SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Trade Talks getting serious

Created by: trentbarney
Team: 2020-21 Buffalo Sabres
Initial Creation Date: Jun. 17, 2021
Published: Jun. 17, 2021
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun wrote in The Athletic Wednesday that conversations between the Buffalo Sabres and teams interested in the star centre are "getting more intense and serious."

LeBrun notes that the Sabres will be expecting to receive a 2021 first-round pick as part of their return for Eichel, putting the timeline for a deal ahead of the July 23 NHL Draft. He lists the Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Anaheim Ducks, Columbus Blue Jackets, Philadelphia Flyers and New York Rangers among the many clubs that could make sense as a landing spot.


Just some ideas.
WHO GETS HIM? AND WHAT DOES IT COST?
Trades
1.
BUF
ANA
    Eichel
    2.
    BUF
    1. Werenski, Zachary
    2. 2021 1st round pick (CBJ)
    CBJ
      Eichel
      3.
      BUF
      1. Kaliyev, Arthur
      2. Turcotte, Alex
      3. 2021 1st round pick (LAK)
      LAK
        Eichel
        4.
        BUF
        1. Boldy, Matthew
        2. Dumba, Matt
        3. Rossi, Marco
        4. 2021 1st round pick (MIN)
        MIN
          Eichel
          5.
          BUF
          NYR
            Eichel
            6.
            PHI
              Eichel
              Buyouts
              Retained Salary Transactions
              DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
              2021
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the ANA
              Logo of the CBJ
              Logo of the LAK
              Logo of the MIN
              Logo of the NYR
              Logo of the PHI
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BOS
              Logo of the FLA
              Logo of the MTL
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the MTL
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the COL
              Logo of the BUF
              2022
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              2023
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              Logo of the BUF
              ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
              40$81,500,000$106,568,248$1,487,500$11,377,500-$25,068,248
              Left WingCentreRight Wing
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $9,000,000$9,000,000
              LW, RW
              NMC
              UFA - 7
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $5,200,000$5,200,000
              RW
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $6,000,000$6,000,000
              RW
              M-NTC
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $3,050,000$3,050,000
              RW, LW
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $2,250,000$2,250,000
              C
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $1,400,000$1,400,000
              C
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $1,600,000$1,600,000
              LW, RW
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
              C, LW
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000
              RW, LW
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000
              LW, RW
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $874,125$874,125
              LW, C
              RFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000
              LW, C
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $845,000$845,000
              LW, C
              RFA - 1
              Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
              $925,000$925,000
              RW, LW
              RFA - 4
              Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
              $1,450,000$1,450,000
              RW
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the New York Rangers
              $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$2,650,000$3M)
              RW
              RFA - 2
              Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
              $820,000$820,000
              LW
              RFA - 1
              Logo of the Philadelphia Flyers
              $5,500,000$5,500,000
              RW, LW
              UFA - 5
              Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
              $925,000$925,000
              C
              RFA - 4
              Logo of the Minnesota Wild
              $880,833$880,833 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
              RW, LW
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Minnesota Wild
              $925,000$925,000
              C
              RFA - 5
              Logo of the New York Rangers
              $4,500,000$4,500,000
              RW, C
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Philadelphia Flyers
              $894,166$894,166 (Performance Bonus$425,000$425K)
              C
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Philadelphia Flyers
              $874,125$874,125
              C, RW
              UFA - 1
              Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$2,850,000$3M)
              LD/RD
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $5,400,000$5,400,000
              RD
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $2,750,000$2,750,000
              G
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $889,166$889,166
              LD/RD
              RFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $3,875,000$3,875,000
              RD
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $2,600,000$2,600,000
              G
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000
              LD/RD
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$637,500$638K)
              RD
              RFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $778,333$778,333 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
              G
              RFA - 2
              Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
              $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
              RD
              RFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $864,166$864,166
              RD
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $725,000$725,000
              G
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Columbus Blue Jackets
              $5,000,000$5,000,000
              LD
              UFA - 2
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000
              G
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Minnesota Wild
              $6,000,000$6,000,000
              RD
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the New York Rangers
              $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$2,850,000$3M)
              G
              UFA - 1
              ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $2,850,000$2,850,000
              LD/RD
              UFA - 1
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $2,200,000$2,200,000
              LW, C
              UFA - 3
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $10,000,000$10,000,000
              C
              UFA - 6
              Taxi Squad
              Logo of the Buffalo Sabres
              $700,000$700,000 ($0$0$0$0)
              LD
              UFA - 1

              Embed Code

              • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
              • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

              Text-Embed

              Click to Highlight
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:00 p.m.
              #26
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: Caerii
              That sounds a lot more like Friedman not actually knowing what type of offer is on the table, rather than him confirming they could be in an offer.


              reading can be hard sometimes tears of joy BUF fans are starting to get delusional tears of joy
              TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:00 p.m.
              #27
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Caerii
              That sounds a lot more like Friedman not actually knowing what type of offer is on the table, rather than him confirming they could be in an offer.


