Eichel's Neck Surgery: Why Wouldn't The Sabres Let Him Have The Surgery He Wanted?

[WordsOfWisdom]

Here's a question (and I know Eichel has since been traded):

 

Why would the Buffalo Sabres argue over HOW Eichel gets his neck fixed?  Is it not HIS neck that's on the line (literally)?

 

I've never heard of a team squabbling over the TYPE of surgery a player gets to return to health. Is the team paying for it or is Eichel paying for it?

 

Basically, what's the difference?

 

(Here we go again with employer-employee rights.....)

 

If I got injured at work, my employer wouldn't be telling me HOW I should recover from that injury. I'd go to a doctor. The DOCTOR would present a list of options and the DOCTOR would make recommendations. Then *I* would decide what route to take. Why would the employer care other than they want me to fully heal and get back to work as soon as possible.

 

 

[radoran]

3 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

If I got injured at work, my employer wouldn't be telling me HOW I should recover from that injury. 

 

You would if your $10M contract says that the decision is made by your employer's doctors. And Eichel's did.

 

There's absolutely no relationship between what you do in your job and what a $10M professional hockey player does. Eichel is GUARANTEED EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS and the people making that investment have an interest in what happens to their asset.

 

No NHL player has had the disc replacement surgery. The Sabres didn't want to be the first.

 

That said, honestly, I'm seeing some indications that the Sabres might have wanted to get out from under that contract and may have had concerns about Eichel "in the room."

 

In the end, it may work out well for all concerned.

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, radoran said:

That said, honestly, I'm seeing some indications that the Sabres might have wanted to get out from under that contract and may have had concerns about Eichel "in the room."

 

From the sound of things, he was turning into a whiny b_tch. There aren't too many young players these days who put the team first any more. It's all about them. 

 

10 hours ago, radoran said:

You would if your $10M contract says that the decision is made by your employer's doctors. And Eichel's did.

 

So you don't see any conflict of interest there? 

 

How well has the WWF and its doctors looked after wrestlers historically?

 

10 hours ago, radoran said:

There's absolutely no relationship between what you do in your job and what a $10M professional hockey player does.

 

Other than the law, ethics, and human rights. Quite frankly, the ONLY difference is the dollar figure.

 

I guess my point is that we as a society are getting very lax on what we allow employers to put into employment contracts, and I'd hate to see a return to the days where employers literally owned and controlled their employees 24/7 as if they were cattle, because that kind of stuff (if they can do it to NHL players) will eventually trickle down to the little guys like us. 

 

Boring Historical Personal Story:

 

I used to work at a grocery store long time ago. Your typical manual labour job. Heavy and repetitive lifting to stock shelves. I got injured (not at work, during my leisure time) and showed up to work with a cast on my arm to describe what had happened. The employer's reaction was like: "Oh that sucks. Get well soon. For insurance reasons, we can't let you work."  There were some positions at the store that were light duty work or in some cases, just computer-related work. I could have potentially done the light duty stuff like arranging flowers, gift cards, magazines, etc... with one arm. I could have potentially done data entry work by entering inventory on the computer or scanning it using one of the code readers. Long story short: since the company didn't offer me any light duty alternatives to keep me working, the union ordered them to pay my salary...... while I was injured for two months recovering from a broken bone.    

 

(The fact that my employer didn't care one bit at the prospect of me going two months without a paycheque shows why we need to keep a close eye on these contracts.)  

 

 

[Podein25]

7 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Boring Historical Personal Story:

 

I used to work at a grocery store long time ago. Your typical manual labour job. Heavy and repetitive lifting to stock shelves. I got injured (not at work, during my leisure time) and showed up to work with a cast on my arm to describe what had happened. The employer's reaction was like: "Oh that sucks. Get well soon. For insurance reasons, we can't let you work."  There were some positions at the store that were light duty work or in some cases, just computer-related work. I could have potentially done the light duty stuff like arranging flowers, gift cards, magazines, etc... with one arm. I could have potentially done data entry work by entering inventory on the computer or scanning it using one of the code readers. Long story short: since the company didn't offer me any light duty alternatives to keep me working, the union ordered them to pay my salary...... while I was injured for two months recovering from a broken bone.    

