For that proposal to work, they have to take Jeff Skinner instead of Okposo, give us their 2022 1st instead of Montreal's pick, and let us have the 1st 3 picks of the expansion draft (we choose)
Player Discussion Jack Eichel Part 2
- Thread starter Jim Bob
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
- Status
For that proposal to work, they have to take Jeff Skinner instead of Okposo, give us their 2022 1st instead of Montreal's pick, and let us have the 1st 3 picks of the expansion draft (we choose)
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 19,687
- 10,957
In will be interesting to see how this plays out...
* If I was another team, I would not give up much for an injured Eichel.
* If I was the Sabres, I would not give up Eichel, period.
It's a contradiction which makes me think he won't move but if Eichel wants out bad enough...
Again, it will be interesting.
* If I was another team, I would not give up much for an injured Eichel.
* If I was the Sabres, I would not give up Eichel, period.
It's a contradiction which makes me think he won't move but if Eichel wants out bad enough...
Again, it will be interesting.
SackTastic
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 7,829
- 1,915
This is the epitome of internet blog derp.
- Blogger posts the Hottest of Takes before the season that if the Sabres suck Eichel may want out.
- Blogger congratulates themselves on their predictive abilities. ( Which is hilarious, because pretty much anyone who follows the game said/thought the same thing.)
Now they propose a trade that:
- Makes grand assumptions about the roster that Seattle will select.
- Assumes Montreal will give up a 1st round pick to protect Jake Allen, a 30 year old backup goaltender behind Carey Price, who the Habs are very much committed to long term.
- Assumes the Sabres will be ok trading Eichel for picks and prospects, JUST BECAUSE they could also dump Okposo. ( Ignoring the fact that if the Sabres move Eichel, they clear $10M off their cap, so there's no pressing need to clear out $6M more. Unless Uncle Terry decides to chase some more free agents who want Taylor Hall deals. )
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
A) I don't believe that Eichel has that much trade value given the injury and the fact that it looks like he wants out.
B) I don't see Skinner waiving his NMC to go to Seattle.
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
Regarding A, I don't know anything about where his value actually lies. But the report on the Athletic, where actual NHL execs were polled, indicates his value is quite a bit higher than you suggest, even with his injury and status.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
The Athletic article had a wide variety of opinions on the trade value. Which you would expect.
The thing we don't know is whether any of the execs that placed a lot of value on him still were actually in the market for a guy like Eichel. If they are, it is a moot point with regards to how much they value him.
And the counterproposal (if I am reading it the way it was intended) was:
To Seattle:
Eichel
Skinner
To Buffalo:
2021 SEA 1st
2022 SEA 1st
[1st ED pick]
[2nd ED pick]
[3rd ED pick]
That is a boatload when you factor in just how terrible the Skinner contract is.
At a minimum, dumping Skinner might be worth the equivalent of 2 1sts.
So, the ask is 4 1sts and the first three ED picks. I don't think that Eichel currently has that much trade value.
itwasaforwardpass
I'll be the hyena
- Mar 4, 2017
- 5,378
- 5,234
Skinner is just overpaid. He is still useful and can score 40 again if put in the correct spot. How on earth is dumping Skinner worth 2 1sts?The Athletic article had a wide variety of opinions on the trade value. Which you would expect.
The thing we don't know is whether any of the execs that placed a lot of value on him still were actually in the market for a guy like Eichel. If they are, it is a moot point with regards to how much they value him.
And the counterproposal (if I am reading it the way it was intended) was:
To Seattle:
Eichel
Skinner
To Buffalo:
2021 SEA 1st
2022 SEA 1st
[1st ED pick]
[2nd ED pick]
[3rd ED pick]
That is a boatload when you factor in just how terrible the Skinner contract is.
At a minimum, dumping Skinner might be worth the equivalent of 2 1sts.
So, the ask is 4 1sts and the first three ED picks. I don't think that Eichel currently has that much trade value.
Let's say he is overpaid by 4 million. Is 4 million in cap space worth 2 1sts?
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
Skinner has had over 35 goals just twice in his career. And it took a season with a Shooting% that was 1.5x his career shooting% to get 40 on the nose.
I don't think he has another 40 goal season in him at this point.
A 5th 30 goal season would be nice....
The issue isn't JUST, that he's overpaid, it's that he's massively overpaid for his performance the last two seasons.
112 GP, 21G, 16A
Over an 82 game season, that's 15G, 12A. If you are paying a veteran offensively inclined forward 5M a year for 27 points, you got ripped off. That is the kind of production you can get from calling up an AHL forward.
Given his full NMC and 6 years of remaining term, if we could purge the contract for 2x 1sts, it would be the deal of the century. Marleau, on a 35+ contract, cost 1 1st to purge 1 year, 6M worth.
And while I actually agree that he will probably have at least 1-2 more good seasons over the course of the SIX remaining seasons, being able to purge off the 3-4 terrible seasons where he scores 15 goals and is a general waste of space, it'd be worth every penny.
The Athletic article had a wide variety of opinions on the trade value. Which you would expect.
The thing we don't know is whether any of the execs that placed a lot of value on him still were actually in the market for a guy like Eichel. If they are, it is a moot point with regards to how much they value him.
And the counterproposal (if I am reading it the way it was intended) was:
To Seattle:
Eichel
Skinner
To Buffalo:
2021 SEA 1st
2022 SEA 1st
[1st ED pick]
[2nd ED pick]
[3rd ED pick]
That is a boatload when you factor in just how terrible the Skinner contract is.
At a minimum, dumping Skinner might be worth the equivalent of 2 1sts.
So, the ask is 4 1sts and the first three ED picks. I don't think that Eichel currently has that much trade value.
