nieder
-
Posts
14,995 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
192
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Media Demo
Gallery
Posts posted by nieder
-
-
18 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:
Steel's most productive NHL season was his first 22 games with Bob Murray behind the bench. He's been terrible since Eakins took over as HC and put him in situations he was not ready for at the NHL level. Last season was actually his worst of all of them.
Which was especially disappointing considering I thought he was one of our best players through the first 10-12 games. Then he completely fell off a cliff.
-
On 8/18/2021 at 2:19 PM, Fisix said:
i think i only care a little because i'd want to purchase a jersey without an ad, and so now i'm less inclined to increase the size of my collection.
I'm with you. I'm going to get a Zegras or Drysdale jersey this season, and I might never add another one to my collection in my lifetime. I like collecting jerseys and this sucks.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Fisix said:
they can't physically force a player to have surgery, but if a player refuses to choose the course of medical treatment the team admin believes is best, then i believe the team can then cancel the player's contract without paying whatever financial obligations remain in the contract.
for Eichel, that's a huge gamble. if he gets the fusion the team wants, the full remaining value of his contract is protected regardless of the outcome of the fusion surgery and/or how well he plays afterwards, and he gets his guaranteed $10/season until 2026 (count it up, that's $50M). if, instead, Eichel goes against the team's medical edict and elects to have the disk in his neck replaced, then the team can simply cancel Eichel's contract and disappear any obligation to pay him a single cent of that currently-guaranteed $50M. i think there's a time limit on how long the team can wait before pulling the trigger on canceling his contract - i don't think they can wait long enough to see if his recovery is good to decide whether or not to honor or cancel the contract. it's probably no more than a 30 day period in which they have to act (might be as short as 5 days?), and any longer than that, they are deemed to have chosen to honor his contract. it would be a horrible look for Buff to try to wait to see what the outcome is, so my guess is that the team would choose to cancel the contract once they knew Eichel had chosen to go against their wishes. well, to be fair, this is already a horrible look for Buff, so i'm not sure what they have to lose at this point.
insurance wise, i doubt this particular set of soap opera circumstances was contemplated, but there may be a general contractual clause in the policy that the insurance company could use to say the team isn't covered if the team chooses to honor the contract after a player elects a critical surgical procedure the team didn't approve. that'd be extra pressure on Buff to cancel the contract - to mitigate the (in my view very substantial) financial risk.
so, if Eichel gets the disk replacement surgery without permission, the most likely outcome is that his $50M contract evaporates, and, after he recovers, he'll have to prove himself all over again before any team will offer him a contract. i think it's extremely likely that Eichel wouldn't get an offer anywhere near the $50M he has now, even if he skates and practices just fine in a pony show. he'd have to complete at least a full NHL or European league season with stellar stats and zero injuries (especially related to his neck) before he could command something approaching the $10M he has in hand right now.
on top of all this, if Eichel simply refuses to participate in the surgery and rehab and team activities, sort of as a performative hold-out or delay tactic to try to get traded or generate leverage for his desired surgery, Buff has the right to cancel his contract then, too.
i don't know what i'd do. i guess i'd talk to people who had the fusion and see what their quality of life has been, but what could they say that would get me to give up a guaranteed $50M?
the big-boy pants thing to do, for both Eichel and Buffalo, is to write up an amended contract that allows Eichel to get the surgery he wants but without leaving Buffalo holding an immense and empty money bag if the result is poor. Eichel wants something that's important to him, and Buffalo wants something that's important to them... it seems like it's in both their best interests to negotiate a fair sharing of the risk involved. any other result is going to be Eichel losing a TON of money, unless there's some clause in the CBA that protects him more than what I've outlined above.
taking a step back and looking at this pragmatically, i think almost everyone would get the fusion and take the guaranteed $50M - it's not like fusion is an absolutely Dehydrated Donkey Dungty result. so, the fact that Eichel is delaying here might be indicating to us that the real sticking point to all this is that he wants to use his injury as an opportunity to get away from Buffalo, whether it's because he doesn't like the admin (for bucking his medical wishes) or he doesn't like the team's outlook over the next 10 years, is almost immaterial. i guess it makes me less sympathetic to his plight.
based on this analysis, i think arbitration would go fairly poorly for Eichel.
