Roster Speculation 2015-16 Part IV

[TehDoak]

I don't see it as paying to get rid of Hodgson, what if I change it to 2016 3rd?

I'd rather eat the buyout then give up assets. Gormley is a decent piece but doesn't carry a ton of value. He's a bottom pairing d-man and Coyotes need to add something like 13M in contracts still to get to the cap floor. No UFA's other than leftovers will sign there, and nobody will sign beyond 1 year due to uncertainty (and the fact that they are going to make last year's sabres squad look good in comparison. It's Matthew's or bust over there)

Hodgson with 25% retention for Gormley is fair. ARZ gets a good fill in piece who can play in their top two lines while their youngsters cook in the minors. Buffalo gets a guy who is going to get pushed out by younger d-men/Grossman. It'd be win-win.

 

[boots electric]

are there any offensively-starved teams out there that might find it palatable to take on hodgson plus a sweetener?

thinking off the top of my head, what might nashville want in addition to hodgson in order to give up ekholm? or do we all firmly believe that hodgson has negative value at this point?

i personally think hodgson is on his way to a buy-out, but it sure would suck to have him walk away for nothing after his value was destroyed last season

 

[Djp]

Is Ruhwedel's contract one-way this year?

Yes he has to clear waivers this year.

Schaller can velar waivers this yeR until he plays his 60th nhl game

You've not portraying the cap cost of buying out the two. And thats all that matters.

Moulson's cap hit over the next 8 years if bought out.

1. 2,916,666
2. 2,916,666
3. 2,916,666
4, 3,916,666
Years 5-8 are at 916,666

Hodgson's cap hit over 8years if bought out

1. 1,041,666
2. 541,666
3. 41,666
4. -458,334 (not sure how that would work/does team get that as a credit?)
Years 5-8 are at 791,666

The negative cap hit factors into the whole cap thus buffalo has that $58K extra cap room.

What I am not sure on in the new CBA with contracts signed --do signing bonuses count or not when factoring in the buyout cap hit??? Do they not factor in if they were not paid out ( end of contract years bonuses)

 

[SabresSociety]

I'd rather eat the buyout then give up assets. Gormley is a decent piece but doesn't carry a ton of value. He's a bottom pairing d-man and Coyotes need to add something like 13M in contracts still to get to the cap floor. No UFA's other than leftovers will sign there, and nobody will sign beyond 1 year due to uncertainty (and the fact that they are going to make last year's sabres squad look good in comparison. It's Matthew's or bust over there)

Hodgson with 25% retention for Gormley is fair. ARZ gets a good fill in piece who can play in their top two lines while their youngsters cook in the minors. Buffalo gets a guy who is going to get pushed out by younger d-men/Grossman. It'd be win-win.

I'd rather just give the third instead of retaining though, but to each their own

 

[joshjull]

Very true: Moulson is a proven goal scorer with a quality center. But it doesn't negate the fact that Hodgson has 3 of 4 seasons proving he can set up proven goal scorers They may have similar defensive games, skating woes and lack of physical play styles, but they have two very different offensive games, as noted.

I'm not sure how their different offensive games or 31 year old Moulson's past successes might negate the notion that 25 year old Hodgson has more going forward upside? Guess that's the part I'm not seeing.

Any offensive success Cody has enjoyed in the NHL came at center. He will never be a center on this team with the talent ahead of him. So what he did as a center is pretty irrelevant when comparing him to Moulson and who fits better on this team going forward.

Who will be better winger is the question. Cody on the wing going forward is about hope and speculation. Not saying it can't happen but it hasn't yet. Moulson on the other hand has a track record of success and goes to the dirty areas to score. Both things play heavily in his favor. Moulson is clearly the better option on the wing.

Actually, I did accurately portray the buyout figures. I merely didn't copy 'n paste the break down by year as my understanding of the pertinent details from a fan's perspective is what the player ends up actually receiving (only $1m more to buyout Moulson) and from a fan's sensitivity and club practicality perspective - the cap hit 4 years out when the youngsters need contract room (only $125,000 more to buyout Moulson).

Here's the breakdown by year, not that it matters - it's Hodgson on the chopping block, lol.

You didn't post their cap hits. That is the most important or "pertinent" detail from a fan perspective because it impacts team building. They want to know cap hits because thats why any player would be bought out in the first place. No one is really focused on their actually payouts. Although it was a clever way for you to try to spin things. To try and make it seem there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

I don't really understand why you posted a table of their buyout cap hits when they were in my post.

