Player Discussion Jack Eichel – Part 3

[sabrebuild]

I predict 9.25 for 8. Compromise between potential shown and the long term security.

Or Eichel plays the year. If I was Eichel I would play the year unless they offered at least 9 a year long term.

 

[Jame]

I'd think the main reason is that if Eichel's camp wants 10, he can just sit on it and go into his final year without a new contract. Everyone raise your hand if you think Jack doesn't get better with another season. Relative value to his team, Jack far exceeds Pastrnak. Jack plays center. Jack put up comparable numbers on a far weaker team.

I also think Jack's position as "the guy they tanked for" puts him in a greater bargaining position than Pastrnak. Whether this translates to 10 mil a season I don't know, but comparing Pastrnak to Jack doesn't have the same feel. I wouldn't put the 2 in the same category, I probably wouldn't put him in Tarasenko's category either. Centers are worth more, agents know it, teams know it.

Point being is that I think Pastrnak is even less of an accurate comparable than McDavid is. If the Sabres came at me with Tarasenko at 8mil, I'd come back with McDavid as a better comparable at 12.5 mil and the negotiation floats between 9-10mil a season. I'm less interested in saving 1mil than I am getting the best player on the roster signed to a happy long term deal. I'd put Eichel's contract between Stamkos at 8.5 and Toews at 10.5.

Objectively unsupportable

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Objectively unsupportable

I'm not sure you know what that word means.

Also enjoying that an entire post about how bad the comparables are and you pull out a line about the 2 extremes of negotiation. Excellent work.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

NHL teams desperately want and need to retain their young stars through unrestricted free agency which means these long 8 year deals out of their ELC contracts. Eichel knows what he is going to be over those 8 years, one of the top forwards in the league, he's not Pastrnak, he's not Gaudreau or Mackinnon, and he's expecting to be paid like it. Older players getting new contracts are paid for what they've already done and the team is hoping they can just maintain their performance through the new contract. Eichel expects to be paid for what everybody expects him to become. He'd be dumb to sign for 8 or 9 mil now, he could finish in the top 10 or even top 5 in scoring THIS year, a year before his new contract kicks in. Imagine, Jonathan Toews is making $10.5M scoring 60 points a season and Jack Eichel is making $8-9M scoring 90 points. He's no fool. He knows the leverage he has and he should use it. He's giving up 4 UFA years, Jack Eichel in 5 years as a UFA would get $15M per season.

Of course there's some risk, small, that he doesn't become a perennial top 10 scorer.

 

[wunderpanda]

What's the point... to see if you want Jack Eichel? If you decide you have a problem with Jack Eichel, you trade him for a king's ransom. If you can lock him up for 8 years at a non-crazy salary, you do it. Whatever reservations you have don't change the value he has around the league.

They have RFA years to use, 2 year bridge followed by 8 year deal after they make the playoffs seems reasonable to me. We know Jack is a dynamic player, we have not seen that translate to team success.

You attack his commitment and character and then claim it isn't anti the person you attack.

Okay.

Btw...he had double the shots on goal of any teammate those last two games. So you must mean POINTZ! When you say didn't show up.

Maybe passing more & someone else could have scored? Maybe taked smarter shots and scoring? Maybe pretending to hustle back after a missed shot at the very least. I am in no way saying trade Jack, and I was one of the very few that insisted Jack would be a ppg player last summer. When I say didn't show up I mean he didn't show up. He was on vacation in Florida during spring break.

And I am questioning his character when I question his commitment, doesn't mean he won't grow up in the next 2 years. Also, when $10m is being tossed about yes, points actually do matter. Espescially from a franchise centre who has the job of actually scoring points. Often. Nightly. Because if the franchise centerman can't play defense, refuses to listen to the coach and then can't put up points then you don't have much of a franchise.

It's like he's banking on us forgetting what actually happened. He was going after 2 million dollars. Of course he was trying.

Except he really wasn't trying. Sabres were out of the playoffs and his mind was not on his money; or he would have gotten it against back-up goalies from teams playing for draft position.

Yeah, lets dick around with one of the best young players in the league because of the look on his face and his last 3 games, great idea. Then we can be sure he leaves at his first opportunity.