Right, they're not going to hold him at gunpoint in the surgical suite. But essentially, the team is forcing the player to get the surgery if he does not want to be in breach of contract. Then he risks having the contract terminated (and I am guessing liable for damages too, because losing an elite player for nothing is probably a bigger deal for Buffalo than it would be for Eichel as he still has the potential to sign with another team and get to the same earnings level). The best option for both sides is a trade. Buffalo don't lose their most valuable asset for nothing, and Eichel gets to keep his $50M over the next 5 years.
I don't know that the CBA would allow a secondary contract like the one you are describing. But I agree with you, I don't think arbitration would go well for him.
-
1 hour ago, tommer-1 said:
I don't see any legal way that the club can require him - or any player - to have a specific surgery. Especially if there is an alternative. I don't think that would fly.
Like I said, I think they would have to try to void his contract. And then the legal battle would ensue. He has a legit remedy to his problem, that will get him playing again. It is his life and health and playing career. They don't like it, at all. Sounds like a Mexican standoff.
So, everything you guys have said after I said "BUF handled this the worst possible way" leads me right back to that fact. They should have signed off on the surgery. It is not dangerous, and is not risky. He's not running a risk of never playing again or being half the player he was. Why would HE want the procedure if that was a risk? The team doctors - either on their own or at the behest of management - just nixed it. Not because of any inherent problems with the procedure, just because it has not been performed on an NHL player. Similar to Tommy John surgery in baseball back when it was performed on... Tommy John.
If it doesn't alleviate his cervical issues then he just gets the fusion - I think all sides are in agreement on that, because at that point that would be the only path. The drawback to that is more time missed.
I think BUF just has a bad relationship with Eichel and vice versa. And the team had more control over this situation at the beginning than they do now. They created their own problem.
And I think it's a little odd that we should just accept that BUF should not have any risk. Who signed Eichel to the $80 million, 8-year contract? Was there any risk involved in that?
While the CBA doesn't say a player would be required to undergo surgery, it is pretty unambiguous that it is the team who gets final call on medical decisions. As all player contracts are tied to the CBA, if the player chooses not go through with the medical procedure determined necessary by the team, then I'm certain they could terminate his contract. However this is not a good outcome for Buffalo as Eichel could then sign with any other team. Buffalo might look for compensation in that situation for breach of contract.
Really, there needs to be a mechanism in the CBA for this sort of situation. If the team doctor does not agree with the player's doctor, the third doctor's decision should be binding on both parties, like an arbitrator ruling. But from my understanding they can get a third doctor's opinion, but it is not binding on the team doctor.
-
4 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
I have not heard of this before. Wouldn't Chris Pronger have done this if it were true? Or did he not retire because of a cap recapture issue?
There are different rules for players who are 35 years old when they sign the contract. I don't think they get the rest of their contract if they retire, that's why they just go on LTIR.
10 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:I wonder if Eichel could threaten to retire on the eve of the season if they try to suspend him. I believe a player who retires due to an injury sustained while playing hockey for the club is entitled to every cent remaining on his contract. My understanding is also that a retired player's salary does not count against the salary cap, and since Buffalo is currently $7.3M below the floor with only Mittelstadt, Dahlin, and Jokiharju remaining as pending RFAs, an Eichel retirement would almost certainly make them non-compliant at the last possible moment, meaning that they could be fined ($1M minimum for cap circumvention) and docked draft picks.
I mean, he could. He would be leaving a lot of potential future career earnings on the table but he could take $50M and run and that is nothing to sneeze at. The Sabres would likely have no recourse since a player can choose to retire whenever they want, right? I just don't see how the Sabres come out of this ahead, they needed to move him while there were more suiters before free agency opens. Now their options are limited and the league knows they are backed up against the wall here.
