Player Discussion Jack Eichel Part 8 -- The Siege of Eichelgrad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jacob582

Registered User
Oct 16, 2012
9,453
3,038
Article on ESPN re: Eichel

Really, nothing new other than a few quotes from players, and this little tidbit



I mean, I get it, GMs need vacations too. But the timing is probably the worst he could have had

Get your work done first, Kevyn
"Adams is traveling this week and was unavailable, per the Sabres.)"


Adams could have had a statement explaining more. But he didn't. This is how the Sabres very carefully chose to respond to the media. I love it!
 

Jim Bob

RIP RJ
Feb 27, 2002
55,647
34,488
Rochester, NY
Yeah, the talk of retaining half his salary is insane talk. Imagine giving up $5M of your cap space for 5 years, and giving it to a competitor in your own conference to boot.

If the return is a lot better, retaining up to 50% on Eichel makes sense.

The Sabres are nowhere near the cap in 21-22. So, retaining salary this year shouldn't be an issue.

The Sabres are unlikely to be near the cap in 22-23 with roughly $15M coming off the books after this season.

And with Girgensons and Okposo off the books following the 22-23 season, carrying $5M on Eichel isn't a huge burden.

Heck, retaining 50% on Eichel will likely be better for the team than if they had signed Saad to a 5x5 deal in UFA.

And personally, I would think that retaining 50% on Eichel helps a deal with Minnesota happen versus Eichel going to the Rangers.
 

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,817
6,535
Brooklyn
Yeah, the talk of retaining half his salary is insane talk. Imagine giving up $5M of your cap space for 5 years, and giving it to a competitor in your own conference to boot.

Even 1 or 2 million for five years is too much. I didn't even consider that they'd be bold enough to ask that Buffalo retain $5M. I'd consider them a "non-serious" partner if that's even being proposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,817
6,535
Brooklyn
"Adams is traveling this week and was unavailable, per the Sabres.)"

Adams could have had a statement explaining more. But he didn't. This is how the Sabres very carefully chose to respond to the media. I love it!

They would rather lose all fans and have everyone in the league hate the team and than to give anyone a shred of extra information. They truly don't care what people think and it shows. Never have.
 

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,817
6,535
Brooklyn
If the return is a lot better, retaining up to 50% on Eichel makes sense.

The Sabres are nowhere near the cap in 21-22. So, retaining salary this year shouldn't be an issue.

The Sabres are unlikely to be near the cap in 22-23 with roughly $15M coming off the books after this season.

And with Girgensons and Okposo off the books following the 22-23 season, carrying $5M on Eichel isn't a huge burden.

Heck, retaining 50% on Eichel will likely be better for the team than if they had signed Saad to a 5x5 deal in UFA.

And personally, I would think that retaining 50% on Eichel helps a deal with Minnesota happen versus Eichel going to the Rangers.

Probably a very stupid question, but can you retain different amounts of salary each year? Say $5M the first year, down to zero in year 3 or 4?
 

Jacob582

Registered User
Oct 16, 2012
9,453
3,038
They would rather lose all fans and have everyone in the league hate the team and than to give anyone a shred of extra information. They truly don't care what people think and it shows. Never have.
:skeptic:

That's what some said during the lockout about the league. Didn't happen.

This is like a divorce. It didn't just happen with the last fight they had. The relationship has been going down for a while now, usually with one side letting go of the relationship before the other.

It doesn't behoove them to share all the dirtly laundry of their divorce. They will look petty and small if they gripe about everything that has happened in the past. I'm sure all kinds of nasty has gone on behind the scene.

I feel that Jack doesn't just want to control his surgery, but he wants to control which team he goes to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SECRET SQUIRREL

dotcommunism

Moderator
Aug 16, 2007
5,181
3,345
Probably a very stupid question, but can you retain different amounts of salary each year? Say $5M the first year, down to zero in year 3 or 4?
A team retains a percentage, up to 50%, of the contract. The cap hit is fixed year-to-year based on whatever that percentage of the cap hit is. Any salaries and bonuses paid on a season-to-season basis are the same percentage (which means that the actual amounts of salary a team retains in any given season does vary based on that year's salary in the contract, but it will always be the same percentage. If you retain 50% of a player's contract, you'd pay $2M if that year's salary is $4M and $1.5M if that year's salary is $3M).
 

Ygo

Registered User
Oct 19, 2015
153
75
:skeptic:

That's what some said during the lockout about the league. Didn't happen.

This is like a divorce. It didn't just happen with the last fight they had. The relationship has been going down for a while now, usually with one side letting go of the relationship before the other.

It doesn't behoove them to share all the dirtly laundry of their divorce. They will look petty and small if they gripe about everything that has happened in the past. I'm sure all kinds of nasty has gone on behind the scene.

I feel that Jack doesn't just want to control his surgery, but he wants to control which team he goes to.
Would not be hard for him to block a trade... I am not going to NJ (agent tells team, if you trade for him, he is not reporting). The NBA is already entirely superstar centric. Seeing some of this in the NFL too. Jack might be a pioneer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582

Jim Bob

RIP RJ
Feb 27, 2002
55,647
34,488
Rochester, NY
Would not be hard for him to block a trade... I am not going to NJ (agent tells team, if you trade for him, he is not reporting). The NBA is already entirely superstar centric. Seeing some of this in the NFL too. Jack might be a pioneer.

