on that are I feel to be very muddied and so directly influenced by their aims in protecting what was undoubtedly a trade asset at that time. 

In my view they didn’t actually think the procedure itself was a problem, necessarily, only so because of the accompanying context. I think Jack is allowed the surgery he wanted if there was no trade on the horizon.

Therefore I don’t see a scenario where it’s “aha! Sabres KNEW that surgery was a bad idea!” if Jack gets hurt nor do I see a “hah! Jack stayed healthy, Sabres were WRONG!” scenario. The Sabres’ stance on the injury treatment itself was so heavily influenced by the context that I don’t think it’s possible to dial in on their heart-of-hearts view of the procedure. That’s my 2 cents. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

27 minutes ago, K-9 said:

If winning the trade means the team that got the best player, it’s Vegas hands down. Full stop.

But that is a shortsighted view.

My barometer is what team is improved more? Vegas is a vastly superior team with less room for improvement, so it’s a taller order for Eichel. Can he improve Vegas more than Tuch, Krebs, and whatever future draft pick can improve the Sabres? Vegas has been to a cup finals already, so it could be argued that unless Eichel leads them to a cup then his addition will have improved the Golden Knights less than if Tuch and Krebs can help improve the Sabres enough just to reach the playoffs. 

I understand your point but disagree with it. For such an incomplete and talent lacking team like Buffalo adding two players improves it more than a player added to a an already fuller and robust lineup. Metaphorically, for Buffalo it's like adding water to a glass that is nearly empty. For a team like Vegas where the glass is nearly full (from a talent standpoint) the addition is less. 

Jack is in an elite talent category while I would place Tuch and Krebs in the future in the good category. There are few players in Jack's lofty category as compared to the number of players in the good category. It is rare that a player like Jack is available while that is not the case for players in Tuch's category that can be had in trades. 

As far as the Stanley Cup argument I don't accept the premise that if Vegas doesn't make the finals or wins the cup that the deal was somewhat of a failure. There are a lot of factors that come into play as to why an upper team makes or not make the finals. As an example having a hot goalie or not.  Again, I understand your point but respectfully disagree with it. I still contend that if Jack returns to form and remains health that Vegas will be more of a beneficiary of the deal

I apologize for the change of color of the type. I don't know what happened. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by JohnC

[GASabresIUFAN]

This thread is a looking forward thread to the impact now and in the future following the completion of the trade.  The motives of the parties during the "Jack Crisis" are in the rearview mirror.  To me this trade is much more of a "hockey" trade then the ROR trade which I classify as a futures trade coupled with a cap dump.  St Louis will always be on the plus side of the deal as they received the best player who won them their first Cup, unless Thompson helps lead us to a Cup victory as well. Otherwise 

Here both teams received an injured top 6 forwards. As Jack was the "best" player in the deal we also received futures in Krebs and two picks.  LV is win now mode and IMHO unless Jack helps them win a Cup in the next couple of years, we'll probably come out ahead on the deal.

 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

This thread is a looking forward thread to the impact now and in the future following the completion of the trade.  The motives of the parties during the "Jack Crisis" are in the rearview mirror.  To me this trade is much more of a "hockey" trade then the ROR trade which I classify as a futures trade coupled with a cap dump.  St Louis will always be on the plus side of the deal as they received the best player who won them their first Cup, unless Thompson helps lead us to a Cup victory as well. Otherwise 

Here both teams received an injured top 6 forwards. As Jack was the "best" player in the deal we also received futures in Krebs and two picks.  LV is win now mode and IMHO unless Jack helps them win a Cup in the next couple of years, we'll probably come out ahead on the deal.

 

Re - the last sentence: if we are judging it purely based on team performance (which is dicey), the Sabres don’t come out ahead merely by Vegas “not winning a couple in the next couple years.” We’d have to compare the fortunes of the Sabres against it and how we measure up to what they accomplished. 

[North Buffalo]

Beating a dead horse... Jack is gone... Sabres are developing... Sabres got potential at least back and weve gone around this merry go round so many times my head hurts... the only thing I wish for is Vegas to narrowly miss the playoffs... sure I chirp the Eichel curse... but only because I want Sabres to get a better pick... otherwise I could care less about Jack or Vegas

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I agree their decision was significantly affected by Jack telling them he didn’t want to stay for another rebuild - said as much. 