-
8 minutes ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:
Yeah, that’s the rub. Would another team sign off on a surgery that Buffalo is refusing to and take that risk on? I’m not sure why they would while paying the hefty price to acquire him. That’s why I don’t think a trade is happening until his injury situation is figured out.
Imo, the Ducks are easily a bottom-3 roster and that’s only because Arizona and Buffalo are actively tanking this season. I’m surprised that Seattle is viewed favorably after they made it a point not to assemble as good of a roster as possible. Right now, I’d say the Ducks are a bottom-5 team and expect them to have a modest improvement from last season assuming they remain mostly healthy. How much the Ducks improve are dependent on how much Zegras and Drysdale contribute (Zegras putting up 40 points would pretty good imo.) Rakell and Comtois picking up their scoring and of course, how good Gibson is. I expect them to be bad but not be as much of a tire fire as last year.
I actually forgot about Seattle. They have a good looking blueline, but I think they are going to struggle to score goals with their current lineup of forwards. They could finish in a similar spot to Anaheim.
-
59 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:
I am with you to a point. I still think our top-6 Center depth is very concerning. If nothing is added there before the season starts, our top-6 could get caved in again, which would set a bad tone for the whole team. But I have more optimism about the rest of the roster than most others around here. This group is better than what they showed last season, and I think the new assistants and a full training camp will help them immensely. I expect them to be much more organized than what we saw last season, and I think this is a 75-78 point team right now if we don't lose any top players to season-ending injuries. Adding a top-6 center would make them an 83-87 point team. Not enough for the playoffs, but vastly better than what most are expecting.
In the last full NHL season 75-78 points was good for 5th or 6th worst overall record. Which is probably about right based on our roster quality versus other rosters. Like I said above, the Ducks aren't as bad as Buffalo or Arizona, but are probably about as bad as New Jersey and Columbus. So I'm thinking they would probably finish with the 3rd-5th worst record based on the current roster. A lot of things would have to go right for this team to finish any higher.
-
3 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:
Can they force a player to have a surgery though? That seems unethical. I would think the default if they can't agree on the surgical procedure is just rest and rehab. A team having the authority to require a player to get cut on doesn't seem right to me.
I also wonder how the suspension would work. Seems like Eichel could just show up to camp and fail a physical (which he obviously will), and he then goes on IR. I don't think a team can suspend a player who shows up and fails a physical exam due to an injury, especially an injury sustained while playing for the team. Most players on IR are excluded from team activities anyway, so he wouldn't be around the team. Probably the only benefit to Buffalo is that insurance may cover some of his salary if he's on IR.
This is my understanding, yes. The team has the final call on what treatment should be done. The players have agreed to this by agreeing to the terms of the CBA, so it's a bit of an ethical grey area as the players have basically signed away that right to choose. Though usually this wouldn't happen as most players and teams would work together to decide on the best treatment.
Basically what the CBA does allow is for the player to get a second and third opinion from other doctors. The CBA requires that the team doctor "gives serious consideration" to these other opinions, but there is nothing in the CBA that says the team doctor gets overruled.
-
14 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
At some point, couldn't Buffalo suspend him without pay if he refuses to get the medical treatment that they're authorizing? I honestly have no idea, but teams have suspended players without pay in the past for refusing to report, and essentially that's what Eichel's doing.
Again, I come down on Eichel's side, but Buffalo is not being completely unreasonable. They are being forced to either take a poor return for a franchise player or put the health of that franchise player at risk by allowing him to get an unprecedented (for an NHL player) surgery, which could void the insurance they have on his contract. Whether you agree with it or not, Buffalo is trying to protect the value of their asset. Maybe you think it would have been better for them to trade him for a terrible return and let another team take the risk. Or maybe you think it would be better for them to let him get the surgery, risk having it go poorly, and then have a disgruntled player who no team wants.
