Hodgson a potential buyout candidate?

[Sabresfansince1980]

Some continually evaluate, others hang on til the bitter end

Lol...too bad that "continual evaluation" doesn't get rid of Hodgson's contract. There's no do-overs with guaranteed contracts.

 

[Jame]

Lol...too bad that "continual evaluation" doesn't get rid of Hodgson's contract. There's no do-overs with guaranteed contracts.

You mean they can't be traded or bought out? Teach me more.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Some continually evaluate, others hang on til the bitter end

I don't mind if you want to leave the "how can you be excited about A and not B" nonsense behind.

Hodgson is much firmer ground to argue with me on. I get it.

You can take it back to the roster thread if you care that much. I'm not getting this thread derailed since my question was for another poster.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

You mean they can't be traded or bought out? Teach me more.

Oh so now the CBA eliminates guaranteed contracts through trades and buy-outs? Like I said, the contract doesn't go away.

 

[Jame]

Oh so now the CBA eliminates guaranteed contracts through trades and buy-outs? Like I said, the contract doesn't go away.

Put him on waivers, he gets claimed, contract goes away for buffalo

Come on... Let's get back on topic

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Put him on waivers, he gets claimed, contract goes away for buffalo

Come on... Let's get back on topic

The Kings proved how likely that would be with Mike Richards. Even if someone did claim Hodgson, the result is that you lose a player for nothing instead of something, anything, because of the contract.

Hodgson is the topic, so we're on it.

 

[Sabretip]

Other than perhaps the Coyotes (moreso Regier), does anyone see another team being interested in Hodgson this summer?

He obviously showed he has some skill but just like the stuff surrounding him in Vancouver alluded to, his will to compete, work ethic and intensity just isn't what the top NHL players all have. And in Murray's vision for a team being difficult to play against and heavy on the forecheck, Hodgson is a negative influence to the contrary and liability.

The sooner the Sabres dump him as dead wood, the better IMO.

 

[Zman5778]

Other than perhaps the Coyotes (moreso Regier), does anyone see another team being interested in Hodgson this summer?

He has two 40 point seasons and a 0.70 ppg half-season under his belt before tanking this season.

He's 25 and his contract is on par with a top 6 player.

Yes, someone would take a chance on him for the right price if he's made available. It's not like his career is over and he's some scrub now.


Personally, I'd love to see him as a winger that gets a high percentage of Ozone starts under a new coach........IMO, it's quite clear and he and Nolan just don't click (reminds me of how Nolan and Satan didn't click)

 

[Der Jaeger]

Other than perhaps the Coyotes (moreso Regier), does anyone see another team being interested in Hodgson this summer?

He obviously showed he has some skill but just like the stuff surrounding him in Vancouver alluded to, his will to compete, work ethic and intensity just isn't what the top NHL players all have. And in Murray's vision for a team being difficult to play against and heavy on the forecheck, Hodgson is a negative influence to the contrary and liability.

The sooner the Sabres dump him as dead wood, the better IMO.

I don't mind if the Sabres trade Hodgson (or Grigorenko, since he's been talked about in this thread). I'd rather build his trade value back up first though. One bounce back to normal form, and Murray could get more from a believer like Regier.

 

[Jame]

The Kings proved how likely that would be with Mike Richards. Even if someone did claim Hodgson, the result is that you lose a player for nothing instead of something, anything, because of the contract.

Hodgson is the topic, so we're on it.

Good example!

The topic was your question

 

[Djp]

We're not in a cap crunch. I don't see any reason to cut him. It's only 3 years, and I'd like to see what he can do next year either way, so that would only leave 2 more. I could live with that.

Hodgson has 4 full years left thru 18/19 season. His contract ends the same year as Moulson snd Ennis.

I don't care about hodgson at all long term, he stinks.

The question you asked, was how someone could be excited about hodgson and not grigo... The answer to your question should be clear as day.

Hodgson can score at the NHL level, and be pretty terrible in many other areas. grigo has shown nothing.

