Friedman: Flames have begun extension talks with Gaudreau & Eichel speculation

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BarDown

Not so sure about this. I would think that disputes between the Sabres and Eichel would be governed by the CBA, and subject to its dispute resolution mechanisms (binding arbitration). I'm certainly not a NHL CBA expert, but it may preclude the Sabres from filing a civil action for an alleged breach since Standard Player Contracts are incorporated into CBA.

I would suspect there is some arbitration component in there for regular contract disputes/disagreements, but this would be breach of not only the SPC but also the components of the CBA relating to player health and safety. This is beyond a regular SPC, because if it were, the player would be complying with the rules. This is on another level and much larger issue. As pointed out by another poster, the other leagues would be standing beside the NHL and its member clubs on this.

[BarDown]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Really want this Eichel situation resolved. So we can move one, because if the Flames don't get him they still have more work to do regardless. Just break the darn logjam.

100%. I'm all aboard the Eichel train, but if it doesn't work out, I'm still hoping for some meaningful change to the top 6.

There's still lots of time before the season starts of course, but it seems clear that the Flames are grinding away with Buffalo, with any other potential moves necessarily taking a back seat until the Eichel situation is resolved.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Do tell counsellor. Are you suggesting the Sabres would not be able to sue Eichel for breach of contract and then be eligible for compensatory damages? You're suggesting the Sabres could not argue that Eichel has done damage to them and their reputation to the point where is negatively impacts their revenue stream? I think this is exactly what the Sabres would do and use the weight of them being a $100M gate drive business to crush Eichel. Five years of potential losses. That's a big number that could eat up every cent Eichel has already earned, and then into what he earns in the future. Is that an incorrect interpretation of compensatory damages as a result of breach of contract? If it is please explain what the options are.

Have a look at previous cases in the NHL for breach of contract. Yashin, for example.

And no, that head of damages is too remote and practically unprovable. It is thus an incorrect interpretation of contractual damages.

The SPC doesn’t actually say that the club has sole discretion over medical procedures anyway. It does if it pays for them. And it can suspend a player for not following the club’s “reasonable” conditions. https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/fil...A_2013_CBA.pdf

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Aren't your second and third scenarios the same thing?

He is just adding the 3rd for effect. It is a cp thing.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Was this the longest, most pointless post in CP history?


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

You said to have fun as a fan, now you are shutting down fun?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Have a look at previous cases in the NHL for breach of contract. Yashin, for example.

And no, that head of damages is too remote and practically unprovable. It is thus an incorrect interpretation of contractual damages.

The SPC doesn’t actually say that the club has sole discretion over medical procedures anyway. It does if it pays for them. And it can suspend a player for not following the club’s “reasonable” conditions. https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/fil...A_2013_CBA.pdf

There's some really interesting stuff in there about insurance and injuries, and a lot related to Eichel's situation. Eichel has the opportunity to have his injury reviewed through binding arbitration, but has not elected to do so. Red flag? The language says that the team's doctors and the player's doctors will meet and determine whether the player can return to action. If they cannot agree the league and NHLPA will agree on a third party to consult and make the final binding determination. This may be why Eichel's camp has not gone the route of launching a grievance or going to arbitration because they are confident the outcome would go against them.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by BarDown

100%. I'm all aboard the Eichel train, but if it doesn't work out, I'm still hoping for some meaningful change to the top 6.

There's still lots of time before the season starts of course, but it seems clear that the Flames are grinding away with Buffalo, with any other potential moves necessarily taking a back seat until the Eichel situation is resolved.

Either way, there needs to be change.

I think it's a failure after last season to stand pat.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There's some really interesting stuff in there about insurance and injuries, and a lot related to Eichel's situation. Eichel has the opportunity to have his injury reviewed through binding arbitration, but has not elected to do so. Red flag? The language says that the team's doctors and the player's doctors will meet and determine whether the player can return to action. If they cannot agree the league and NHLPA will agree on a third party to consult and make the final binding determination. This may be why Eichel's camp has not gone the route of launching a grievance or going to arbitration because they are confident the outcome would go against them.

What a leap at the end. It could just be that they don't want the risk of the arbitration binding them to a health outcome the player doesn't want, even if they think they'd win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There's some really interesting stuff in there about insurance and injuries, and a lot related to Eichel's situation. Eichel has the opportunity to have his injury reviewed through binding arbitration, but has not elected to do so. Red flag? The language says that the team's doctors and the player's doctors will meet and determine whether the player can return to action. If they cannot agree the league and NHLPA will agree on a third party to consult and make the final binding determination. This may be why Eichel's camp has not gone the route of launching a grievance or going to arbitration because they are confident the outcome would go against them.

But even then it doesn’t say he has to go along with the team’s wishes. It just says they don’t pay for it. Now, if he misses time because he went against their wishes, he can be suspended. Or, if they want and the breach is serious, they can terminate.