I would have to think this is a possibility. The CBA allows teams to make the final call on medical treatment. The Sabres have made a different call than the player, that doesn't mean he can just sit out and get paid. I would think he would be suspended.
However, I'm not sure if their relationship is irreparable now, but it certainly would be if they did that, which could lower the trade value even more.
-
4 minutes ago, dukitup said:
I guess I'm not as negative on this upcoming season. Not saying we're making the playoffs, but I'm not seeing us finish 31st in the league either. And to be honest, to have any realistic chance at the #1 pick we have to finish bottom 3. Puck luck and Ducks are not synonymous with each other. I understand it's a deep draft, but significant pieces come within the top 5 picks (yes exceptions abound).
Last year was a major cluster F. Our PP set a record for futility. That's not happening this year. By default, we'll be better. Injuries will always play a factor, but last year 2 of our top 4 D missed over half the games played (Lindholm missed 38 games, Manson 33). While we were abysmal at home (6-18-4), we were fairly consistent on the road (11-12-5). Our road GAA placed 10th in the league.
Let's see what happens with a healthy Lindholm, Manson, Silfverberg and a full year from Zegras and Drysdale. Maybe for once we have a fairly healthy year. Continued improvements from some of the kids, plus a rebound season from Rakell may result in a team not as bad as many predict. We'll see.
We need a lot of things to go right to get any better. IMO that is going to be good luck, not good management. Bob has done nothing to improve the team except replace the assistant coaches. Though being even a few percentage points better on the PP should give us a few more wins.
A full year of Zegras and Drysdale should make the team better, assuming they both stay with the team, but no guarantees.
Lindholm back is big for the team. Manson is meh - I'm not sure he's much better than Hakanpaa who took a lot of his minutes last season. Silf - who knows how he recovers from his injury but hopefully he's back to normal.
How many rosters around the league look worse than Anaheim? Buffalo and Arizona are clearly worse. Then New Jersey and Columbus are there or thereabouts. I don't think the Ducks roster is better than any other roster. Maybe San Jose? That puts us bottom 6 at best. But I could see this team finishing 3rd worst ahead of Buffalo and Arizona.
-
21 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:
I don't want KK at $6M though. The only way I'd chase him now is if Carolina turns around and re-signs him for a long-term contract at a lower price (which has been rumored as a possibility). But even then, we'd have to give Carolina more than what they gave up in compensation for the offer sheet, which is a 1st and a 3rd. I don't want the Ducks to give up a 1st in either of the next two drafts unless the guy we're getting back is named Eichel.
That said, if Carolina pulls off the offer sheet, GMBM should be on the phone to Wadell to inquire what the price is for Ryan Suzuki because Carolina will be a bit overloaded at the C position.
Apparently there is a handshake deal for $4M per season, I have read elsewhere a 3 year term. Can only be a gentleman's agreement at this point though, as players on 1 year deals can only sign extensions from January 1 from what I understand.
I really like this move from Carolina. Basically they have to pay $6M this season to get this player's rights, then after that they only pay him $4M per year? Great stuff.
-
3
-
-
On 8/28/2021 at 4:19 PM, BombaysTripleDeke said:
The pettiness of Carolina to offer sheet Kotkaniemi in retaliation for Montreal doing it for Aho is simply great. Does Montreal match a one-year 6.1 mil offer, which would be his QO next season or take the 1st and 3rd round picks??
I absolutely love it. This has really juiced up the offseason.
Plus you get to read great, totally not salty, articles like this:
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, dukitup said:
Since Eichel has a NMC that kicks in after this season, I assume there would be no drama as far as the Ducks are concerned. It's now or never.
That's what I meant, too bad it didn't happen right before his NMC kicks in. Could save $10M for this season which is going to be a load of crap anyway.
I think we can safely say that is the plan this season. Murray has still added nobody to the second worst team in the league. I wonder how he convinced Getzlaf to return to this dumpster fire.