 

This makes no sense. Neither you nor your union filed a claim with the WSIB? Workers compensation.

 

Grocery stores has to be a covered industry in Ontario, I cannot imagine it is not.

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

So you don't see any conflict of interest there? 

 

How well has the WWF and its doctors looked after wrestlers historically?

 

Ask Eric Lindros about the medical staff trying to put him on a plane with a punctured lung.

 

The WWE is a completely different situation with their "employees" being "contractors".

 

It's not a matter of what I think or what you think it's what the two parties involved agreed to. And the NHL CBA - in no small part to keep guaranteed contracts - agreed to this setup.

 

The flip side is also a situation where the player can't just decide on some herbal remedy to fix their broken bone (extreme example). The player is always empowered to not sign their guaranteed, $80M contract.

 

14 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Other than the law, ethics, and human rights.

 

The "law" is 100% on the side of the two parties who agreed to this setup as a condition of employment.

 

18 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

(The fact that my employer didn't care one bit at the prospect of me going two months without a paycheque shows why we need to keep a close eye on these contracts.)  

 

For that matter, as you found out your employer doesn't owe you much of anything. At least you have universal health care in Canada.

 

In the US, your "employer provided" health care can be terminated - in most states - at any time and for any reason and then you're **** out of luck. So let's just put a big ol' pin in the "ethics and human rights" talk.

 

Anyone comparing someone in a typical work environment to a professional athlete in a major professional sports league (not the WWE) is comparing kumquats to sheet metal.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

Ask Eric Lindros about the medical staff trying to put him on a plane with a punctured lung.

 

Exactly my point.

 

1 hour ago, radoran said:

The WWE is a completely different situation with their "employees" being "contractors".

 

And no union to keep the WWE in check.

 

1 hour ago, radoran said:

The flip side is also a situation where the player can't just decide on some herbal remedy to fix their broken bone (extreme example). The player is always empowered to not sign their guaranteed, $80M contract.

 

But there's never a middle-ground right?  You can't work for an employer AND still be treated like a human being right?

 

Here are my thoughts (of course I'm not a doctor

 

My GUESS is that the surgery Eichel wanted is the OPTIMAL surgery to fix his neck properly both now and for the future. I'm GUESSING that the surgery Eichel wanted would have put him out longer, but would have been better in the long run for HIM.

 

I'm GUESSING that the surgery the SABRES wanted him to get is the surgery that would have patched him together the fastest, got him back on the ice sooner, but would have compromised his long term health. In other words, a band-aid solution to get him back in the lineup to help the team now and f__k his long term future because the Sabres don't care one iota about what happens to him in the future.

 

Now, you mentioned that nobody has ever had the surgery Eichel wanted. Is that because it's a new surgery? New technology? Or because it's a bad idea? I find it hard to believe that a player would overrule the decision of an IMPARTIAL doctor (a doctor not working for the Sabres) and randomly pick a surgery he knows nothing about. For Eichel to choose that option, he must have spoken to a doctor that gave him DIFFERENT advice from what the Sabres were giving him.

 

 

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

This is my understanding of it.  Reality may vary.

 

8 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

For Eichel to choose that option, he must have spoken to a doctor that gave him DIFFERENT advice from what the Sabres were giving him.

Yes, that's what I've read.

 

9 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Now, you mentioned that nobody has ever had the surgery Eichel wanted. Is that because it's a new surgery? New technology? Or because it's a bad idea?

 

It's my understanding it's not really recently new but that it hasn't been done for anyone in sports.   Apparently, while the surgery repairs it for longer, there's the concern that mobility is possibly limited --at least for the athlete.   The "average Joe" probably not affected in the same way, though I don't think they're entirely sure an athlete will be negatively affected, either.  Fusion (the Sabres' preference) has been done on athlete's before and is a more established procedure.    