I don’t need to wait and see what happens, in my mind they already, from their perspective, approached their handling of the injury the correct way in terms of what they wanted to accomplish - they got the deal they wanted. 

I believe the OP was searching for comments on whether they were “right or wrong” regarding their actual views of the merits of the injury treatment and like I said - their views on that are I feel to be very muddied and so directly influenced by their aims in protecting what was undoubtedly a trade asset at that time. 

In my view they didn’t actually think the procedure itself was a problem, necessarily, only so because of the accompanying context. I think Jack is allowed the surgery he wanted if there was no trade on the horizon.

Therefore I don’t see a scenario where it’s “aha! Sabres KNEW that surgery was a bad idea!” if Jack gets hurt nor do I see a “hah! Jack stayed healthy, Sabres were WRONG!” scenario. The Sabres’ stance on the injury treatment itself was so heavily influenced by the context that I don’t think it’s possible to dial in on their heart-of-hearts view of the procedure. That’s my 2 cents. 

Well, we're maybe splitting hairs here, but I don't think their views were "muddled."  The surgery was a "problem" in that it presented an increased risk relative to fusion surgery.  That increased risk had to be justified by the reward.  In this case, since Eichel wanted out, the reward wasn't present, so the risk was not so justified.

Taking it a step further, if Eichel suffers the same injury again, the Sabres' assessment of the increased risk will indeed be vindicated -- I don't see how one could conclude otherwise.

[fiftyone]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

From a Sabres perspective, given what they were trying to accomplish re: the formerly-theirs, Jack Eichel asset, I’d argue they’ve already been “proven correct” when it comes to their decisions made handling the injury. Again, in context. 

I don’t believe personally they can ever be proven “right” or “wrong” by how Jack responds to the surgery in the long term because frankly I think they’d have let Jack get the surgery in the scenario where they assume he returns to the ice a Sabre, ie, in the hypothetical situation the injury takes place where neither side is at odds. 

The injury disconnect was a symptom of the broader struggle and not the other way around 

Understand what you're saying but I don't agree here. 

It's not all that uncommon for a player to "ask out," be it publicly or behind closed doors. Almost never does that player refuse to play. Are you saying that you think if the Sabres let Jack get his surgery and he became healthy, he would not have suited up for the Sabres?

[K-9]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I understand your point but disagree with it. For such an incomplete and talent lacking team like Buffalo adding two players improves it more than a player added to a an already fuller and robust lineup. Metaphorically, for Buffalo it's like adding water to a glass that is nearly empty. For a team like Vegas where the glass is nearly full (from a talent standpoint) the addition is less. 

Jack is in an elite talent category while I would place Tuch and Krebs in the future in the good category. There are few players in Jack's lofty category as compared to the number of players in the good category. It is rare that a player like Jack is available while that is not the case for players in Tuch's category that can be had in trades. 

As far as the Stanley Cup argument I don't accept the premise that if Vegas doesn't make the finals or wins the cup that the deal was somewhat of a failure. There are a lot of factors that come into play as to why an upper team makes or not make the finals. As an example having a hot goalie or not.  Again, I understand your point but respectfully disagree with it. I still contend that if Jack returns to form and remains health that Vegas will be more of a beneficiary of the deal

I apologize for the change of color of the type. I don't know what happened. 

With all due respect, your first sentence states you understand but disagree with my point and then you finish the first paragraph by essentially re-stating my very argument. 

Eichel is the best player in the deal. Hands down. Full stop. Which is what I said in my original post and, again, you go on to make the same point in your second paragraph,  so I’m not sure that you disagree there either. 

It’s in your third paragraph that you actually disagree and that’s fine, but if Tuch and Krebs improve our team by adding to a greater improvement in overall team performance, then I’ll stand by my barometer for measuring which team benefits more from the deal. 

So, to sum up: Eichel is the best player but he can’t improve a cup finals team to a higher degree than Tuch and Krebs can improve the Sabres.

Per your last paragraph, when Eichel returns to full form, how will we know if Vegas becomes “more of a beneficiary of the deal?” How, exactly, will that become readily apparent? By what measure?

And I thought the change in text color was a nice touch of flair.😄

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

With all due respect, your first sentence states you understand but disagree with my point and then you finish the first paragraph by essentially re-stating my very argument. 

Eichel is the best player in the deal. Hands down. Full stop. Which is what I said in my original post and, again, you go on to make the same point in your second paragraph,  so I’m not sure that you disagree there either. 