Was more than the last 3 games, it started in December with Nilsson & Lehner calling out centers in the highslot, following the system & Jack no-selling; saying he will keep playing the same way. I'll even say Jack knows better than Bylsma how to succeed individually. That doesn't mean he played in a way to maximize or elevate teamates though; and thats what is expected of any franchise player regardless of position. Jack doesn't need to be a 100 point Bergeron, I just want him to show up 82 games a year and work with the team.

[quote[Let's even say that he keeps pouting and taking games off, as you say. What then? I guess they could trade him because he wasn't "committed" and look worse than Boston after they dealt Seguin. I'd say an 8 year deal is a pretty big commitment both ways. Not sure what sort of abstract display of loyalty you're expecting.[/QUOTE]

Again, 2 years now & then 8 after Jack shows what Jack is (not like Dallas had sustained success with Seguin getting scratched for missing practices) 2 years and many bad deals are off the books, Jack can stroke his ego and get more than McDavid by then due to inflation and (hopefully) team success. lets say they sign him for 8x10, whats his UFA deal going to look like in term & dollars and how old will he be 4 years into that UFA deal making how much?

2 now followed by 8 is better financing than 8 now and the curmudgeon that follows. Use the RFA years, that still gives them 11 years of Jack and yea, I'm already thinking about 33 year old Jack

I don't really care if Eichel ever plays a lick of defense. Ever.

I long for the day that Sabres fans stop trying to turn every offensive talent into Michael Peca.

I agree, I want Jack to score. There are 10-15 other guys who can't score & I expect them to compensate for the few who can. Also want Jack trying to score every time he is on the ice, don't want coasting in the neutral zone or fairy wand defense. Haven't seen that from Jack on a nightlly basis.

You're also a complete idiot if you don't try to lock him up prior to playing for someone not named Bylsma.

Was Jack a ppg because of the games he listened to Bylsma, or the games he didn't? Is it realistic to expect better than his ppg last season at all? Does Jack getting 90 points matter if the Sabres miss the playoffs?

 

[Aladyyn]

Eichel didn't give a damn in the last few games of the regular season, that's just a fact. Everyone pointed it out at the time. Doesn't mean it reflects poorly on his character thought. He was so pissed off because of the TEAM's results that he didn't care about individual bonuses.

 

[Jame]

I'm not sure you know what that word means.

Also enjoying that an entire post about how bad the comparables are and you pull out a line about the 2 extremes of negotiation. Excellent work.

Comparing Eichel to McDavid for contract purposes cannot be supported with facts and data, it can only be supported with feelings.

Your entire post can be addressed with that statement.

 

[Ace]

Ignoring that contract bars have moved for any top guy coming up on a deal when the top top guy moved it by two million is misguided and foolish.

Looking for comparables before the top guy started getting two million dollars more is also misguided and foolish.

Still refusing to understand such a simple concept is incredible...and foolish.

 

[Heraldic]

Suddenly this thread became full of nonsense.

Eichel is definitely not asking for McDavid money - otherwise there would be no ongoing contract talks. Both parties would just wait for the upcoming season and see if Eichel plays on a comparable level.

David Pastrnak is definitely not anykind of comparable to Eichel. If you can't get your head out of simple single season PPG, you're probably just a lost cause. This is the extend I'm going to use my time on this comparison (because that kind of claim actually deserves none of it), but if the other player played pretty much all of his minutes with player like Marchand, Bergeron and Krejci, it should tell you enough even if you have watched NHL for one year only.

McDavid contract is not a direct comparable, but it definitely raised the standard. Before McDavid the biggest cap hit right after ELC was 7,5 with Stamkos, Ekblad and Tarasenko. And Stamkos had only 1 UFA year included.

Even without McDavid's contract Eichel would have exceeded that benchmark (7,5) with 8 year deal. It would had been probably around 8,5-9,5 millions. With the McDavid contract it probably makes the cap hit around 9,5-10,5 millions. Sure, if Eichel is willing to take a discount like McDavid, it's another story, but I doubt it (because McDavid's deal was SO much above the previous benchmarks unlike Eichel's will be).

And with that young players you're always paying for potential nevertheless how successful they have been so far.