-
16 hours ago, tommer-1 said:
Moose, I think that if the Ducks were somehow able to deal for Eichel, they would be letting him get the disc replacement surgery. Really, whatever team that trades for him will almost 100% sign off on the disc replacement. So, let's say they made a deal for him by the first of September. He would most likely be playing before November was even a week or two old.
IMO if we trade for Eichel its to make this team better 1-2 years from now, not next season. He could miss half the season and it wouldn't really matter. This team sucks this season either way. It's too bad all this drama didn't happen 12 months from now.
-
2 hours ago, gotchabari said:
Yes, but not a very long indication of it. In the nest to last season, 76% on this team is fantastic. In the last season, he was injured, which calculates into it (slightly). 6 of 8 over 75% is nice.
The trend is the concern. He's had dramatic drops the last 2 seasons according to this graph. If the trend continues then he's in the bottom half of the league this coming year. You could say last year was due to injury but still.
-
10 minutes ago, dukitup said:
At the trade deadline last year, there was only ONE trade involving players with term (more than one year on their contract). Any team trading for the players you mentioned would have had protect them in the Entry Draft. Teams had trouble protecting their own players. Trade them this off season maybe, but with Rakell scoring 9 goals and Manson hurt most of the season, their value right now is at its lowest level imo. If the team flounders, and the players you mentioned have a decent season going, I think their trade value will be higher at the deadline.
Rakell would probably not net as big of a haul as he would have 3 years ago when he scored 30 goals but I think he would still have good value. At least, I think he still has good value for this team even if he wouldn't get us a ton in a trade. Last season was his lowest scoring season points wise since his rookie year, but other than that he's been reasonably consistent outside of that one year when he popped off with 69 points. He also has consistently decent possession stats. Personally I would be trying to keep him - the trade return probably wouldn't move the needle that much for this team, Rakell is still relatively young/in his prime years, and seemed to have good chemistry with Zegras. Plus if that helps convince Lindholm to re-sign then that's just gravy.
Manson should have been traded 2 years ago. If Bob can get anything decent for him now it will be miracle. Maybe if a contending team has some kind of blueline injury crisis this upcoming season.
-
2
-
-
On 8/19/2021 at 9:19 PM, Sexlaf15 said:
Doesn't this show him trending in the wrong direction?
-
9 hours ago, DucksFan_08 said:
You read my mind. I think we have a pretty good goal scorer in Comtois but that's about it. Maybe Rakell can rekindle the magic but his slump has been going on for far too long. We need guys that can score. That's why I want BM to go after Laine. Imagine if we had both Eichel and Laine.
I don't know what the price would be for one year of Laine (in the hopes that we can re-sign him) and what we'd be able to give up should an Eichel trade go through but man I'd love to see that. THAT would work wonders for our PP.
One can dream right. I see Laine ending up in Florida next to Barkov.What the heck is Rakell's deal anyway? He looks great at times, he seemingly had good chemistry with Zegras, and set up some really nice goals last season. But when it comes to shooting it's like Matt Beleskey and Jason Blake left all of their old sticks in Anaheim and Rakell only uses those now.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:
Capfriendly now reporting the second year is one way @ $750K, so that would explain everything.
I still don't get why Mahura would sign an extra year at $750K when his QO next season would be $787.5K. Just to guarantee a one-way deal next season I guess? I am not sure if his next QO would have been one-way or two-way. If that is the reason he signed the extra year then it's some savvy negotiating from Solomon. Super low risk for Anaheim for a guy that could potentially emerge as an NHL regular. If he doesn't then its no big deal, he's cheap.
-
13 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:
He's not eligible for performance bonuses. You can only get those on your ELC, a 35+ contract, or if you sign a 1-year contract after a serious injury.
Maybe they agreed to honor his trade request if he signed for two years? I dunno, just spit balling. This doesn't make much sense on its surface.
Right, OK. Maybe there is a signing bonus that increases the base salary? Otherwise I don't know why Mahura would have signed a 2 year deal at basically the same money as his QOs instead of backing himself this season to increase his salary next year.
