Hodgson a potential buyout candidate?

[Jame]

Your opinion, that is.

these aren't opinions, they are facts:

Mike Richards was waived In Season. The cap is a far bigger issue in absorbing a contract in season. There should be no debate here.

Cody Hodgson would be waived in the offseason, when teams are still building there teams out within their cap structures.

Advantage : Hodgson

Mike Richards was almost 31 years old when he was waived, and his play had been in a 2 year, steep decline

Cody Hodgson would be 25 years old if he was waived in the offseason. He is merely 1 season removed from 44 pts in 72 games... on the worst team in hockey. He still has upside, however limited you choose to argue it, it's still upside/potential

Advantage : Hodgson

Mike Richards was under contract for 5.5 more seasons, through his age 36 season

Hodgson would be under contract for 4 more seasons, through his age 28 season

Advantage : Hodgson

Richards has a 2 cups, and a playoff resume with little missing

Hodgson has nothing of relevance on his resume

Advantage : Richards

Richards has depth components to his game, can fit in anywhere on a roster

Hodgson needs to be in a scoring role

Advantage : Richards

Richards cap hit is 5.75 (x5.5)

Hodgson's cap hit is 4.25 (x4). Hodgson's cap hit is 35% less. That's the difference between a filling a roster spot with a fringe NHLer (~700k) and a quality bottom 6 player (2.3 mil)

Advantage : Hodgson

The biggest reasons no one wanted to touch Richards:
- In Season... the contenders don't have the cap space to absorb
- He's in serious decline... his skating is a liability at the NHL level
- His contract is much worse as it's significantly more cap, for significantly more time, into significantly worse seasons.

These reasons have no relation to the evaluation of Hodgson on waivers.

So while it's easy for anyone to identify some high level similarities (bad seasons, long contracts), when you get into the actual details... those similarities become irrelevant and the vast differences show how little should be read from the outcome of richards waiver adventure

 

[mikemcburn]

I can see why you are insistent on arguing. If you can't see the similarities between Hodgson's and Richards' bad contracts, which neither will be able to earn, you're unlikely to see the similarities between Hodgson's and Grigorenko's unlikelihood of cracking the top nine next season.

I would like to insist that the facts be entered into the public record.

This has been covered. Helen Keller could see the similarities. However, those similarities are almost entirely incomparable when looking at the full picture.

Perhaps the weight of the comparison's value rests more on the differences than the similarities?

I had to look up Richards myself (not an LA follower) to get a sense of things.

Similarities might include productivity over recent years. Hodgson has the edge of course, but pretty similar -

Hodgson: 34pts in 48gms (12/13) and 44pts in 72gms (13/14)
Richards: 32pts in 48gms (12/13) and 41pts in 82gms (13/14)

Other similarities would include:

1) They are both signed to l/t contracts.
2) They are both having dismal 14/15 seasons.
3) They are both hockey players.
4) They were both born in February.

Then some differences....

1. Hodgson is still a younger player, only 25, just going into his prime years - Richards at 30, not so much still a younger player and arguably on the downhill slide into old age (for a hockey player, lol).

2) Hodgson is signed thru to 18/19 - Richards to 20/21.

3) Hodgson will be 29 when his contract expires, arguably still in his prime - Richards, not so much even near his prime at 36 in 2021.

4) Hodgson has been paid $3.5 for his dismal season, with a cap of $4.25 on a team that doesn't have a cap issue - Richards has been paid $7.0 for his dismal season, so more than double than Hodgson, with a cap of $4.08.

Then what's similar or diff about their situations? Is Richard's season arguable more pathetic with a coach/player disconnect? Do the Kings have the same cap space to absorb and give patience to a younger player more likely to go up than down from here?

I dunno of course, but I'd bet that if both were on waivers at the same time GMs are far more likely to take a stab at the younger "project" than the aging guy who hasn't hit the pt per game mark for 6 seasons and ain't likely to get near there again before his contract expires in another 6 years...

Comparing the players, I'd hazard a guess that the differences far out-weight the similarities.

Same goes to Hodgson/Grigorenko. One is proven and one isn't. That's simply a big diff.

 

[Jame]

I don't pretend he's a wright-off. I prefer to keep him for now, because he's not very movable (for value)

Movable also means a demotion to Rochester.

those things aren't related at all... but ok.

and he just might be able to raise his trade value.

A waiver claim, done in the hope that the claim raises his trade value? Yeah...could happen. I said it was unlikely.

no, a team would claim him, in the hopes that he returns to the guy who could score 40 points on the worst team in the league in a top 6 role with a wee bit of talent around him.

your implication that he could raise his trade value by playing well, is the same reason a team would claim him (not to trade him, but to get a young player who gets his career back on track.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

these aren't opinions, they are facts:..

The subjective values you assign to each of those factors are most definitely not "facts". The bottom line is that whatever differences there are between the two, they are not "vast" and they in no way affect the problem that Hodgson's contract is a negative that brings down Murray's ability to move him.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

those things aren't related at all... but ok.





no, a team would claim him, in the hopes that he returns to the guy who could score 40 points on the worst team in the league in a top 6 role with a wee bit of talent around him.

your implication that he could raise his trade value by playing well, is the same reason a team would claim him (not to trade him, but to get a young player who gets his career back on track.