              Exactly. Much different from "they are 100% off the table in any trade"
              MontrealMan liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:01 p.m.
              #28
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Aug. 2020
              Posts: 5,306
              Likes: 3,373
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              Exactly. Much different from "they are 100% off the table in any trade"


              It's also a lot closer to them being off the table, especially if others have already reported they are, than it is to them being in play.

              Friedman saying "I don't know" and other reporters saying "they're off the table" tends to mean they're off the table.
              TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:02 p.m.
              #29
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              So he didnt say they are in play, thanks for proving my point for me. It has 100% been reported they are off the table, they have made it clear they are not trading either of them

              Reading is important. He 100% did not say they are available. end of story


              Never said they were in play. I said they may be in play. Much different from your "100% off the table".

              Reading is important.
              MontrealMan liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:03 p.m.
              #30
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Caerii
              It's also a lot closer to them being off the table, especially if others have already reported they are, than it is to them being in play.

              Friedman saying "I don't know" and other reporters saying "they're off the table" tends to mean they're off the table.


              It's a lot closer to nobody knowing whether they're in play or not. If they were completely off the table then Friedman would've said it.
              MontrealMan liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:07 p.m.
              #31
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              Never said they were in play. I said they may be in play. Much different from your "100% off the table".

              Reading is important.



              They are not in play it is 100% already reported. Just stop tears of joy
              TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:08 p.m.
              #32
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              They are not in play it is 100% already reported. Just stop tears of joy


              It's hilarious when CapFriendly users think they know more than insiders lmao.
              MontrealMan liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:09 p.m.
              #33
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              It's hilarious when CapFriendly users think they know more than insiders lmao.


              Speak for yourself. 4th period already reported they are off the table. I know what im talking about while you clearly have no idea

              lmao
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:12 p.m.
              #34
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              Speak for yourself. 4th period already reported they are off the table. I know what im talking about while you clearly have no idea

              lmao


              Me or you have no clue what is being offered. Friedman just said he doesn't know and they may or may not be in play. I forgot though. CapFriendly user Salzy knows more than Friedman.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:17 p.m.
              #35
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              Me or you have no clue what is being offered. Friedman just said he doesn't know and they may or may not be in play. I forgot though. CapFriendly user Salzy knows more than Friedman.


              Yeah because I'm the one that reported they are off the table, it definitely wasn't well-respected insider David Pagnotta that said "The Ducks have made it clear Drysdale and Zegras are untouchable"

              But I forgot LindyRuffRider saying Friedman said I dont know trumps a report like that
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:21 p.m.
              #36
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              Yeah because I'm the one that reported they are off the table, it definitely wasn't well-respected insider David Pagnotta that said "The Ducks have made it clear Drysdale and Zegras are untouchable"

              But I forgot LindyRuffRider saying Friedman said I dont know trumps a report like that


              And well-respected insider Friedman just countered that with they may or may not be play.

              If the insiders aren't in agreement that they're 100% off the table. You sure as sheet don't know either.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:24 p.m.
              #37
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              And well-respected insider Friedman just countered that with they may or may not be play.

              If the insiders aren't in agreement that they're 100% off the table. You sure as sheet don't know either.


              He didnt counter he said I dont know. Pagnotta flat out said it is clear they are not in play

              Saying I dont know means he doesnt know either way.

              Pagnotta saying the are clearly not in play means they are clearly not in play

              Pagnotta has very good connections in SoCal, Ill take him saying in absolute they are off the table over Friedman saying he has no idea

              I know I have no inside connections, just like you dont. Ill take a reporter flat out saying it is clear they are off the table over one saying he has no idea
              TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:29 p.m.
              #38
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Aug. 2020
              Posts: 5,306
              Likes: 3,373
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              And well-respected insider Friedman just countered that with they may or may not be play.

              If the insiders aren't in agreement that they're 100% off the table. You sure as sheet don't know either.


              But he didn't say "they may or may not be", he said "I don't know".

              If you and I are talking about our mutual friend Steve, wondering if he's coming to the hockey game with us this weekend, and you said "I don't know, he may or may not be", and I talked to Steve earlier today, and he told me he's not coming, so I say "No, he's not coming", that doesn't mean he may or may not be coming to the game, it means you didn't know that he's not coming to the game.
              Salzy and TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:30 p.m.
              #39
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: Caerii
              But he didn't say "they may or may not be", he said "I don't know".

              If you and I are talking about our mutual friend Steve, wondering if he's coming to the hockey game with us this weekend, and you said "I don't know, he may or may not be", and I talked to Steve earlier today, and he told me he's not coming, so I say "No, he's not coming", that doesn't mean he may or may not be coming to the game, it means you didn't know that he's not coming to the game.


              Stop you're using logic, that doesn't work on here
              TheMooterus liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:31 p.m.
              #40
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              He didnt counter he said I dont know. Pagnotta flat out said it is clear they are not in play

              Saying I dont know means he doesnt know either way.

