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

[Irvir]

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.

You're reading the wrong section, presumably Article 17, which deals with fitness to play i.e. are they injured an unable to play or not. Article 35 deals with getting a second medical opinion on an injury and and treatment.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Irvir

You're reading the wrong section, presumably Article 17, which deals with fitness to play i.e. are they injured an unable to play or not. Article 35 deals with getting a second medical opinion on an injury and and treatment, and does not include binding arbitration.

But 35 doesn’t actually say the player can’t get his own treatment. I suppose you could read it between the lines. And moreover, it doesn’t say what would happen I even if the player is supposed to abide by the team doctor’s ruling and yet goes ahead and does what he wants anyway.

ETA: all of the team’s discretion has to be “reasonable” as well, which is a word that creates doubt all the time in contracts. If a procedure is viable and the club refuses, that’s arguably unreasonable.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Read the CBA and cite me the exact language that says he has to undergo the medical procedure advocated by the team and can’t get his own. In fact, cite the language that says the team has any control aside from money.

I was asking for YOU to clarify the issue in your "expert" legal opinion. Since you want to be an ass about this and not answer the simple question, maybe you can clarify this.

From section 34.5 Players right to a surgeon of his choice.

In the event that the team physician determines that a surgical procedure is the appropriate course of treatment for the Player, a Player shall have the right to choose the surgeon who will perform the surgical procedure, provided that the surgeon selected by the Player is either on the Second Medical Opinion List, or is approved in writing by the Club (for surgery) prior to such surgery.

That seems to say the NHL and the NHLPA have a list of qualified surgeons for all procedures, and that if a player wants to use a surgeon beyond that list the surgeon must be approved by the team. As well, all rehabilitation is to be under supervision of the team's medical staff as outline in 34.6 (d) and 34.7.

To allow the Club to monitor the Player's condition and progress, the Player and/or the AT shall send periodic status reports to the Club. Following such status reports, the Club may request periodic in-person evaluations of the Player by the Club in the Club's home city (for which the Club will bear reasonable travel-related expenses) if the Club has reasonable grounds to believe that the Player's rehabilitation is not progressing satisfactorily. After such inperson evaluation, if the Club determines that the rehabilitation is not progressing satisfactorily, the Club shall have the right to require the Player to continue his rehabilitation in the Club's home city or such other location as is approved pursuant to subsection (a) above, and shall provide the basis for its decision, in writing, to the Player.

All in-season rehabilitation of Player injuries will be under the supervision and within the sole discretion of the Club's medical staff. A Player may not engage his own independently-sourced rehabilitation program or personnel without prior consultation and approval of the Club's medical staff.

So what is the expert legal opinion? Seems the team, under the direction of the health care professionals as mandated by the CBA, has a lot of control over anything that could affect the health and performance of the player, especially when it comes to surgical procedures. Yes? No?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I was asking for YOU to clarify the issue in your "expert" legal opinion. Since you want to be an ass about this and not answer the simple question, maybe you can clarify this.

From section 34.5 Players right to a surgeon of his choice.

In the event that the team physician determines that a surgical procedure is the appropriate course of treatment for the Player, a Player shall have the right to choose the surgeon who will perform the surgical procedure, provided that the surgeon selected by the Player is either on the Second Medical Opinion List, or is approved in writing by the Club (for surgery) prior to such surgery.

That seems to say the NHL and the NHLPA have a list of qualified surgeons for all procedures, and that if a player wants to use a surgeon beyond that list the surgeon must be approved by the team. As well, all rehabilitation is to be under supervision of the team's medical staff as outline in 34.6 (d) and 34.7.

To allow the Club to monitor the Player's condition and progress, the Player and/or the AT shall send periodic status reports to the Club. Following such status reports, the Club may request periodic in-person evaluations of the Player by the Club in the Club's home city (for which the Club will bear reasonable travel-related expenses) if the Club has reasonable grounds to believe that the Player's rehabilitation is not progressing satisfactorily. After such inperson evaluation, if the Club determines that the rehabilitation is not progressing satisfactorily, the Club shall have the right to require the Player to continue his rehabilitation in the Club's home city or such other location as is approved pursuant to subsection (a) above, and shall provide the basis for its decision, in writing, to the Player.

All in-season rehabilitation of Player injuries will be under the supervision and within the sole discretion of the Club's medical staff. A Player may not engage his own independently-sourced rehabilitation program or personnel without prior consultation and approval of the Club's medical staff.

So what is the expert legal opinion? Seems the team, under the direction of the health care professionals as mandated by the CBA, has a lot of control over anything that could affect the health and performance of the player, especially when it comes to surgical procedures. Yes? No?

As I said, this is arguably all about what the player can do at the Club’s expense. It doesn’t specifically prohibit anything at the player’s expense. And the Club has to act reasonably (both expressly under the contract and as a matter of common law). Read me the language that says “and the player shall not undertake any procedure not approved by the Club”.

But let’s say it does prohibit it. The damages are not loss of team revenues. In fact, the team would probably have to prove (a) that the procedure failed, (b) their procedure would have succeeded, and (c) they lost the services of the player as a result. The problem is still that they wouldn’t suffer any wage loss due to LTIR.

Teams can’t credibly tie a player to revenue because teams also trade players all the time (sometimes for no comparable player) without a loss of revenue. Eichel could point to the trade attempts for mostly futures.