And even if he does get waived, as I said before, it's still a negative for the Sabres because on a reasonable bridge deal, he could be moved another way for value or allowed more time to rebound. His contract status will be a negative and a problem, just like Grigorenko's contract status will be...just in different ways.

And again, neither is likely to be in the top nine so I don't see what's to get excited about with either player.

 

[Jame]

The subjective values you assign to each of those factors are most definitely not "facts". The bottom line is that whatever differences there are between the two, they are not "vast" and they in no way affect the problem that Hodgson's contract is a negative that brings down Murray's ability to move him.

Those subjective values are simply rational. You know that, it's why didn't dispute any of them.

No one is arguing whether his contract is a negative. You claimed that the guaranteed nature of NHL contracts meant we were stuck with the bad contract. It was a poorly chosen stance, and you attempted to defend it with Richards contract as an example.

 

[Selanne00008]

Can we trade him to a team that has someone on LTIR, that has an owner with tight pockets? Like Nathan Horton or something.

At least the team that gets CoHo can ice him and fill a roster spot, even if it must be a 3rd line winger.

 

[7 11 14]

Can we trade him to a team that has someone on LTIR, that has an owner with tight pockets? Like Nathan Horton or something.

At least the team that gets CoHo can ice him and fill a roster spot, even if it must be a 3rd line winger.

Send CoHo in a package to Philly for one of their young guys and take Pronger back? Maybe to Boston for a young guy and Savard?

 

[dotcommunism]

Can we trade him to a team that has someone on LTIR, that has an owner with tight pockets? Like Nathan Horton or something.

At least the team that gets CoHo can ice him and fill a roster spot, even if it must be a 3rd line winger.

I don't think there are any long term guys in that mold who are on budget teams. Another alternative, though, might be to find a team that has a buy-out candidate who would take more money to buy out than Hodgson, but over less term. Alternately, a team in a cap crunch that dumps a higher salary player to Buffalo and then buys out Hodgson.

For example, would a team like Chicago take on Hodgson's buy out to unload Bickell? Maybe, maybe not. Chicago would be saving just under $3M and just under $3.5M over the next two seasons in exchange for taking on a ~$790k cap hit for 4 years starting in 2019. There may very well be other deals along those lines that could be made.

 

[Selanne00008]

I don't think there are any long term guys in that mold who are on budget teams. Another alternative, though, might be to find a team that has a buy-out candidate who would take more money to buy out than Hodgson, but over less term. Alternately, a team in a cap crunch that dumps a higher salary player to Buffalo and then buys out Hodgson.

For example, would a team like Chicago take on Hodgson's buy out to unload Bickell? Maybe, maybe not. Chicago would be saving just under $3M and just under $3.5M over the next two seasons in exchange for taking on a ~$790k cap hit for 4 years starting in 2019. There may very well be other deals along those lines that could be made.

Not a bad idea. If TMGM really has decided he's got to go, that's the type of outside the box moves we should check out first before just a simple buy out.

 

[wunderpanda]

Why not something simple like Hodgson to Ottawa for Neil & Phillips? Veterans for 13th forward & 7th defender spots, both have 1 year left on their contracts. They provide some mentoring, some depth then get shipped off at the deadline. Sens save a little cap, sending 4.4 out & getting 4.2 back. Hodgson can replace Legwand, costs less and has a better chance of rebounding next season.

 

[Husko]

Someone would take Hodgson. All it would take is a young team with lots of space that can take a rider on offensive talent. Arizona anyone?

 

[wunderpanda]

Someone would take Hodgson. All it would take is a young team with lots of space that can take a rider on offensive talent. Arizona anyone?

We would have to take Mike Smith back I would think

 

[Jacob582]

Hodgson to the Las Vegas Aces in the expansion draft.

 

[dkollidas]

Hodgson waivers

Everyone seems to wants to get rid of him. And for the most part I'm with them. But if he started the season in Rochester, would he need to clear waivers? And, would the organization even care if he did clear? They can afford the cash, so stashing his cap hit in the AHL until an injury occurs or he finds his game just seems like the right option for him.

 

[Husko]

Everyone seems to wants to get rid of him. And for the most part I'm with them. But if he started the season in Rochester, would he need to clear waivers? And, would the organization even care if he did clear? They can afford the cash, so stashing his cap hit in the AHL until an injury occurs or he finds his game just seems like the right option for him.

Yes he would have to go through waivers to go to Rochester.

I think someone would claim him if we put him on waivers.

I think we could flip him to Arizona for a 3rd if we really want to get rid of him.

 

[Selanne00008]

We should have a CoHo vote. Sabres roster, buy out, or trade this summer.

 

[mikemcburn]

We should have a CoHo vote. Sabres roster, buy out, or trade this summer.

Why? Do we really need another player bashing thread to arrive at the conclusion that it's become the "in thing" to dish out one-liners about a kid who wouldn't fit into the roster ahead even if he'd had a career year?

 

[Woodhouse]

Hodgson a potential buyout candidate? Answer: Yes --> http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1919661