Gorbachav55

A couple of interesting things there, but still a lot of questions. There is no confirmation about which surgery Eichel will be getting - Buffalo could be caving and allowing him to get the surgery he wants, or it could be the other way around. Buffalo's asking price is still high. I think this makes sense for them. It allows them to try to extract as much value from Eichel as possible by letting teams know they're not going to sell low on him. It also gives them time to potentially convince Eichel that the organization is headed in the right direction and maybe get him to drop his trade demands. I know reconciliation seems impossible at this point, but we're not privy to the conversations they're having. In the meantime, if no team is willing to meet the asking price, Buffalo loses very little. They're clearly tanking this season, with or without Eichel, and the lack of Eichel (or players coming back in an Eichel trade) just makes it more likely they'll be pulling down a top 3 pick next summer. The juiciest tidbit was at the bottom when it talked about the change of agents. It seems like a lot of the impasse might have had to do with Eichel's former agent. Perhaps he was giving Eichel bad advice and/or dealing with Sabres in a manner that was keeping the situation at loggerheads. Perhaps with Brisson's "professional[ism]," the Sabres and Eichel can reach an agreement about his surgery, support his rehab, and then convince him to get back on the ice so that other teams can see he's fully healthy before they trade him. In the best case scenario for Buffalo, they manage to show him over that time that the organization isn't the dumpster fire everyone thinks it is. I doubt that happens, but even if not, they still get more for their star player.

I'm trying not to defend Buffalo too hard here, but I do think it's going too far to claim that they're utterly and completely wrong. I'm willing to change my mind on that if you can find quotes from doctors that Eichel's "not running a risk of never playing again." Although even that goes too far, since really all we're concerned about is risk that the surgery will cause any health issues that result in Eichel being less of a player or being chronically injured. I find it hard to believe that you could make that guarantee with ANY spinal surgery, but I'm happy to be corrected if there are doctors saying that. The quotes that I've seen have mostly been doctors saying that while there is some risk, it's not as bad as Buffalo is making it out to be, and there are other athletes that have had the surgery successfully. But that's not the same as no risk or immaterial risk. Tommy John surgery is a poor example of your point since there are many, many pitchers who have not returned to their former pitching ability after getting it. It's gotten much better over the years, but the list of pitchers who got Tommy John and never got their mojo back is extensive. I don't think anyone said that Buffalo shouldn't carry any risk. They do. But it's also unfair to think that Buffalo shouldn't try to manage that risk. I'm in agreement with you that they're being too conservative and it's costing them. But I don't think they're being completely unreasonable.

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?

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.

If you're following this story at all, it's been reported ad nauseum. Eichel (and the doctors he's consulted) wants to have one kind of surgery. The Sabres won't let him. Here's just one article that describes the situation, but if you search "Jack Eichel injury," you can click on just about any of them and find reporting on it. https://nhl.nbcsports.com/2021/07/31/eichels-rift-with-sabres-deepens-in-contradicting-gm-adams/ Adams said there was no change from the Sabres medical staff in recommending against Eichel having a procedure which has never been performed on an NHL player.