I was being a bit over the top because the original proposal was just so terrible. The concept of pinning Skinner to Eichel is so counter productive.
In regards to Skinner, given the state of the team and franchise's overall reputation, the simply best value proposition is to find a way to get Skinner producing again. High Ozone starts with players that can create space, either with physicality or a skilled line mate that can create space for him with speed/playmaking similar to how Eichel created room for him.
If we did pay for his purge, it would set back any potential rebuild in exchange for a roster spot/cap space which we couldn't fill because no highly salaried player would waive their NMC to come here or sign as a UFA. We'd essentially be paying for space that we'd only be able to use foolishly at this point. The only real scenario that would make sense is some team comes buy and offers to eat his full contract for 2 lotto protected 1sts or something equally cheap.
Once we get to the point where we are winning and making the playoffs, we can re-evaluate Skinner's contract and see if it would make sense to pay the piper (either via Buyout or trade). Until we are actually to that point as a franchise, paying anyone to take on our problems seems like throwing good money after bad.
The Leafs were cap-strapped. They had to go that high. The equivalent would be covid-masks at the beginning of the pandemic costing 10x+ more than they do now because supply was low and demand was very high.
I guarantee you, if Skinner pots 30+ goals next year, and keeps producing in the playoffs, this wave of rage against him will subside. That's a lot of big IFs for sure, but it's for the sake of the argument.
sabremike
#1 Tageaholic
Why do so many people lack the ability to spot the actual culprits who caused something bad to happen. Skinner was signed to that deal with the idea him and Jack would be paired for the next decade as a great top line so what did they do almost instantly: "Hey this pairing is working great, let's break it up and put Jeff with some of the worst players in the league instead!" The debacle that followed was entirely predictable.
Because there is no consistency with this franchise. All consistency must be channeled into something else: maintaing a certain lifestyle and building a superyacht. I'm sure the Pegulas' relationship with the yacht engineer encompasses all three GMs the Sabres had during their ownership.
There must not be a yacht gap.
While I certainly agree his drop in production certainly is related to his change in linemates/deployments
And that is 100% on the coaching staff (Krueger)
However, Skinner isn't above blame here. He's clearly been less engaged and less willing to do the dirty work to score goals since he signed the contract. And even if that were the case (signed to play with Eichel), it makes it a foolish contract because you don't pay 1st line winger money to someone who needs an elite center to produce.
OkimLom
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 15,556
- 7,009
And since he's signed the contract, he was coached by Krueger and then Granato and well, we saw how that went. The Krueger/Skinner dynamic didn't just happen overnight, it's been there since the beginning when Ralph came here.
Ralph immediately put him with MaJo and at a point Sobotka.
Kruegeritis is a terrible thing to have, it takes approx an off-season to recover from it. Jeff Skinner will be fine this upcoming season.
BuffaloGooner
Registered User
Under Granato, Skinner scored 5 G and 6 A in 28 games.
That works out to 15G, 18A over an 82 game season. For a 9M forward, that is pretty terrible.
I think:
- We need to put Skinner in a position to succeed
-Skinner needs to be better
Can both be true. Given the size and immovability of his contract, we need to work on both.
While i think Skinner will be fine in the coming seasons (if put in the right spot), he surely had the contract extension slump a lot of players go through when signing long term contracts with lots of money involved. He then also had to face Krueger.
What i disliked from the start, because it is almost always hollow words, was his statement after his extension. Actually a funny little nugget of entertainment in retrospect:
Here to Stay
What i disliked from the start, because it is almost always hollow words, was his statement after his extension. Actually a funny little nugget of entertainment in retrospect:
Here to Stay
K8fool
Registered User
All these trades are lame.. Like accepting a trade for your hot girl for a blind date w Amanda Fuque.. Whoops..
Artemis Clyde Frog
Registered User
- Feb 1, 2019
- 277
- 169
Why would any team take Eichel's 10m cap if they didn't know he would get back to 100% or close to it?
I think teams will look closely at Eichel once he is on the ice again, before deciding if they want to trade for him, Sabres included. If he is back to 100% and plays great, it will be interesting to see what will happen. Why should the Sabres trade him then? Why would Eichel want to leave? In this scenario i can imagine him wanting to stay because the team is better all around, with growth from the youth and much better coaching. Let's say they are 25% into the season and in a playoff spot. Why change a running system?
There's a sequence of events which will play out b4 Eichel.
1)Will Ullmark return
2)If not, who replaces him (Not Driedger who is looking pretty bad right now, Mike Smith too old, Grubauer isn't leaveing Colorado, how much will Mrazek cost...or take a chance on Brossoit?)
3)Will Reinhart commit to at least a 4 year contract
4)If not, you really have to trade him, right?
If Reinhart is gone for futures and there's no solid #1 goalie, we aren't a playoff team next year. Then it's almost an inevitability, you trade Eichel when healthy, and tank like no team has ever tanked before.
I don't know if there will be a bidding war for Mrazek. I hope that Ullmark has good feels for Buffalo because of how supportive the team was for him. If one of them takes 4 years $5million I think we will be very fortunate.
If we have a secure #1 goalie, and if Eichel's health can be resolved and he looks to be good to go for the season opener, maybe Sam comes around and he does sign a long term deal. But I still think we will be wondering about Jack's health until at least early August.
SackTastic
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 7,829
- 1,915
Because sometimes, to certain teams, making a 'big splash' to acquire a player is more important than what that player actually provides on the ice.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Ducks @ Pens, 7pm SN-Pitt!! 4th loss in a row? Yes please!!- Latest: Honour Over Glory
-
GDT: Oct. 31, 2024 - Montreal Canadiens @ Washington Capitals- Latest: The Great Weal