 

12 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'm GUESSING that the surgery the SABRES wanted him to get is the surgery that would have patched him together the fastest, got him back on the ice sooner, but would have compromised his long term health

Both will last for awhile, but I think the downside (for Eichel) on the fusion procedure the Sabres want ed  is that it wouldn't last as long.   What I don't know but suspect is that when the benefits/solution of Sabres' preferred procedure was no longer effective, I'm wondering if Eichel's choice wouldn't have been as effective (when older?  with more wear and tear?).  

[radoran]

31 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

My GUESS is that the surgery Eichel wanted is the OPTIMAL surgery to fix his neck properly both now and for the future.

 

This information is "out there" and has been widely discussed in hockey- and Buffalo-media.

 

As I Understand It: The disc replacement surgery is a relatively new procedure that has never been done on an NHL player, although it has been performed successfully on athletes like UFC fighters.

 

32 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'm GUESSING that the surgery Eichel wanted would have put him out longer, but would have been better in the long run for HIM.

 

Actually, it appears the recovery time from the replacement is shorter than the one for the fusion.

 

That said, if Eichel had gotten the fusion procedure last Spring when he left the lineup, it is likely he could have played before end of calendar year 2021. His team (personal and now Vegas) hopes that the replacement recovery will be in the three month range, with most reports I've seen citing more in the 4-5 month range.

 

34 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'm GUESSING that the surgery the SABRES wanted him to get is the surgery that would have patched him together the fastest, got him back on the ice sooner, but would have compromised his long term health. In other words, a band-aid solution to get him back in the lineup to help the team now and f__k his long term future because the Sabres don't care one iota about what happens to him in the future.

 

Not entirely true. You may have noticed a particular Buffalo-related poster on here who has talked about his own experience with the fusion procedure which he found to be successful and not deleterious to his personal health. That said, he's not a professional hockey player.

 

There are potential long term complications for the fusion procedure, but there's no analysis I've heard/seen/read about the long term implications of the replacement.

 

I am not a doctor and do not play one on teevee.

 

36 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I find it hard to believe that a player would overrule the decision of an IMPARTIAL doctor (a doctor not working for the Sabres) and randomly pick a surgery he knows nothing about. For Eichel to choose that option, he must have spoken to a doctor that gave him DIFFERENT advice from what the Sabres were giving him.

 

He did find a doctor - who happens to be a proponent of the replacement procedure - who gave him the advice he chose to pursue.

 

Again, it is likely that there are/were additional tensions that were present behind the scenes between the organization* and the player that came to a head when his neck injury became apparent. I infer that there was some "buyer's remorse" about giving him the 8Y/$80M deal and that concurrently the player was somewhat impatient with the lack of progress on the organization's* "plan" to become more competitive.

 

For example, Buffalo is on it's third general manager since Eichel was drafted in 2015.

 

Like many things I don't believe this is "cut and dried" on either side, that there is a lot of "fault" to be spread around, and that's it's probably for the best that everyone has moved along.

[ruxpin]

53 minutes ago, radoran said:

That said, he's not a [professional hockey player].

 

The possibilities there were endless.  Interesting choice.

[WordsOfWisdom]

12 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

This makes no sense. Neither you nor your union filed a claim with the WSIB? Workers compensation.

 

Grocery stores has to be a covered industry in Ontario, I cannot imagine it is not.

 

Hmm. I'm trying to remember. I don't think so. I simply asked if there was something else I could do that was light duty so that I could work with one arm and perhaps at a slower pace, so that I was at least getting paid. They said "no" and it was for "insurance reasons". I asked the union and they said that they have to offer me light duty work instead of putting me on layoff. Only if I rejected the light duty work would I get laid off. They just immediately put me on layoff for two months. 

 

So basically the union talked to them and said "no, you can't do that" and the company said "yes we can and insurance reasons" and ultimately the settlement was that I got paid... to stay home and recover.  

 

WSIB would only apply if the injury happened at work.  

[Icechipper]

Asked this before, but did Eichel have one significant neck injury?

 

Or is this a chronic or congenital situation?

 

Neck issues are no fun...

[flyercanuck]

1 hour ago, Icechipper said:

Asked this before, but did Eichel have one significant neck injury?

 

Or is this a chronic or congenital situation?

 

Neck issues are no fun...

 

His neck injury is likely from trying to carry around that gargantuan ego filled head.