[Irvir]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But 35 doesn’t actually say the player can’t get his own treatment. I suppose you could read it between the lines. And moreover, it doesn’t say what would happen I even if the player is supposed to abide by the team doctor’s ruling and yet goes ahead and does what he wants anyway.

ETA: all of the team’s discretion has to be “reasonable” as well, which is a word that creates doubt all the time in contracts. If a procedure is viable and the club refuses, that’s arguably unreasonable.

I didn’t say it did, nor did I imply that he couldn’t get his own treatment. I just pointed out that the language used was from a provision that dealt with a different determination, fitness to play vs treatment.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Irvir

I didn’t say it did, nor did I imply that he couldn’t get his own treatment. I just pointed out that the language used was from a provision that dealt with a different determination, fitness to play vs treatment.

True enough. I think fitness to play is a much much more common issue (eg Souray) than disagreements over procedures, because the there’s usually consensus or at least a choice between what everyone agrees are equally viable alternatives.

Frankly I think the Sabres shot themselves in the foot here. The main downside to letting Eichel have his choice was that he doesn’t recover properly and he retires early. Just like any other career ending injury, or Forberg’s feet, or many other examples. And then they are off the hook for his salary, just like they are trying to be now.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

True enough. I think fitness to play is a much much more common issue (eg Souray) than disagreements over procedures, because the there’s usually consensus or at least a choice between what everyone agrees are equally viable alternatives.

Frankly I think the Sabres shot themselves in the foot here. The main downside to letting Eichel have his choice was that he doesn’t recover properly and he retires early. Just like any other career ending injury, or Forberg’s feet, or many other examples. And then they are off the hook for his salary, just like they are trying to be now.

It's weird that nobody has really been able to articulate the downside of the disk replacement beyond it's relative infrequency. Presumably the concern is that it is more likely to fail with contact? If I were the acquiring team, I'd let him get the replacement and hold him out for cautiously long period where he can gradually strengthen his back and neck like a formula 1 driver.

The downside of the fusion seem very clear:
- long recovery (with very limited mobility)
- uncertain pain reductions
- fairly high likelihood of future surgeries
- possible peak performance limitations

[PeteMoss]

From what the doctor said on the 31 thoughts podcast if the disk replacement fails, then you would do a fusion. Not sure if the fusion would be riskier if that was the case.

The fact that Chris Wideman from ufc had it done and he's getting punched in the face and his neck cranked for a living, I'm surprised the sabres are so against it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The fact that Chris Wideman from ufc had it done and he's getting punched in the face and his neck cranked for a living, I'm surprised the sabres are so against it.

I am not sure if it was ever answered, but is it an insurance issue? Insurance companies rely on statistics and with such a small sample size, I wonder if insurance would decline to payout if a less conventional treatment was used and something went wrong. I am sure that Buffalo must have insurance on Eichel.

[Heavy Jack]

[Heavy Jack]

The thought of getting Eichel for the next 5 years at 7 or 8 mill per instead of 10 is drool worthy. I’d turn around and do the Tkachuk for a retained Tarasenko + Kyrou + 1st + ? type deal as well to gain back what we dealt for Eichel.

Monahan + Valimaki + Dube + Zary + 1st + 2nd for Eichel 2 mill retained — 4 1sts and 2 2nds

Tkachuk for Tarasenko 1.5 mill retained + Kyrou + 1st + ?

Gaudreau - Eichel - Tarasenko (1 cup)
Mangiapane - Lindholm - Coleman (2 cups)
Pelletier - Backlund - Kyrou
Lucic (1 cup) - Lewis (2 cups) - Pitlick
Phillips, Ritchie

Obviously far fetched at this point but if we do somehow land Eichel without giving up Tkachuk the rumours of St.Louis being interested in him are and would become even more intriguing.

[simmer2]

Came to the thread for the 20th time today.

Quickly scrolled to see if there were any Twitter links.

Left unsatisfied.

Will continue again tomorrow for 20 more times.

[topfiverecords]

Get this trade done already so this kid can get his surgery. TOI is wasting.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1422007865615675393

[FlamesAddiction]

^ That was really well done.

[djsFlames]

Need to somehow spam Trelivings phone with that clip.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If we are going to be that bad in your mind, you must be pro trading Gaudreau and everyone not nailed down to embrace the tank?

Not necessarily. If Gaudreau will re-sign long term, then definitely keep him. I think this team needs to be planning for 3 years from now and if we started rebuilding today, it would be great to have Gaudreau at that point. If he doesn't want to sign a long term deal, then we need to trade him for futures. I have serious doubts that this team is winning anything in the near future.

Re-building doesn't mean not having any good players. Even the worst teams in the league have some good players. Buffalo has been one of the worst teams in the league over the past few years and they even had Eichel after all.

There are just so many holes to fill at this point that I don't think going all in on Eichel is going to change much. I am hoping I am wrong of course. If we do acquire Eichel, I will be rooting for him obviously.

[Wolfman]

Brad....

[FusionX]

Here's my late night proposal as I hit F5 even though there's no way any news is coming out at this time.

To Calgary: Eichel at 9m/yr
To Buffalo: Dube, Pelletier, 2022/2023 first round picks + 2nd, both 1sts unprotected

To Ottawa: Monahan
To Calgary: 2023 1st round unprotected + 2nd

Buffalo ends up with pick 32 in 2022 and 2023, Ottawa is no where near good that year and wins the lottery, we take Bedard 1st overall.

Not sure what the hold up is.

[MrMike]

Never mind read it wrong.

Ottawa is cheap and would never trade an unprotected first for Monahan.