It’s in your third paragraph that you actually disagree and that’s fine, but if Tuch and Krebs improve our team by adding to a greater improvement in overall team performance, then I’ll stand by my barometer for measuring which team benefits more from the deal. 

So, to sum up: Eichel is the best player but he can’t improve a cup finals team to a higher degree than Tuch and Krebs can improve the Sabres.

Per your last paragraph, when Eichel returns to full form, how will we know if Vegas becomes “more of a beneficiary of the deal?” How, exactly, will that become readily apparent? By what measure?

And I thought the change in text color was a nice touch of flair.😄

I'll try to answer your response in simpler terms. The Sabres are a better team with a healthy and committed Jack than they are with Tuch, Krebs and minus Jack. Vegas is a better team with a healthy Jack and without Tuch and Krebs. (My opinion.)

The point I'm making doesn't revolve around who is the best player in this trade because it is obvious who the best player is in this transaction. (We both agree on that.) My contention is that Jack's benefit for Vegas is greater than the sum of the two players who departed. And correspondingly, Jacks departure from Buffalo that added Tuch, Krebs and a probable late first when summarized is a minus for the Sabre. (My opinion.)

With respect to Jack's health and how it plays in how this deal can be assessed I believe that by the end of the season, if not sooner, we should be able to determine if has returned to form. It also could take an offseason to get a better assessment of where he is as a player. The health issue was a gamble that Vegas was willing to take. 

The context that both of us recognize is that the Jack trade wasn't simply a plus/minus transaction. There were a number of considerations beyond the talent and even the health issue that motivated this trade. With all the underlying issues that were associated with Jack and with where this team was in the rebuilding process I have no problem with the deal that our GM made. 

[K-9]

22 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'll try to answer your response in simpler terms. The Sabres are a better team with a healthy and committed Jack than they are with Tuch, Krebs and minus Jack. Vegas is a better team with a healthy Jack and without Tuch and Krebs. (My opinion.)

The point I'm making doesn't revolve around who is the best player in this trade because it is obvious who the best player is in this transaction. (We both agree on that.) My contention is that Jack's benefit for Vegas is greater than the sum of the two players who departed. And correspondingly, Jacks departure from Buffalo that added Tuch, Krebs and a probable late first when summarized is a minus for the Sabre. (My opinion.)

With respect to Jack's health and how it plays in how this deal can be assessed I believe that by the end of the season, if not sooner, we should be able to determine if has returned to form. It also could take an offseason to get a better assessment of where he is as a player. The health issue was a gamble that Vegas was willing to take. 

The context that both of us recognize is that the Jack trade wasn't simply a plus/minus transaction. There were a number of considerations beyond the talent and even the health issue that motivated this trade. With all the underlying issues that were associated with Jack and with where this team was in the rebuilding process I have no problem with the deal that our GM made. 

But the Sabres are not a better team with Eichel than the Golden Knights are with Tuch and Krebs, either. 

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

But the Sabres are not a better team with Eichel than the Golden Knights are with Tuch and Krebs, either. 

I agree with you that Golden Knights are a better team with Tuch and Krebs because they have an immensely better roster to begin with. But (my opinion) with a healthy and committed Jack the Sabres are a better team with him than without. 

[pi2000]

It's quite simple really... whoever gets more points tomorrow (Eichel vs. Tuch+Krebs) wins the trade.

[Thorny]

4 hours ago, fiftyone said:

Understand what you're saying but I don't agree here. 

It's not all that uncommon for a player to "ask out," be it publicly or behind closed doors. Almost never does that player refuse to play. Are you saying that you think if the Sabres let Jack get his surgery and he became healthy, he would not have suited up for the Sabres?

Nope, not saying that. 

[K-9]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

I agree with you that Golden Knights are a better team with Tuch and Krebs because they have an immensely better roster to begin with. But (my opinion) with a healthy and committed Jack the Sabres are a better team with him than without. 

Of course the Sabres would be better with Eichel. So would any team. But that’s not the argument. 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, K-9 said:

Of course the Sabres would be better with Eichel. So would any team. But that’s not the argument. 

At this point I don't know what the discussion is about. I'm one that can be easily befuddled. That's okay. It isn't a big enough issue to duel over. 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

At this point I don't know what the discussion is about. I'm one that can be easily befuddled. That's okay. It isn't a big enough issue to duel over. 

Agreed.