Yep, I think Adams can and will wait until he gets the deal he wants. And Eichel is better than Duchene (and younger), although you'd think the questionable health would drive the price down to a similar level. I think it's a fool's errand to try to come up with an equivalent value because the situation is so different (there's no third team involved; Ottawa and Nashville were both attempting to contend, which neither of these teams would; Colorado was at a different stage of their rebuild than Buffalo is; etc.), but I'm bored, so what the heck. Let's look for equivalencies. 1. Kyle Turris - he was 27, a good, but not great, player on an expiring contract who could be flipped (and was) for other pieces. The only one who remotely fits that bill for the Ducks is Rickard Rakell. I don't think Rakell is bringing back a prospect like Girard if Buffalo wanted to flip him immediately like Colorado did with Turris, much less additional assets (Kamenev and a 2nd), but he's the best fit for this exercise. 2. Shane Bowers - a low first round pick (a center) from the most recent draft. Interestingly enough, he's the only pick from the 1st round of the 2017 draft who has not played an NHL game. As well as Sakic did in this trade, that was a whiff. The best comparable player for the Ducks would be Olen Zellweger, the early 2nd round pick from this draft, but you could argue Perreault (2020 draft - #27 OA) is probably a better fit here. He's a better prospect than Bowers, but that makes up for some of the difference between Rakell and Turris. 3. Andrew Hammond - a flash-in-the-pan goalie who had a good 25 games for Ottawa and never came close to replicating it. He had a great nickname, though. This was strictly for depth on that Colorado team. I can't imagine they were looking at him as a long-term solution to anything. Maybe this is a guy like Kodie Curran? Roman Durny? Buddy Robinson? This could be any non-prospect in the Ducks' system that Buffalo might want. Heck, throw Josh Manson in here if we need to. 4. A conditional 1st - this would obviously be a must from Buffalo's perspective, with the "conditional" part of it being a must from the Ducks' perspective. 5. 3rd Rounder - No problem here The big difference is obviously between Turris and Rakell. Rakell at his best was probably better than Turris, but their careers through their age 27 season (which is when Turris was traded) were remarkably similar (seriously, it's eerie, check this out): Turris: 533 games, 133 goals, 178 assists, 311 points, 1215 shots, 10.9% shooting Rakell: 499 games, 138 goals, 173 assists, 311 points, 1230 shots, 11.2% shooting However, the biggest difference is that Turris is a center, which is a large point in his favor. The second biggest difference is that Turris was coming off of a very solid season, while Rakell is coming off arguably the worst season of his career since he was a rookie. As I mentioned above, there's no way Buffalo could get the equivalent of Sammy Girard from another team by flipping Rakell. They'd probably want the equivalent of Girard from the Ducks instead. Girard was a second round pick, but he had risen fast through the Predators' system and had value beyond the 2nd round pedigree. If you're looking at an equivalent from the Ducks, you have to look at Drysdale. Yes, he is rated more highly than Girard was, but Eichel's also better than Duchene, and this makes up for the two other assets the Avs got from the Predators. But that's a non-starter from the Ducks, as we know. So if we're leaving Drysdale out entirely and putting Rakell back in the trade, you've probably got to add McTavish to the mix. If Buffalo agreed to that deal it would be: Buffalo gives up: Jack Eichel Anaheim gives up: Rickard Rakell, Jacob Perreault, Kodie Curran, Mason McTavish, 2022 cond 1st, 2022 3rd (you could add the Kesler contract to make the money work for Buffalo) On paper, that's probably a good deal for the Ducks in terms of overall value, but they'd be giving up their two best pure scoring prospects. Maybe they could get Zellweger into the deal in place of Perreault if McTavish is part of the package. I know this was an exercise in fantasy, but like I said, I was bored.

The Ducks aren't going to contend in the next two years, with or without Rakell and Lindholm. There might be a path to get there in two years, but they're certainly not taking any steps to do so. By year 3, Rakell and Lindholm are both 30 and are into their decline. Certainly the hope is that Perreault is ready to step in by that point and replace Rakell. If he's not, they'll have to go outside the organization anyway. Lindholm is less replaceable, but if he's not going to re-sign, we don't have a choice. And if it's even unsure or if he's looking to ask for more than $7.5 million, I think the assets are worth more to the Ducks. If Thrun or LaCombe or Benoit don't become that guy, then they use the assets to acquire someone outside the organization. That's a long way of saying that while Rakell is fine and Lindholm is still good (as long as he's healthy), neither one is irreplaceable, and neither one is going to push this team into the postseason in the next two years, unless it's a lucky 2014-Avalanche-esque run. To summarize for me: Manson should be traded. Deslauriers should be traded. Rakell should probably be traded. Lindholm can be retained, but if he hasn't signed an extension by the trade deadline, the team cannot risk letting him walk for nothing.

These things are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they're dependent on each other. If you're trading young guys and future assets for high level talent, you need to replace those young guys and future assets. Otherwise you wind up with no cheap, solid players to supplement your top players. You end up with the Ducks in the early teens, where it was Getzlaf and Perry and very little aside from them who could move the needle. So yes, be creative and trade a bunch of guys for Eichel. I'm not as sold on either Strome, but sure, why not. Then trade Rakell, Lindholm, Manson for assets to replace the ones you just moved before those guys leave for free or start declining to the point where they're burdens on the salary cap for what they're producing. As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to keep Lindholm if he'll sign for a reasonable amount, but I do think the Ducks have guys coming up who can hopefully replace him.

I think your hill is under heavy bombardment at this point. The Ducks last made the playoffs four seasons ago. Getzlaf and Manson are not the players they were then. And while I like Rakell (and Silf), neither seems like a guy who can carry a line; both are highly dependent on guys around them. Which isn't to say that I disagree with the bolded. Murray has handled the last three years terribly. But putting the coaching issue aside, how do we fix the problem of having bad players? One is to develop better, which I'm convinced at this point won't happen until Murray is gone. I loved Todd Marchant as a player, but it seems he and the other guys Murray has hired to run player development have not done their jobs well. Maybe Bouchard will help, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. Two is to acquire players from outside the organization. Free agency requires players wanting to come here or the organization throwing so much money at them that they are willing to, neither of which seems likely. The Ducks have been fine at the draft, but then the development thing comes into play, and they'd be better off with as many draft picks as possible to maximize their chances of finding good players. And then there are trades - you have to trade something to get something, and the Ducks' most tradeable assets are the members of the core on expiring deals. Nobody wants Henrique or Silf. I'd be happy if we traded Grant or Deslauriers for something, but it's not going to be much, and it's clear Murray values those guys anyway. Even if Murray had the skill to do what you want him to do (retain the current core and bolster it with good players), I don't think he could get it done. Some of those guys will have to leave in trades. Which leaves us with the fact that, for the last three years, the current core has not been able to get it done. They aren't good enough to lift bad or mediocre players to the level they need to be. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that makes them terrible together, but the proof is in the pudding. By the time we get a new coach and/or development staff in to help these guys get back to their former glory, it might be impossible to do that since they'll be too old or injured or will have left through free agency.