I don't think the biggest incentive to have the contract done this off-season is that it prevents Eichel having a monster year - that's probably already one of the premises under those ongoing negotiations. The biggest incentive probably is that they get the definitely biggest moving part settled coming next off-season. It's really difficult to make any kind of plans regarding salary cap, if you have a question mark as big as Eichel next contract up in the airs. Cap wise the next off-season probably is the most difficult one in the near future. The fact that pretty much every other player outside of Lehner got a deal longer than the upcoming season is a pretty good indication about that aspect.

 

[Jame]

Ignoring that contract bars have moved for any top guy coming up on a deal when the top top guy moved it by two million is misguided and foolish.

I'm not ignoring that the bars have moved. I'm simply taking Eichel's actuals into account and not basing the entirety of his contract on a combination of potential, belief, and hope.

Ekblad moved the bar in a big way (7.5)
Ristolainen didn't come close to it, he got the same contract Jones got (5.4), and Jones signed his contract BEFORE Ekblad reset the bar.

Looking for comparables before the top guy started getting two million dollars more is also misguided and foolish.

No. It's the opposite that is foolish. McDavid's contract does not evaporate every other market factor.

 

[Dreakon13]

Eichel didn't give a damn in the last few games of the regular season, that's just a fact. Everyone pointed it out at the time. Doesn't mean it reflects poorly on his character thought. He was so pissed off because of the TEAM's results that he didn't care about individual bonuses.

I'm sure a big part of the negotiation with Jack, for the 8 year term at least, is the absolute need for a change in culture with this team. There was a lot to be frustrated about last year, and no reason moreso than what Jack said himself about guys being OK with losing, just happy to be in the league. He bailed the last few games but it's hard to blame him... that's an impossible wall to scale. Teammates that didn't really care from day one. And Bylsma was a waste of time, and the season was done.

If I'm Jack... I'd want to be the guy (and can be the guy) to finally bring Buffalo a cup, but that starts with management committing to winning. It started with Pegula canning Murray and Bylsma.

If that doesn't happen, and the Sabres don't bring in a consummate professional in Botteril and a coach known to reach and motivate his players in Housley... I bet 8 years isn't even in the conversation.


EDIT: And for the record, I didn't like Bylsma... but I actually liked Murray. Not nearly as down on his moves/trades as others. Was disappointed to see him go... but it had to happen.

 

[Heraldic]

I'm not ignoring that the bars have moved. I'm simply taking Eichel's actuals into account and not basing the entirety of his contract on a combination of potential, belief, and hope.

Ekblad moved the bar in a big way (7.5)
Ristolainen didn't come close to it, he got the same contract Jones got (5.4), and Jones signed his contract BEFORE Ekblad reset the bar.

You actually think that Ekblad's and Ristolainen's contracts are comparable cap wise?

 

[Jame]

Suddenly this thread became full of nonsense.

Eichel is definitely not asking for McDavid money - otherwise there would be no ongoing contract talks. Both parties would just wait for the upcoming season and see if Eichel plays on a comparable level.

David Pastrnak is definitely not anykind of comparable to Eichel. If you can't get your head out of simple single season PPG, you're probably just a lost cause. This is the extend I'm going to use my time on this comparison (because that kind of claim actually deserves none of it), but if the other player played pretty much all of his minutes with player like Marchand, Bergeron and Krejci, it should tell you enough even if you have watched NHL for one year only.

You think contracts are impacted by who someone plays with? Like when Marleau and/or Pavelski were getting devalued for playing with Thornton?

McDavid contract is not a direct comparable, but it definitely raised the standard. Before McDavid the biggest cap hit right after ELC was 7,5 with Stamkos, Ekblad and Tarasenko. And Stamkos had only 1 UFA year included.

So 8.5 would reflect both that McDavid raised the bar, but that Eichel is nowhere near his level.

Even without McDavid's contract Eichel would have exceeded that benchmark (7,5) with 8 year deal. It would had been probably around 8,5-9,5 millions. With the McDavid contract it probably makes the cap hit around 9,5-10,5 millions. Sure, if Eichel is willing to take a discount like McDavid, it's another story, but I doubt it (because McDavid's deal was SO much above the previous benchmarks unlike Eichel's will be).