You wanted Hodgson to be signed long term .....I wanted him on a 2 yr bridge and see how much his numbers had to do with his linemates.

I'm sure Grigorenko would have put up comparable numbers playing with a Vanek and Pominville instead of Ksleta and Scott.

Other than perhaps the Coyotes (moreso Regier), does anyone see another team being interested in Hodgson this summer?

He obviously showed he has some skill but just like the stuff surrounding him in Vancouver alluded to, his will to compete, work ethic and intensity just isn't what the top NHL players all have. And in Murray's vision for a team being difficult to play against and heavy on the forecheck, Hodgson is a negative influence to the contrary and liability.

The sooner the Sabres dump him as dead wood, the better IMO.

If buffalo retains salary and brings Hodgson down to say $2.5M or $2.75M some teams out there would be willing to acquire him. Minnesota could be given the chemistry he showed with Vanek and Pominville.

I don't think it has anything to do with Vancouver but with Nolan. Fir whatever reason he and Nolan dont work well together.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Good example!

The topic was your question

Two FWs that are under performing on a contract with term and salary...yes it is a good example, thanks.

I had three questions for a poster that is likely to give a reasonable answer without the sarcasm. You want to go one with snarky one-liners about one question, that wasn't directed at you.

 

[dotcommunism]

Who cares what kind of contract people wanted Hodgson signed to? No one here had any part in signing Hodgson to his current contract. It also has nothing to do with whether or not the Sabres should buy out Hodgson's contract, or their other options moving forward. The situation is what it is. I don't see the point in arguing about what could have been.

 

[Jame]

Two FWs that are under performing on a contract with term and salary...yes it is a good example, thanks.

I can see why you were confused by joshjull's position. If you can't see the vast difference between Hodgson and Richards contract/age/current state...you're unlikely to see the difference between Hodgson and Grigorenko

 

[Jame]

I had three questions for a poster that is likely to give a reasonable answer without the sarcasm. You want to go one with snarky one-liners about one question, that wasn't directed at you.

Im sure he'll type significantly more, but ultimately his response to your question(s) will ultimately boil down to:

Pretty easy to see why someone could be excited about a young former 20 goal/50 pt level player, while having little excitement for a prospect who has shown the proverbial "nothing" at the NHL level.

 

[Zip15]

If I was a betting man, I think he'll ultimately be bought out after Murray is unable to move him this summer. While I don't think Tim is a risk averse manager, the applicable buyout rules for Hodgson provide an incentive to make the move now. He's not one of Murray's guys, and he can reallocate that salary to someone he thinks better fits our roster going forward. Cody probably has some productive years ahead of him, but they may not be in Buffalo.

I'm sure Grigorenko would have put up comparable numbers playing with a Vanek and Pominville instead of Ksleta and Scott.

Is this a joke? Grigorenko has never shown to be a bona fide NHL player at any time.

If buffalo retains salary and brings Hodgson down to say $2.5M or $2.75M some teams out there would be willing to acquire him. Minnesota could be given the chemistry he showed with Vanek and Pominville.

I don't think it has anything to do with Vancouver but with Nolan. Fir whatever reason he and Nolan dont work well together.

I think this is the worst possible alternative. If you're planning to proceed without him, why in the world would we retain such a huge chunk of salary when we can buy him out for a far lower cap hit? Getting him off the books a few years earlier does not make up for the fact that we'd have nearly $2m allocated to dead money, especially in 2017-19 when we'll be trying to make a run while McEichel/Risto/Girgensons are all on team-friendly contracts. I'd much rather eat the smaller cap hits for 8 years than take it on the chin in at least three seasons in which we're trying to make the playoffs.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Put him on waivers, he gets claimed, contract goes away for buffalo

Come on... Let's get back on topic

You think a team will claim a one dimensional player with 12 points making 20 million over the next 5 years then you are delusional.

 

[Jame]

You think a team will claim a one dimensional player with 12 points making 20 million over the next 5 years then you are delusional.

I think a 2 time 40 point/20 goal 25 year old will get claimed... easily. With all his warts, and all the risk, a team with cap space and roster space would make that claim in the offseason.