              Pagnotta saying the are clearly not in play means they are clearly not in play

              Pagnotta has very good connections in SoCal, Ill take him saying in absolute they are off the table over Friedman saying he has no idea

              I know I have no inside connections, just like you dont. Ill take a reporter flat out saying it is clear they are off the table over one saying he has no idea


              If they were 100% off the table then Friedman would've said it, but he didn't.
              Friedman absolutely has very good connections with Anaheim too.

              I wouldn't say with 100% certainty of anything when Friedman isn't sure.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:37 p.m.
              #41
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              If they were 100% off the table then Friedman would've said it, but he didn't.
              Friedman absolutely has very good connections with Anaheim too.

              I wouldn't say with 100% certainty of anything when Friedman isn't sure.


              Not if he doesnt know. He said he doesnt know. He didnt say they might be, he flat out said he does not know

              Pagnotta said he knows it is CLEAR (I know thats a very hard word to understand thats why I bolded it for you) they are off the table

              Clear
              Adjective
              -easy to understand, hear, read, or see:
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:40 p.m.
              #42
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Caerii
              But he didn't say "they may or may not be", he said "I don't know".

              If you and I are talking about our mutual friend Steve, wondering if he's coming to the hockey game with us this weekend, and you said "I don't know, he may or may not be", and I talked to Steve earlier today, and he told me he's not coming, so I say "No, he's not coming", that doesn't mean he may or may not be coming to the game, it means you didn't know that he's not coming to the game.


              He said, "they could be idk"

              That's why it's dumb to say I'm 100% sure of something, when one of the most trusted insiders isn't sure. If they were 100% untouchable then he would've said it. He doesn't know and neither do I.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:43 p.m.
              #43
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              Not if he doesnt know. He said he doesnt know. He didnt say they might be, he flat out said he does not know

              Pagnotta said he knows it is CLEAR (I know thats a very hard word to understand thats why I bolded it for you) they are off the table

              Clear
              Adjective
              -easy to understand, hear, read, or see:


              If they were 100% untouchable Friedman would've said it, but he DIDN'T. He said, "could be but idk".
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:43 p.m.
              #44
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Aug. 2020
              Posts: 5,306
              Likes: 3,373
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              He said, "they could be idk"

              That's why it's dumb to say I'm 100% sure of something, when one of the most trusted insiders isn't sure. If they were 100% untouchable then he would've said it. He doesn't know and neither do I.


              But another trusted insider has said they're 100% out, so what does that count for? Is it only because Friedman is saying what you want to hear at this point, or is Friedman the only trusted insider?
              Salzy liked this.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:45 p.m.
              #45
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: Caerii
              But another trusted insider has said they're 100% out, so what does that count for? Is it only because Friedman is saying what you want to hear at this point, or is Friedman the only trusted insider?


              It aint worth it, let them be ignorant tears of joy

              Some people dont like to use logic if it goes against what they want, heres a great example of that

              "Clear" isnt clear enough for some people, thats why the ignore list is on this site
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:46 p.m.
              #46
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Nov. 2018
              Posts: 5,135
              Likes: 5,933
              Quoting: LindyRuffRider
              If they were 100% untouchable Friedman would've said it, but he DIDN'T. He said, "could be but idk".


              Keep living in denial, have a good life tears of joy
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:50 p.m.
              #47
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Caerii
              But another trusted insider has said they're 100% out, so what does that count for? Is it only because Friedman is saying what you want to hear at this point, or is Friedman the only trusted insider?


              It counts as there isn't an agreement among insiders that they're 100% off the table. So we don't 100% know if they are or aren't.
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:54 p.m.
              #48
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              It aint worth it, let them be ignorant tears of joy

              Some people dont like to use logic if it goes against what they want, heres a great example of that

              "Clear" isnt clear enough for some people, thats why the ignore list is on this site


              It's actually a perfect example of you.

              You're ignoring what Friedman said, because it goes against what you want. You just want to listen to one insider with a spotty track record because he is saying what you want to hear. It's quite hilarious.

              Im 100% sUrE BeCaUsE PaGnOtTa SaId

              He's GoT CoNnEcTiOnS BrO

              FrIeDmAn DoEsN't KnOw
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:55 p.m.
              #49
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Dec. 2019
              Posts: 1,104
              Likes: 623
              Quoting: Salzy
              Keep living in denial, have a good life tears of joy


              Denial of what? Saying that Friedman isn't sure and you getting butthurt that I said that?
              Jun. 17, 2021 at 12:57 p.m.
              #50
              Avatar of the user
              Joined: Jun. 2019
              Posts: 156
              Likes: 44
              Quoting: Salzy
              Not if he doesnt know. He said he doesnt know. He didnt say they might be, he flat out said he does not know

              Pagnotta said he knows it is CLEAR (I know thats a very hard word to understand thats why I bolded it for you) they are off the table

              Clear
              Adjective
              -easy to understand, hear, read, or see:


              Its gonna be real funny when Zegras gets traded and see all the Anaheim fans go nuts haha
               
              Reply
              To create a post please Login or Register
              Question:
              Options:
              Add Option
              Submit Poll