Based on what. Please provide something beyond "feeling"

And with that young players you're always paying for potential nevertheless how successful they have been so far.

You use bridges in that case.

 

[Aladyyn]

8.5-9.5 sounds fair to me. McDavid raised the bar for exactly one player and that's himself. He's the only player to get 10M or more in AAV without winning multiple Cups and being a pending UFA. Hell, it's likely that Eichel throughout his career doesn't amass the amount of individual accolades that McDavid accomplished in his first 2 years.

 

[Heraldic]

You think contracts are impacted by who someone plays with? Like when Marleau and/or Pavelski were getting devalued for playing with Thornton?

If you don't think that the linemates have any impact on a player's production I think there is nothing to discuss here.

If you don't take into account that aspect, you, for example, end up being as stupid as Ken Holland with his extension with Abdelkader.

So 8.5 would reflect both that McDavid raised the bar, but that Eichel is nowhere near his level.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

But to answer anyway, I do believe that eventhough certain player's and their contracts not being exactly comparable, they do affect the market.

Based on what. Please provide something beyond "feeling"

Because that's pretty much the way it goes. Just like Toews and Kane set one standard. Before that even Getzlaf's and Perry's contract were considered really high when they were signed.

In a way this reminds me the situation a year ago when I used tons of time to explain to you why Ristolainen and his agent don't have the leverage and why we shouldn't just offer him 6x6 contract (like you advocated). After B.Murray got Lindholm under the contract he got (with more UFA years), it became obvious that T.Murray didn't handle it as well as he could have (even the contract not being close to the 6x6).

You use bridges in that case.

That's one option. But it defnitely isn't the only option. We have seen a lot of long-term deals being made under not that much of proving. No matter the length of the contract, both parties are taking risks.

 

[Jame]

If you don't think that the linemates have any impact on a player's production I think there is nothing to discuss here.

Are you changing your position or conceding that your argument was weak.

This is not a debate about whether linemates impact production, it's a debate about whether that impact impacts contracts/negotiation

If you don't take into account that aspect, you, for example, end up being as stupid as Ken Holland with his extension with Abdelkader.

Thank you for providing an example that supports my point, would you like to provide your own? Maybe an example of a near point per game player not getting market value... because he plays with a David Krejci lol

In a way this reminds me the situation a year ago when I used tons of time to explain to you why Ristolainen and his agent don't have the leverage and why we shouldn't just offer him 6x6 contract (like you advocated). After B.Murray got Lindholm under the contract he got (with more UFA years), it became obvious that T.Murray didn't handle it as well as he could have (even the contract not being close to the 6x6).

In a way it is ironic... you didn't once make the argument that's Ekblad lifted the bar for everyone, you continued to point to contracts that were comparable for Risto.

You've shifted logic.

It's mceichel syndrome

 

[Havok89]

Comparing Eichel to McDavid for contract purposes cannot be supported with facts and data, it can only be supported with feelings.

Your entire post can be addressed with that statement.

A big issue with players like Eichel and Matthews too is that RFA is very little leverage because these guys are actually worth 4 1st round picks. These guys going to get near UFA money on their second contracts.

 

[Heraldic]

Are you changing your position or conceding that your argument was weak.

This is not a debate about whether linemates impact production, it's a debate about whether that impact impacts contracts/negotiation

You make absolutely no sense here.

You first brought up David Pastrnak as a comparable to Eichel - based only and purely on PPG, thus, PRODUCTION, and made a claim that because their PRODUCTION is similar, you shouldn't think it is laughable to think they deserve differently valued contarcts.[/B][/I]. Now you think that production doesn't have an impact on contract negotiations?

And eventhough I said I don't use time on this comparison. I will use as much as saying that thinking Pastrnak and Eichel deserve similarly valued contract is laughable.

Thank you for providing an example that supports my point, would you like to provide your own? Maybe an example of a near point per game player not getting market value... because he plays with a David Krejci lol

So you actually think that bringing up an example of one of his many awful act from a GM that has been totally putrid at least the last half a decade, supports your point? Okay...