They might also seek an injunction to prevent the surgery.

[GioforPM]

There’s now some reporting that Buffalo may be willing to retain salary in order to get a better trade.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There’s now some reporting that Buffalo may be willing to retain salary in order to get a better trade.

I was wondering about this, and it would be even better to get Eichel @ $8 million AAV. Help to keep the team strong around him.

[VladtheImpaler]

For a whole host of reasons (window of opportunity, contract projection, potential locker room issues, shortage of assets in the organization, fit, etc), I would do this thing in stages:

1) Tkachuk to STL for Taransenko (retained to whatever extent is possible - 10-15%?) + 2 x 1st + Thomas or Kyrou

2) Then you do the equivalent of 2 x 1st + Valimaki + Dube or whatever for Eichel

I think these are good transactions from the leverage perspective as both the other trading partners HAVE to move the respective players, so you are in position to get the best possible deal. I think Taransenko, assuming he is fixed, fits in terms of style with Gaudreau and Eichel. And it is only two years, so you could pivot in a different direction. If you are gambling anyhow, I think this allows you to actually keep your assets overall, and potentially get the benefit of Eichel. Obviously, it can all crater, but if you are going for a high variance play, you might as well really go for it.
Obviously, Tarasenko might refuse to come here, you probably still need to move Monahan or some other money and you still need a PP QB, but I kind of like this play more than other options...

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There's some really interesting stuff in there about insurance and injuries, and a lot related to Eichel's situation. Eichel has the opportunity to have his injury reviewed through binding arbitration, but has not elected to do so. Red flag? The language says that the team's doctors and the player's doctors will meet and determine whether the player can return to action. If they cannot agree the league and NHLPA will agree on a third party to consult and make the final binding determination. This may be why Eichel's camp has not gone the route of launching a grievance or going to arbitration because they are confident the outcome would go against them.

We are literally talking about Jack's QOL for 5-6 more decades. You don't give up the control you do have until exhausting all other options (such as waiting to see if a team will acquire you with a green light for disk replacement).

I'm sure there are a lot of intricacies related to insurance that impact possible courses of action on each side.

If this ever did go to litigation it would be fascinating and messy.

[devo22]

my somewhat boring armchair GM moves would be:

1) trade Monahan + Dube + Zary + 2022 1st + 2023 3rd for Eichel
2) sign Jason Demers
3) sign depth forward

Gaudreau - Eichel - Tkachuk
Mangiapane - Lindholm - Coleman
Lucic - Backlund - Pitlick
Lewis - Ruzicka - Ritchie
(Gawdin)

Hanifin - Tanev
Zadorov - Andersson
Valimaki - Demers
(Kylington, Mackey, Welinski)

Markstrom - Vladar

I think after trading for Eichel, there'd be about 7-8 million left to sign Zadorov and depth players. Demers would be a decent veteran option for the right handed side, and then you could look at possible forward options in the bottom six. Guys like Donato or Cizikas would probably be too expensive, but who knows.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There’s now some reporting that Buffalo may be willing to retain salary in order to get a better trade.

Hmm. I wonder if this doesn’t actually hurt the Flames chances to get him.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Hmm. I wonder if this doesn’t actually hurt the Flames chances to get him.

It could definitely get more teams interested and make a bidding war.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Hmm. I wonder if this doesn’t actually hurt the Flames chances to get him.

Well, it probably expands the number of teams that can pull it off. So yeah.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by devo22

my somewhat boring armchair GM moves would be:

1) trade Monahan + Dube + Zary + 2022 1st + 2023 3rd for Eichel
2) sign Jason Demers
3) sign depth forward

Gaudreau - Eichel - Tkachuk
Mangiapane - Lindholm - Coleman
Lucic - Backlund - Pitlick
Lewis - Ruzicka - Ritchie
(Gawdin)

Hanifin - Tanev
Zadorov - Andersson
Valimaki - Demers
(Kylington, Mackey, Welinski)

Markstrom - Vladar

I think after trading for Eichel, there'd be about 7-8 million left to sign Zadorov and depth players. Demers would be a decent veteran option for the right handed side, and then you could look at possible forward options in the bottom six. Guys like Donato or Cizikas would probably be too expensive, but who knows.

No more depth forwards!!

Lol.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by direwolf

I feel like the fans are gonna freak out no matter which way this ends.

We get him, but it's very likely we'll have to sell the farm to do so = CP explodes and the pitchforks come out.

We don't get him = CP explodes and the pitchforks come out.

Vegas or Anaheim gets him = CP explodes and the pitchforks come out.

This is the way.

[MrMike]

Every time I log in and see a trade not done I’m sad.

I’ll check in again in a few hours. Keep adding those 3rds Tre until it gets done.