Author: Brian La Rose

There were several questions about Vladimir Tarasenko and Jack Eichel so they get the focus in this edition of the PHR Mailbag which also features a question about Anaheim’s captain and the Islanders’ summer strategy of keeping as much secret as possible.  If your question doesn’t appear here, watch for it in next weekend’s mailbag.

Gmm8811: My thoughts on the Tarasenko situation in St. Louis compared to when Brett Hull was a Blue. Both were great goal scorers that didn’t contribute much to their defensive game when needed. When Hull left, he became a much better all-around player. Obviously, Hull was more productive, but it was a different era. If Vlad leaves the Blues, do you think he can elevate that part of his game? If he stays in St. Louis, can he get over the issues he’s brought up? Is he hard-headed enough to say the heck with it and go back to Russia if he doesn’t get his way? Does he have it in him to be a “team” player?

I’m going to go out of order here and go with the last one first.  Anything is possible when it comes to a player changing in a new environment but I wouldn’t suggest that’s a likely outcome here.  It’s not as if Tarasenko is a youngster that’s still developing – he’s 29 with 531 career regular season games under his belt.  Can he improve his play away from the puck?  Sure, especially depending on the system he’s in (assuming he’s moved).  But will it be to the point where it’s a demonstrable performance?  Probably not.

There is no mechanism for him to go back to Russia unless he wants to retire from the NHL and do what Ilya Kovalchuk did where he walked away from his contract (eventually coming back when he was declared a free agent).  Tarasenko is owed $15MM in salary over the next two years.  That’s a lot of money to walk away from if he’s unhappy.  He doesn’t necessarily have to get over his concerns if he stays, he just has to play, collect his money, and hope for a trade down the road.

sam i am: First time on here. Thx for the chats. What are your thoughts/ideas about Tarasenko? It’s past time to take a draft pick and eat some salary, isn’t it? Is there a d-man you think they can acquire AFTER Army knows how much cap space is left? Maybe sign Bozak with it? Thx again for your insight.

There’s a part of me that agrees with you.  At some point, is an exit the best for everyone even if it’s a minimal return?  A move with retention probably does allow them to re-sign Tyler Bozak and at this point, I suspect that’s why he remains unsigned at this point as he’s waiting to see if they can free up some money to re-sign him.  Accordingly, Bozak would basically be part of the return for Tarasenko, not just the draft pick.  I don’t see them looking to add an impact defenseman at this point either, they’ll give players like Niko Mikkola and Jake Walman longer looks while Scott Perunovich could be in the mix at some point as well.

On the other hand, at what point does a nominal return of a pick and Bozak’s return get outweighed by the potential of Tarasenko bouncing back?  If they truly believe that the third time is the charm when it comes to his shoulder surgery (I’m a little leery about that), it then stands to reason that they think he can still play an impact role.  And if that’s the case, the potential on-ice reward is better than what Bozak and a pick will bring, not to mention two years of carrying dead money on the books.

Yes, there’s a mutual desire to get a trade done but that doesn’t mean St. Louis should take whatever the best return is even if it’s a lousy one simply to get Tarasenko out of town.  At some point, the potential upside of Tarasenko rebounding has to count for something and I suspect that’s what’s holding things up.  GM Doug Armstrong doesn’t have to move him even though he wants to.

deeds: Where will Tarasenko end up? Are the Blues stuck with a disgruntled employee?

I think he stays with St. Louis, at least to start the season for the reasons mentioned above.  If his trade value is really so low that all they can do is take a pick and have to eat some money to do it, they might as well keep him and see if he rebounds.  Most teams have used up their cap space at this point so it’s not like it’s going to be considerably harder to trade him in-season if it comes to it; they’ll still have to retain money or take a high-priced contract back either way.  If he bounces back, great.  If he doesn’t, he still might be easier to move as an expiring deal a year from now and a buyout could definitely be in play at that point as well.

Coach Wall: Why all the fuss about Jack Eichel? Any team that pays him $10 million AAV for the next five or six years AND gives Buffalo their asking price is foolish. The guy has a very serious neck issue and may not last one year.

First, to clarify, it’s five years for Eichel before he becomes an unrestricted free agent.  And yes, the neck issue is serious although the fusion surgery that the Sabres are pushing for is one that players have had and returned from.  It’s serious but it shouldn’t a career-ender.  The one that Eichel’s camp wants (artificial disc replacement) hasn’t been done on an NHL player before but carries a much shorter recovery time.  When his agents released a statement last month, they claimed he could be ready to start the season.  Even if that isn’t the case now, he might only miss a few games assuming everything goes well.

The reason why there is a lot of fuss is that top centers rarely become available in the prime of their career.  Eichel is a top center in the prime of his career.  He comes with a significant injury but the previous point still stands nonetheless.  That’s why Buffalo GM Kevyn Adams is driving a hard bargain on the trade front.  They don’t have to move him regardless of what the public sentiment is.  The surgery they want would cost him a big chunk of next season but with what they’re planning to run out as a goalie tandem as things currently stand, they might actually view that as a good thing as it’s pretty clear they’re not looking to compete let alone contend.

Should a team pay the premium price tag which still seems to involve four significant young assets?  It’s certainly fair to argue they shouldn’t considering the injury concerns and it’s hard to put conditions in a trade based on a successful operation (but I wouldn’t be shocked if that language is in there at some point).  But Eichel, when healthy, plays at a level that would significantly impact almost every team in the league.  That’s bound to generate plenty of hype.