I'll believe that when I see it.
 

sabremike

Friend To All Giraffes
Aug 30, 2010
22,544
33,788
Brewster, NY
Would not be hard for him to block a trade... I am not going to NJ (agent tells team, if you trade for him, he is not reporting). The NBA is already entirely superstar centric. Seeing some of this in the NFL too. Jack might be a pioneer.
Besides the fact that doing such a thing is taboo within hockey the reason NBA players can do that is that in terms of impact on results they are far more valuable. Lebron can single-handedly carry a team of scrubs deep into the playoffs, Crosby or any other hockey player can't.
 

BloFan4Life

Registered User
Jul 8, 2009
4,057
930
NY
If I have dead money on the Sabres, it will be because I buy out Skinner, not because I traded the best player on the team. Get out of here with this crap of retaining money for Jack Eichel. Add that lost player in the deal then, that you could have signed or re-signed.
 

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,817
6,535
Brooklyn
:skeptic:

That's what some said during the lockout about the league. Didn't happen.

This is like a divorce. It didn't just happen with the last fight they had. The relationship has been going down for a while now, usually with one side letting go of the relationship before the other.

It doesn't behoove them to share all the dirtly laundry of their divorce. They will look petty and small if they gripe about everything that has happened in the past. I'm sure all kinds of nasty has gone on behind the scene.

I feel that Jack doesn't just want to control his surgery, but he wants to control which team he goes to.

I wasn’t talking about the Eichel situation specifically. Just saying, that one anecdote reflected their standard operating procedure re: communication with fans and the media, which has been pretty consistent over the years.
 

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,817
6,535
Brooklyn
If I have dead money on the Sabres, it will be because I buy out Skinner, not because I traded the best player on the team. Get out of here with this crap of retaining money for Jack Eichel. Add that lost player in the deal then, that you could have signed or re-signed.

It may end up being the difference in being able to land prospects like Krebs or Boldy though. Without retainage, we may be stuck with one of these crappy NYR packages that are always being floated.
 

BloFan4Life

Registered User
Jul 8, 2009
4,057
930
NY
It may end up being the difference in being able to land prospects like Krebs or Boldy though. Without retainage, we may be stuck with one of these crappy NYR packages that are always being floated.

Don't care. Not retaining on trading Jack Eichel. Get the heck out of here. He isn't even overpaid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582

TehDoak

Chili that wants to be here
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
31,251
8,152
Will fix everything
If the return is a lot better, retaining up to 50% on Eichel makes sense.

The Sabres are nowhere near the cap in 21-22. So, retaining salary this year shouldn't be an issue.

The Sabres are unlikely to be near the cap in 22-23 with roughly $15M coming off the books after this season.

And with Girgensons and Okposo off the books following the 22-23 season, carrying $5M on Eichel isn't a huge burden.

Heck, retaining 50% on Eichel will likely be better for the team than if they had signed Saad to a 5x5 deal in UFA.

And personally, I would think that retaining 50% on Eichel helps a deal with Minnesota happen versus Eichel going to the Rangers.

Eh I would tend to agree here. But the point of this exercise isn't a rebuild or even maximizing value.

It's running the team as cheaply as humanly possible.

And sure, we won't be "near" the actual salary cap next year, we're a budget team now. So retaining 5M on Eichel isn't a big deal for a billionaire owner who doesn't care about spending...the reality is, the Pegula's very much are budget conscience now, at least in regards to the Sabres.

So retaining 5M means that's a 5M player we can't add later because the internal budget won't allow it. I'd be shocked if it happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doug Prishpreed

ruff22

Registered User
May 5, 2007
296
28
Tucson, AZ
Yeah, the talk of retaining half his salary is insane talk. Imagine giving up $5M of your cap space for 5 years, and giving it to a competitor in your own conference to boot.

that's a good point, they get you coming and going...can you imagine the Rags figuratively having an 85M cap for the next five years while the Sabres operate with 75M?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582

NYSPORTS

back afta dis. . .
Jun 17, 2019
7,993
4,459
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582

Jacob582

Registered User
Oct 16, 2012
9,453
3,038
Eh I would tend to agree here. But the point of this exercise isn't a rebuild or even maximizing value.

It's running the team as cheaply as humanly possible.

And sure, we won't be "near" the actual salary cap next year, we're a budget team now. So retaining 5M on Eichel isn't a big deal for a billionaire owner who doesn't care about spending...the reality is, the Pegula's very much are budget conscience now, at least in regards to the Sabres.

So retaining 5M means that's a 5M player we can't add later because the internal budget won't allow it. I'd be shocked if it happened.

I agree that Pegula is much more frugal than before. Budget is a major consideration. Long term UFA signings may be a thing of the past (probably a good thing team wise too).

But, I believe that Pegula wants to win, and will spend to the cap when it is needed. Last year they signed Hall. Pegula was giving one last go to try to make the playoffs, before all the vets wanted out....forcing another rebuild.
 

old kummelweck

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
25,082
5,217
Is there any way Eichel could ever step foot in Buffalo again?

ezgif-570794118.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->