I haven't seen The Post, but we'll have to agree to disagree on Ready Player One.

Yeah, blame this one on Murray again for giving him the NTC to begin with. I don't blame Manson for using it; that's his right. And it makes a ton of sense not to want to go to Winnipeg in the middle of a pandemic. Or any time at all, really. It's Winnipeg. (Sorry, I have no idea if Winnipeg is that bad - I've heard players don't like it, but it actually sounds kind of nice to me.) As for that piece by Stephens, I enjoyed it because I enjoy all his stuff, but it really was just a therapy session for Duck fans. There's nothing going on with this team and no real hope that anything will happen, whether you're team tank or team improve. The franchise is at a standstill right now and they don't seem to care that fans are checking out in droves. It's sad.

His plan is just to get a buttload of marshmallows.

The only player worse than Eichel is Fowler. In seriousness, while there's reason to be wary, it's hard to blame Eichel for this. It's HIS spine. The doctors that he saw and trusts recommended a specific type of surgery that Buffalo won't agree to. While that surgery does carry significant uncertainty for an NHL player, it's not exactly pseudo-medicine or experimental. And the fact remains, it's his body. And the spine is a pretty important part of it. So I don't blame him for holding out to get the surgery he thinks is right based on what doctors have told him. But if he does it, he doesn't get paid, which is a huge risk.

I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with it; I am saying there is something inherently risky about it, and people who are treating the Sabres like they're stuck in 19th century medical practices are going a bit too far. They're not asking him to get leeched or telling him it's the vapors. This is a spinal injury and he wants spinal surgery. That's really serious. From what I've read, I come down on Eichel's side and think Buffalo is making the wrong call, but I don't think it's an unreasonable position for them to take. They've made a huge investment in this player; they're not keeping him from getting the surgery out of spite. Eichel is saying that surgery is the only option for him, and he wants it or he wants to be traded. Whether you agree with him or not, that puts the Sabres in a tough position.

I see it the other way - if I'm a fan, I see my organization being held in a tough spot by a player. Yes, some of it is on them with the medical decision making, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as people want to make it when it comes to allowing Eichel to undergo a procedure that is unprecedented for a hockey player. I thought the Reinhart trade was fine - next year's first round is loaded and they got a goalie prospect, which they desperately need. The Ristolainen trade was straight robbery of the Flyers. And now the organization is refusing to give up its franchise player for 50 cents on the dollar. To me, that's my team trying to do the absolute best it can while in a tough spot, even if their presence there is partially of their own doing.

These are all good points in that Buffalo needs to be concerned with this stuff, but I don't think it changes much. Whether they trade Eichel or not, they still have to reach the salary floor, so they're still going to have to pick up more contracts. They can start that process now before he's traded if they want, since they'll have to cover $17.3 million in space if he's traded. They're not going to get that back in any trade for Eichel. You're right that the Ducks make the most sense there because of Kesler's contract, but even with Kesler included in a deal, the Ducks will need to dump someone like Henrique or Silf to make a dent in Buffalo's salary floor deficit. And those guys both have term, which means Buffalo is going to want an additional asset to take them from the Ducks. It's tricky, for sure, but I think Buffalo would be wise to pick up a contract or two now to get them to the floor so they can go into the season with Eichel if they want to hold firm to that threat. As I've continue to say, though, it's obviously much better for Buffalo to get this done sooner rather than later. I just don't think it's a complete bluff that they are willing to hold onto Eichel until the beginning of the season.

I think Dubois is a fairly rare case that had a lot to do with Tortorella - most guys have too much pride and care about their teammates too much to do something like that. Obviously it's in Buffalo's best interest to trade him, but there are ebbs and flows to these things. Any team that gets Eichel wants him sooner rather than later, both for any potential surgery he might need and to get him into the lineup as quickly as possible. As we get later in the summer and even to the beginning of the season, that might increase the offers somewhat. It's also the only bargaining chip the Sabres have, and I don't think it's a terrible idea to play it. They have nothing to lose. They're going to be terrible with Eichel or without him. Circus or not, they need to show their fans that they're not going to be bullied into giving away a valuable asset for a terrible return.