Gbear: I heard one hockey writer say that Eichel should just get the surgery he wants regardless of what the Sabres recommend, but couldn’t that give the Sabres a legal avenue to try and void Eichel’s contract, let alone cover the costs of the surgery? And might that be the angle Pegula is playing here?

For clarification’s sake, before digging into this, here is the relevant portion of Section 34.4 of the CBA called Second Medical Opinions:

(e) Following the later of: (i) issuance of the Second Medical Opinion; or (ii) issuance of the recommendation on diagnosis or course of treatment by the Third Physician Expert, if any, the team physician shall determine the diagnosis and/or course of treatment (including the timing thereof) after consulting with the Second Medical Opinion Physician and the Third Physician Expert, if any, and giving due consideration to his/her/their recommendation(s).

The second medical opinion is the one that’s saying to do the artificial disc replacement but this rule clearly indicates that Buffalo gets to decide on the course of treatment and they’ve made their preference known.

There is a clause in a standard player’s contract (Section 6) that has a remedy for the team to void a deal if there is a material breach and I’m sure there’s an argument that could be made to say that getting a surgery that has never been performed on an NHL player before without consent from the team constitutes a material breach.

But I don’t think that’s Buffalo’s end game.  If owner Terry Pegula simply wanted out of the contract, wouldn’t he just tell his GM to trade him for whatever the best deal available is and be done with it?  I think Buffalo’s situation basically is they don’t want their star player being the guinea pig for a surgery that has never been performed on an NHL player before.  It doesn’t matter that other athletes have had it; they just don’t want it done to their guy.  They want Eichel to have what they feel is the safer procedure and that he comes back late in the season and resumes being their top forward right away.

Could Eichel force the issue?  Sure, but the consequences could be dire.  I have to think that if it was a more realistic scenario without the risk of his deal being voided, it might have been done already.

JerCanne: On a scale from 1-10 what are the chances Eichel is a Calgary Flame in October?

I’ll give it a two.  Eichel makes a lot of sense for the Flames.  Sean Monahan, Elias Lindholm, and Mikael Backlund are all quality centers but none of them have the top-level upside that a healthy Eichel would bring to the table.  (It briefly appeared that Monahan could but that has waned over the last couple of seasons.)

But while those players are quality pieces, none are really young enough to entice Buffalo unless their main presence is as a salary offset.  The Flames don’t have a particularly robust prospect pool that will make them willing to deal the types of youngsters that Adams and the Sabres are seeking.  Eichel is a good fit on paper for Calgary but I don’t think they have the trade pieces that Buffalo is going to want unless their asking price dips sharply.

JustPete: What do you think of the Ducks new contract with Getzlaf – seems awfully rich to me. Follow up question – are the Ducks in such a position to warrant their lack of free agent activity or should they just fire Bob Murray?

I think it’s a little high but not overly excessive.  A $3MM base salary for a third liner isn’t over the top and given their inactivity, he’s still probably in their top six in which case the price tag is reasonable.  $1.5MM in games played bonuses makes it a little strange as Anaheim doesn’t exactly need the cap flexibility but it could come in handy if those bonuses are hit before the trade deadline if they wind up deciding to move him.  I wouldn’t have given Ryan Getzlaf quite that much but with the cap space they have, if you’re going to overpay someone, it might as well be a franchise icon.

Let’s dig into the lack of free agent activity which starts and ends with Getzlaf.  I have to admit, that surprised me.  I thought they were going to try to add a piece or two to try get back into the mix in the Pacific Division but the lack of movement suggests that Murray is thinking about a longer-term rebuild.  Frankly, that’s not a bad idea but if you’re going to do that, having a head coach in the final year of his contract (with their new AHL bench boss highlighting that as an attraction as Joel Bouchard did last month) seems a little strange as well.

Murray hasn’t had a great last few years, that much is for sure.  But if he has been given the green light to go down this path, he has some job security to do so; ownership likely wouldn’t commit to this plan and then fire him partway through it.  I think he sticks around.

The Mistake of Giving Eugene Melnyk a Liver Transplant: Why do the Islanders wait so long to make their contracts official? What benefit is there for the team, and even more perplexing, what benefit is there for the players?

By keeping as much cap space open as they have, it helped the Islanders hedge against an offer sheet.  While they’re rarely handed out, enough teams are concerned about it to do things to deter against one being issued.  For some of the contracts in place, are there side agreements to amend the term/money depending on what happens?  Your guess is as good as mine on that front.

It also could give them a little bit of extra leverage in trade discussions.  If they want to acquire someone, how much cap space do they have to clear to make that move happen?  If no other teams know what the Isles’ cap situation is like, it can’t be used against them.  For example, another team can’t come back and say that New York’s cap situation is so bad that they have to sell so and so for pennies on the dollar or demand additional compensation to take a player on.  They can’t make that claim because they don’t know how much money the Islanders have or don’t have.

In terms of the benefit for the players, there is none.  But GM Lou Lamoriello has been around long enough to be trusted.  There are handshake deals in place and he’ll live up to them.

Largely, this is Lou just being Lou.  He’s known to have a firm no-leak policy and has walked away from deals before if it became public before being officially announced.  That’s enough to have multiple agents and players keeping quiet at a time where the majority of moves are leaked in advance of being made official.  That’s really quite impressive even if it can be frustrating along the way.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.