So failing as a leader is defined in wins?
I have no idea where you got something like that in your head.
Complaining about not getting a leadership responsibility on other organisation (=the other organisation didn't see him as the leader he himself saw himself), then getting into another organisation with the clear purpose of building the culture right and being one of the (if not the biggest) veteran presence in the locker room with the experience he had. During the third season the team's culture is abysmal, which means the leadership group did a bad job and failed. ROR simply hasn't shown any reason to be named as a captain. He had his chance, and he didn't use it. Blaming itself and telling how himself should be more vocal etc. are not really indications of being a leader. ROR is not part of the problem, but he clearly isn't a solution - a solution which a veteran presence with leadership should offer.
But you're never going to admit it. I mean, you were the one who really adamantly thought and shouted that ROR being the captain after Gionta was settled at the very moment he was traded here.
You're confusing the topics. Kane/Eichel don't work optimally together. That's very true. But they do produce ES offense together. It's imply that the other 90% of the game, is garbage.
Interesting considering that I explicitly said that they produce... There are myriad of reasons why Kane is not the optimal winger for Eichel - and most of those reasons have to do with the offensive side of the game.
Man... i love how how you pin ball on sample size.... lol
Maybe... include last season for a better sample size? Uh oh... your narrative might break...
But hey... sure, taking away the 2nd highest ES Goal Scorer in the NHL over the last 12 months... won't affect Eichel... because he's a superstar, on a 63 point pace....
Let's not get distracted here. You were worried about Eichel's ES production without Kane. This season Eichel's ES production has been just fine - relatively speaking it is better than last season. Statistically Kane really hasn't been a factor there. Sure, if we replace Kane with Griffith or Larsson, it sure will have a negative impact on his production. But that is not really a viable scenario.
It's interesting you bring up Kane being a top ES producer and at the same discredit Eichel pointing to his point pace. Showing your agenda like that probably is not goint to help your credibility. Kane wouldn't be there without Eichel and that likely isn't under any debate. When we take into account the total goal scoring of this team and the lack of PP goals, Eichel's point pace isn't that awful. Is it absolutely great? Of course not. But you repeatedly pointing there is just silly.
I don't know what you're referencing
Of course not. How about, for example, refreshing your memory about last season related to Larsson's defensive metrics and the reasons for them and compare them to the driven narrative here by you.
You wasted a lot of energy regurgitating an argument that I fully understood, and completely disagreed with. I said numerous times that I was fully aware and prepared for the likely outcome, and then I argued with fact as to why it was a stupid way to go. Not that it wasn't possible and not that it wasn't likely... but that it was dumb. And here we are...
This seems to be another case of your poor recollection of memory. We had two separate conversation. First was about the incentives Buffalo and Eichel has to get the deal done now. I gave a pretty thorough explanation regarding that. Wether those reasons were enough to push for the deal, really comes to what Botteril was planning during the off-season. We actually addressed the possibility of waiting until the next off-season - but you need to actually aknowledge the negatives in that scenario if you're going to call anything dumb. You don't seem to be doing that, which make you look simply ranting prat. You can't really eat and save the cake.
The other conversation was about the premises dictating the cap hit of the 8 year deal getting signed now. The whole conversation was based on the very premise of Eichel getting signed. That's where you utterly failed to understand the situation (and seemingly keep doing that). You referred to Ekblad etc. You were talking about "earning" etc. And that's exactly where you showed (and keep showing) your lack of really understanding the situation. It reminds me very closely about the Risto negotiation and you talking about the situation being compared to a situation where one gots a fatal disease and the other the cure. That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Being in a situation you can't really shape the premises the way you want. You can shout as much as you want that your contract
should be based on earning or whatever - but that simply doesn't work with players like Eichel. As I explained before, there is a strong trend about teams investing those cornerstone pieces - and those cornerstone pieces see the situation and take advantage of it. Doughty and Karlsson giving their comments reflects the situation as well. That's why the price of those UFA years has DRASTICALLY gone up. Pretty much every contract reflects that situation. You seem to think that Pastrnak contract wasn't impacted that factor, and that shows your lack of understanding. The standard was 6 million, but Pastrnak got it up by over half a million. For only a two year UFA term that is huge raise. And the fact that Boston didn't feel comfortable about 8 year deal tells that they didn't like to pay significantly more because the relative price of every UFA year rises as the more there is.
Botteril and Sabres simply don't have the luxury of neglecting the realities and start to lowball Eichel. Eichel is the only legimite chance to have a bonafide franchise player here - one with it is a lot easier to win a cup than without - so you have to be careful there. Sabres are not Chicago or Penguins - far from it.
In a 3rd season, where Eichel will score at around a Pastrnak level at best, while we will pay him 33% more.
Wrong. Boston is paying Pastrnak over 500% more.
We would've been far better off letting him play the season, and play FOR 80 million. Instead we get to watch him coast... The risk that Eichel would perform to a level that would've coast us MORE than 80 million, wasn't a risk at all.... like I said... that would've been a BENEFIT. I would LOVE for Eichel to be playing his ass off for a mega contract... I'd give that player 12 million.
You seem to save the cake and eat it here again...
Anyway, it's strange that you seem to be totally content of paying him 12 million more, but seem to think that the world is over because at best we could have saved the same 2 million.
Because of your agenda you don't seem to see that you're looking just the other side of the coin.
It was a strategic failure. A simple minded approach. And it has backfired. We will never get the young star playing AND developing in a contract season. We flushed that development and opportunity down the toilet for what? Potentially saving 1 or 2 million per year in cap space?
Oh, I forgot that you actually think that Eichel hasn't developed at all since his first game... Whether we gave him the contract or not, likely wouldn't have impacted on his development at all. There are myriad of reasons impacting and those are totally irrelevant to his contract.
There was nothing out to lunch about understanding the entirety and simplicity of the argument for the contract Eichel got, and simply disagreeing with it.
You are reframing the past. I never argued that Eichel WOULDN'T get 10 per. I argued that it was dumb to do that. And here we are.
And dont think its forgotten... how you hedged every possible position with nonsense like:
"less than 8.5 is unlikely, 8.5-9.5 is possible, 9.5 to 10.5 most likely, greater than 10.5 possible"
My memory is better than yours[/QUOTE]
I have definitely lost the count of the times that you arrogantly claim me to talk something and you yourself not...
But I did the legwork here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...sam-next-summer.2365203/page-8#post-134442733
Here you pretty explicitly say that you think 8x8 is the contract...
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/jack-eichel-–-part-3.2180021/page-28#post-135062971
Here I make the prediction of 9,5-10,5, which you happen to question (so despite it being pretty much right there where it ended up being, you disagreed...). I also after that if I had to wager, I would say that 9,5-10,5. And it landed right in the middle... Pretty far from your 8 million...
The irony here is that, when your thinking is based on what he "should" get or what he "earns", is based purely on your own feelings about how things
should according to you, you talk about others basing their arguments on "feelings". The fact is, that you simply doesn't seem to understand how things go.
So, about your memory....
We paid the bad organization tax.
This is part of the picture. We're a bad organisation and being able to keep a potential franchise player to the next 8 years is a win alone. Eichel is the closest of a franchise player we will probably get during the next 8 years, so it's not like there isn't anything on stake.
I don't think that the attractiveness of this organisation has been as bad as it is right now since the rebuild started.