5 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:Something I just thought of.... the NHL league minimum salary is set at $750K this season. I wonder how that impacted his qualifying offer, which would normally have been calculated as his salary last season ($700K) + a 5% raise = $735K. Were the Ducks required to offer $750K to meet the league minimum? Feels like something else is at play here. Maybe we're over thinking this though, and should just enjoy the bargains we got today.
This is a good point. I would assume it would have to round up to the league minimum. Edit: Checked this on Capfriendly on other RFAs on $700K last season - confirmed it automatically bumps them up to league minimum of $750K. So that would be what Mahura got if he signed his one year QO.
Capfriendly right now is only reporting this as a 1 year contract, so perhaps Eric Stephens got the length wrong and Mahura just signed his QO. So all of the analysis above means nothing. Lol.
Edit: The team is reporting Mahura was re-signed for 2 years, at $750k per year. So unless there is a signing bonus in there not yet reported, I don't get it for Mahura. I'll take the contract as a fan but I don't get why he would want to add the extra year at the same money.
-
1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:
Great point. So if he'd just signed his QOs this season and next season, he'd be making $735K this season and $771,750 next season, which adds up to $1,506,750. And like you said, he also removes any chance of making more next season based on a good 2021-22 in Anaheim. Which is weird since he would have been arbitration eligible next summer. That actually sounds like he isn't expecting to play much in Anaheim this coming season. I wonder if they're giving him a raise on his AHL salary?
I believe he also would have been arbitration eligible next year. So if he backed himself to have a good season in the NHL this upcoming year, he would surely want to bet on himself for a contract increase next offseason, and he also had arbitration to fall back on if he felt the team wasn't paying him enough. So maybe they have already told him he won't be a regular on the team, therefore he might as well sign for 2 years at similar money? Unless there are big performance bonuses on this tied to his performance at the NHL level and he has been told he will get his chance, but has to earn his payday.
-
2 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:
Everybody is now signed according to Eric Stephens.
Comtois - 2 x
$4.075M$2.0375MJones - 3 x $1.295M
Mahura - 2 x $750 (2-way deal, no report yet on the AHL salary)
That's a bigger number for Comtois than I was expecting. Will be interesting to see how it is structured and if his QO will be more or less than the AAV. He'll also have arbitration rights when it expires.
Edit: Oops, that's a total of $4.075M for Comtois. It's $2.0375M AAV. That's a fantastic number!!!
Nice contracts. Comtois and Jones both had QOs that would have paid around $870K from memory.
Jones gets a little increase on his QO but gets 3 years. Good deal for him. Even if he doesn't improve much more that's an affordable number for a 4th line winger.
Comtois gets more than double his QO but only 2 years, betting on himself. Fair deal I think for a guy that has one good season under his belt.
Mahura - From my limited understanding of QOs, he was entitled to a 5% increase on his base salary of $700K last year, which would have been $735K this year, plus bonuses. But he has signed for $750K for 2 years? There have to be bonuses attached to this, otherwise I don't really get why he would lock himself in at $750K, as if he just signed the QO he would have been eligible for another increase next season, or a bigger contract if he backed himself to earn it.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, dukitup said:
What I find surprising is they're two way deals.
They're two way deals because these are standard qualifying offers, and both players were only eligible for a 2-way qualifying offer. This is determined by the CBA.
16 hours ago, HockeyIzCool said:I believe they don't have to pass through waivers.
It just means if they go to the AHL they get paid less. But both players are no longer waivers exempt as they have played too many NHL games.
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:
And to a team that also won't get him to the playoffs 😕
Honestly, I really wonder how much longer this can go on with diss tracks like this being dropped.
I'm sure the agents wouldn't be doing this if Eichel cared where he was going. He just wants out of Buffalo.
-
1
-
Seems we are stuck with Bob
in Former Ducks Forum
Posted
I want to know what the hell Bob told Getz to convince him to return this year. It can't have been "I'm going to make the team better" because the evidence speaks for itself.