And as you started replying selectively, I really want you to NOT ignore this direct question I previously asked:

You actually think that Ekblad's and Ristolainen's contracts are comparable cap wise?

 

[Jame]

8.5-9.5 sounds fair to me. McDavid raised the bar for exactly one player and that's himself. He's the only player to get 10M or more in AAV without winning multiple Cups and being a pending UFA. Hell, it's likely that Eichel throughout his career doesn't amass the amount of individual accolades that McDavid accomplished in his first 2 years.

In a different way, the most comparable contract for Eichel BEFORE McDavid, was Ekblad. A top pick, straight to NHL, immediate impact, very good seasons, got his 8 year deal after 2nd season, and was largely compensated for upside/potential (a rare type of contract).

McDavid raised the bar for sure, but his contract is a league of its own (20 year old Hart).... how much did it raise the bar Ekblad set? He raised the very top of the market by <20% (the Kane/Toews) contracts.

A 20% increase in Ekblad's contract is 9.0.... that should be Eichel's ceiling... if Botterill is doing his job.

 

[Jame]

You make absolutely no sense here.

You first brought up David Pastrnak as a comparable to Eichel - based only and purely on PPG, thus, PRODUCTION, and made a claim that because their PRODUCTION is similar, you shouldn't think it is laughable to think they deserve differently valued contarcts.[/B][/I]. Now you think that production doesn't have an impact on contract negotiations?

You're struggling...

Eichel and Pasternak have comparable production. Fact

Linemates impact on production is not a factor in contract negotiations. That was one of your arguments for differentiating Eichel and Pastranak's production

And eventhough I said I don't use time on this comparison. I will use as much as saying that thinking Pastrnak and Eichel deserve similarly valued contract is laughable.

Because... feelings and linemates. I heard you the first time.

So you actually think that bringing up an example of one of his many awful act from a GM that has been totally putrid at least the last half a decade, supports your point? Okay...

So we can ignore McDavid's contract because of all the terrible trade Chiarelli made? Lol

Nice pivot... waiting for your examples still.

And as you started replying selectively, I really want you to NOT ignore this direct question I previously asked:

I don't understand the question, it's not relevant to the context of the point I made.

The point made clear that they are not comparable, just like a Eichel and McDavid's contracts have no reason to be comparable.

 

[haseoke39]

In a different way, the most comparable contract for Eichel BEFORE McDavid, was Ekblad. A top pick, straight to NHL, immediate impact, very good seasons, got his 8 year deal after 2nd season, and was largely compensated for upside/potential (a rare type of contract).

McDavid raised the bar for sure, but his contract is a league of its own (20 year old Hart).... how much did it raise the bar Ekblad set? He raised the very top of the market by <20% (the Kane/Toews) contracts.

A 20% increase in Ekblad's contract is 9.0.... that should be Eichel's ceiling... if Botterill is doing his job.

I agree with just about everything Jame is saying in this thread, and that's a nice summation.

Pastrnak is a better comparable than McDavid, agreed. Tarasenko got $7.5 two years ago, after putting up 73 in 77 (basically Eichel's last season, plus health). Scheifele last summer, coming off 61 in 71 at age 23, is only worth $6M. Kucherov at 23 puts up 66 in 77, gets bridged for $4M. These ARE your top ten scorers in the league right now, it is NOT setting the market like all these guys are getting $10M. Kane and Toews got it because they built a ****ing dynasty, and you could argue they're overpaid. Crosby and Malkin still don't have it.

Basically, three players in the league make this kind of money, and one of them just won the MVP (and you could argue he's also overpaid, he'll be making a substantially bigger percentage of the cap than Crosby's last deal gave him in year 1 -- if the cap in 17-18 goes up to 77, Crosby's equivalent contract to McDavid's would have had to be at least $10.3 back in 13-14, rather than $8.7), and two of them brought 3 cups home to one of the biggest markets in the league. Look at what other players in the top ten in scoring are getting, and you'll STILL be paying him for upside because he's not there yet.

He hasn't "earned" 8 (as in, $8M would be overpaying him for his production to date), but that would be a fair upside deal, like Ekblad's. 9 is pushing it.

10 just means the Sabres felt threatened.

 

[haseoke39]

Just to put another spin on the argument I just made, and because Botterill will surely have the Pens cap situation in mind.