He's averaged 48 pts per 82 games in the previous 3 seasons. I don't think 25 yr olds with that type of resume become available for nothing but the absorption of a contract perceived as poor because of one season on the worst team in history.

4.25 cap x 4 years is not a big contract.

Yea, i think a GM takes a chance on that... for sure.

 

[mikemcburn]

Just as exciting to watch Stewartcontribute to as many or more goals against? To be as weak in his own end as he might be strong in the O-zone (if he rebounds)? Sure, that's exciting if you don't care about winning, and just prefer red lights.

Fixed that for ya. Cuz truly, you just described Stewart to a tee - the guy so many were gooey-eyed over, I guess because it *is* somehow exciting to watch the red lights.

You think a team will claim a one dimensional player with 12 points making 20 million over the next 5 years then you are delusional.

If we were talking about an actual one dimensional player at 28-ish+ age mark without a recent history of putting up top 6 numbers, then you might be right and there'd be no risk to the waiver scenario.

As it happens though, we're talking about a newly minted 25 year old who was scouted as much for his two-way game as his offensive talents, has proven over multiple seasons that his offensive talents can translate to the NHL level, just last season being the point leader for his bottom dweller team, and whose dismal season has arguably been amplified by the coach/player disconnect.

I get it that a slew of fans don't much "like" the kid's playing style, I kinda prefer something a bit more physical/driven myself, but a lot of guys are more "cerebral" insofar as being quieter types with neither the physical play of a traditional grinder or a slick power forward. And those types do exceptionally well in the right scenario where their hockey sense and hands can be put to work.

So, sure, don't like the kid, don't like this game, want him off the team, etc. But let's not pretend he is a total right-off without an ounce of other qualities that have made him a desirable product before and, with a change of circumstances, could readily do so again.

If you want a list of those qualities, just let me know

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I can see why you were confused by joshjull's position. If you can't see the vast difference between Hodgson and Richards contract/age/current state...you're unlikely to see the difference between Hodgson and Grigorenko

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.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Fixed that for ya. Cuz truly, you just described Stewart to a tee - the guy so many were gooey-eyed over, I guess because it *is* somehow exciting to watch the red lights.



If we were talking about an actual one dimensional player at 28-ish+ age mark without a recent history of putting up top 6 numbers, then you might be right and there'd be no risk to the waiver scenario.

As it happens though, we're talking about a newly minted 25 year old who was scouted as much for his two-way game as his offensive talents, has proven over multiple seasons that his offensive talents can translate to the NHL level, just last season being the point leader for his bottom dweller team, and whose dismal season has arguably been amplified by the coach/player disconnect.

I get it that a slew of fans don't much "like" the kid's playing style, I kinda prefer something a bit more physical/driven myself, but a lot of guys are more "cerebral" insofar as being quieter types with neither the physical play of a traditional grinder or a slick power forward. And those types do exceptionally well in the right scenario where their hockey sense and hands can be put to work.

So, sure, don't like the kid, don't like this game, want him off the team, etc. But let's not pretend he is a total right-off without an ounce of other qualities that have made him a desirable product before and, with a change of circumstances, could readily do so again.

If you want a list of those qualities, just let me know

I don't pretend he's a wright-off. I prefer to keep him for now, because he's not very movable (for value) and he just might be able to raise his trade value.

 

[Jame]

I can see why you are insistent on arguing.

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

If you can't see the similarities between Hodgson's and Richards' bad contracts

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

 

[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)

implying that he is movable if value isn't a component (that's what a free waiver claim would be)

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

whoa... he might raise his trade value? by playing better? sounds like something a GM might consider if he hit waivers.

Thanks for confirming that he'd potentially be claimed

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

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.

Your opinion, that is.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

implying that he is movable if value isn't a component (that's what a free waiver claim would be)



whoa... he might raise his trade value? by playing better? sounds like something a GM might consider if he hit waivers.

Thanks for confirming that he'd potentially be claimed

Movable also means a demotion to Rochester.

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