If he's waiting for Eichel, he might just keep waiting. Buffalo doesn't have to do anything. Eichel is still under contract and if they don't get an offer they like, they could show Jack that they're willing to play hardball by just hanging onto him. But yes, one way or the other, tanking or trying to compete, having the same roster is asinine.

I know they just talked about this on the PuckPodcast and discovered that NBA jerseys, which now have ads, also have the ads on the retail version (at least the ones that are officially sold by the NBA).

Yeah, it will probably get there eventually now that they've started down that road. And somewhere between what they're doing now (a 3x5" ad) and this is where I'll draw the line. But I'm okay with what they're doing now.

Any time you see a rumor that isn't being reported on or passed around by any other hockey insiders, it's Eklund.

What does that trade even look like? None of the guys with NTCs are going to waive them to go to Buffalo unless they're masochists, so Stone, Pacioretty, Karlsson, Marchessault, Dadonov, Pietrangelo, and Martinez are all off the table. Who would Buffalo actually want? Any list has to start with Krebs, and Lukas Cormier is another option. They'll want a 1st rounder, even though Vegas's is likely to be low, and probably another pick. But then Vegas has to get rid of salary. Reilly Smith is the obvious candidate for both parties, since he's making $5 million, doesn't have a NTC, and he's not a long-term investment for Buffalo. Chandler Stephenson is another probable target - he's a solid player, is still fairly young (27) but doesn't make too much over the long term; he'd be replaced by Eichel in Vegas's lineup anyway. I have to think Buffalo is going hard after Alex Tuch and/or Shea Theodore - those are the real prizes. I can't see Vegas getting rid of Theodore, but I could see Tuch going the other way. Vegas probably could get the deal done, cap-wise, without Tuch going the other way since he can be stashed on LTIR for a while and they could pull a Kucherov with him. But that's a guy who makes a ton of sense for Buffalo to pursue. So Eichel for Krebs, 2022 1st, the Rangers' 2022 3rd, Reilly Smith, and Chandler Stephenson? Or substitute Alex Tuch for Stephenson and the 3rd? Could the Ducks beat that without giving up Zegras or Drysdale?

Fine with me. They're earning revenue to pay the players and grow the sport and I'm not getting charged for it. I used to be opposed to this but I've found I no longer care. Ads are everywhere else now anyway. I can ignore these ones just like I ignore the other ones.

Non-elite is an important qualifier in the sentence you highlighted. Elite, Hall of Fame (or close to Hall of Fame) level players retain their skills for a long time. That's part of what makes them freaks. Pietrangelo and Hedman obviously fit that mold. Petry had a fine season, but there are, of course, outliers every season. Alec Martinez has actually declined fairly steadily in his actual offensive and defensive value, but moving from a team going down the toilet to one of the best teams in the NHL has propped up his production, even though his play doesn't support it. The data show (and we're talking both offensive and defensive contributions) that defensemen decline in both areas after peaking in their mid-20's. It's not as steep or as smooth as forwards, but it's a real phenomenon. Offensive production is a far steeper decline for d-men, so you can look at that as it pertains to Lindholm in two ways. One is that he's barely going to be helping out on offense at all once he hits 30, even less than he is now. Two, he gets a larger portion of his value from his defense, so he's losing a lower percentage of his overall value as he ages, which is good. Personally, I think it means he's still going to be overpaid, and if he's asking for more than $7 million, it's probably a good idea to trade him. He's probably already a second pairing guy on a good team, but because he's on the Ducks, he's a first pairing guy. If Drysdale becomes an excellent offensive, mobile d-man, I could see Lindholm hanging on as a defensive partner. But he'll be overpaid for what he brings and it will mean we need to make up that deficit elsewhere in the lineup. Of all the veteran players currently on the roster, Lindholm is the one I'd want to keep the most. He's proven as a shot-suppressor, and he's a bigger, yet mobile guy on a backend that doesn't have many of those types of players. That said, he'll be overpaid by someone on his next contract, unless he accepts $7 million over three years. And if he does, he should fire his agent immediately. Some team is going to give him $8 or close to it and give him 5 or 6 years at least (assuming he's healthy this season, of course). I don't think he'll be so good that the Ducks have to keep him at all costs. I'm fine trading him for assets at the deadline that can be used to draft or trade for the next Lindholm.

If we keep him, we'll still need two more top pairing guys in a few years. The hope is that Drysdale is one. Lindholm is only going to be for the next three years or so, assuming he's healthy.