In 2013-14, Crosby started year 1 of a deal that made him $8.7M on a $64M cap. That works out to 13.5%.

If the cap rises another $2M next year, it will be $77M in year 1 of Jack's deal. 13.5% of the cap would be $10.3M.

Again: $10.3M is Crosby's cap-adjusted deal if it started in 17-18.

So yeah, McDavid throwing an extra $2.2M on top of that doesn't necessarily reflect the market on the top end.

 

[Heraldic]

You're struggling...

Eichel and Pasternak have comparable production. Fact

Linemates impact on production is not a factor in contract negotiations. That was one of your arguments for differentiating Eichel and Pastranak's production

So you're actually telling me that GMs are not factoring a player's role and linemates when evaluating his value in contract negotiations? You think that's the only aspect they neglect, or that they don't take into account anything when production is considered?

The fact that you keep telling me something about struggling is quite something.

Because... feelings and linemates. I heard you the first time.

It seems you actually think they deserve similar contracts. I have read a lot during this offseason, but this is something else.

So we can ignore McDavid's contract because of all the terrible trade Chiarelli made? Lol

Nice pivot... waiting for your examples still.

What?

I don't understand the question, it's not relevant to the context of the point I made.

The point made clear that they are not comparable, just like a Eichel and McDavid's contracts have no reason to be comparable.

You compared Ekblad's and Risto's cap hits stating that because Risto's was that low Ekblad's contract wasn't a factor there... While totally ignoring the fact that Risto had only 1 UFA year and Ekblad 4. Taking that into account, and the fact that UFA years have _huge_ impact oncap hit, Risto's cap hit was higher than pretty much any other defenseman signing 6 year deal.

So you compare them and then tell they're not comparable. That's something as well.

In a way it is ironic... you didn't once make the argument that's Ekblad lifted the bar for everyone, you continued to point to contracts that were comparable for Risto.

You've shifted logic.

It's mceichel syndrome

This isn't the first time you try to dig yourself up somewhere by trying to ******** people here. Here are couple of posts showing that once again your bs-move was futile. And the first of those posts actually displays the "leverage" conversation as well:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=122951449&postcount=155

I think it was you who said that the contracts that other RFA d-men (Jones, Ekblad etc.) are getting has no impact regarding Risto, while I told you the opposite. And at least McKenzie's reports are in a sync with my stance.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=122508293&postcount=850

Considering McKenzie's tweets it seems Buffalo/Anaheim are pointing to Rielly/Jones (and likely Ekman-Larsson/Hamilton etc), and players pointing to Ekblad. It also pretty clearly shows how the price of RFA emphasized contracts are dictated by comparables (I remember someone telling before that those contracts don't matter or affect with each other). I have no idea why Florida gave Ekblad that contract (not really squeezing everything out of those RFA years pushing the cap hit more down), but it seems to have complicated things from Buffalo's pov big time.

Unlike you, I took the other contracts into account... I just didn't think that what exactly is the price/value of UFA years. That's why the Ekblad contract was difficult to exactly take into account because the context was 6 years deal with Risto there.

 

[Heraldic]

In a different way, the most comparable contract for Eichel BEFORE McDavid, was Ekblad. A top pick, straight to NHL, immediate impact, very good seasons, got his 8 year deal after 2nd season, and was largely compensated for upside/potential (a rare type of contract).

McDavid raised the bar for sure, but his contract is a league of its own (20 year old Hart).... how much did it raise the bar Ekblad set? He raised the very top of the market by <20% (the Kane/Toews) contracts.

A 20% increase in Ekblad's contract is 9.0.... that should be Eichel's ceiling... if Botterill is doing his job.

Ekblad didn't set the bar for second contracts before McDavid. It was Stamkos several years ago with only 1 UFA year (Stamkos with 8 years would have been bigger cap hit wise - probably significantly, and there's also the cap inflation). Ekblad is also a defenceman and never really had or have the same kind of elite-superstar potential as Eichel.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I really really love that this is a close door negotiation and people are just slinging around what are facts and objectively not facts when you have no idea of the negotiation strategies. You can have opinions, but attacking other's opinions is goofy