 

[mikemcburn]

are there any offensively-starved teams out there that might find it palatable to take on hodgson plus a sweetener?

thinking off the top of my head, what might nashville want in addition to hodgson in order to give up ekholm? or do we all firmly believe that hodgson has negative value at this point?

i personally think hodgson is on his way to a buy-out, but it sure would suck to have him walk away for nothing after his value was destroyed last season

You got that straight. And worse - the whole buyout thing means paying to lose an asset for nothing.

I really wish Murray's "plan" for Hodgson went to other comments made about not starting Eichel and Reinhart at 1C and 2C respectively... Give the youngsters some proper sheltering and seasoning to start the year, while putting Hodgson back into a position where he's actually succeed and showcase him for a mid-season trade...

What's killing me though is waiting for the buyout trigger to just get pulled and be done with it -

John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl 12m12 minutes ago
No waivers for Sabres' Cody Hodgson today, ending my run of baggage claim interviews with Tim Murray at one. Enjoy the flight, Tim.

 

[mikemcburn]

Any offensive success Cody has enjoyed in the NHL came at center. He will never be a center on this team with the talent ahead of him. So what he did as a center is pretty irrelevant when comparing him to Moulson and who fits better on this team going forward.

Who will be better winger is the question. Cody on the wing going forward is about hope and speculation. Not saying it can't happen but it hasn't yet. Moulson on the other hand has a track record of success and goes to the dirty areas to score. Both things play heavily in his favor. Moulson is clearly the better option on the wing.

In case you missed it - I never claimed Hodgson or Moulson fit this team going forward. In point of fact, I specifically said that Hodgson didn't "even if he was coming off a career year", and at least inferred that Moulson doesn't.

For additional clarity - I don't see either Hodgson or Moulson fitting into the roster going forward. I do, however, see Hodgson with the advantage.

You didn't post their cap hits. That is the most important or "pertinent" detail from a fan perspective because it impacts team building. They want to know cap hits because thats why any player would be bought out in the first place. No one is really focused on their actually payouts. Although it was a clever way for you to try to spin things. To try and make it seem there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

I don't really understand why you posted a table of their buyout cap hits when they were in my post.

I didn't post the cap hit? OMG! Guess no one has been referring to cap hits ad nauseam for weeks now huh?

Josh, look for nefarious intent elsewhere, cuz really, if I'd been trying to "spin" a thing, I'd have put the good news (re: cap floor nattering) of Moulson's far larger buyout cap hit for the first 4 years in pink, and the measely $125k difference (between Moulson's buyout cap hit and Hodgson's buyout cap hit in the important years) in pink neon.

Anyway, thanks for your indulgence, but really the focus of the comparative commentary was directed at Moulson's fit going forward specifically and the roster generally.

 

[sabresandcanucks]

Does Boston have anymore young d men they want to give away?

 

[thomas vanek]

Kane O'Reilly Eichel
Girgensons Reinhart Ennis
Moulson Larsson McGinn
Foligno Legwand Gionta

Would like to see something along these lines to start the season. Bottom two somewhat interchangeable but nice combo of skill and grit spread throughout all of the lines.

 

[mikemcburn]

Kane O'Reilly Eichel
Girgensons Reinhart Ennis
Moulson Larsson McGinn
Foligno Legwand Gionta

Would like to see something along these lines to start the season. Bottom two somewhat interchangeable but nice combo of skill and grit spread throughout all of the lines.

Flip the older, smaller, less productive and more expensive McGinn with the younger, larger, more productive and less expensive Foligno, and I could be sold, lol

Well, actually, I like Reinhart having Girgensens power off wing, but wonder about breaking him it at 2C with a smallish and not exactly defensively solid Ennis?

What 'bout flipping Kane and Ennis?

Eichel - O'Reilly - Ennis
Kane - Reinhart - Girgensens

 

[joshjull]

In case you missed it - I never claimed Hodgson or Moulson fit this team going forward. In point of fact, I specifically said that Hodgson didn't "even if he was coming off a career year", and at least inferred that Moulson doesn't.

For additional clarity - I don't see either Hodgson or Moulson fitting into the roster going forward. I do, however, see Hodgson with the advantage.

In case YOU missed it…….

My initial post you quoted to start this back and forth said absolutely nothing about Hodgson. Nor did the post I quoted. You are the one that made this into a Moulson vs Hodgson affair.

You quoted me and quite clearly compared Moulson and Hodgson and claimed their situations would be reversed if Cody was given the "opportunity" Moulson was. You then when on to compare their respective deficiencies and strengths and then buyouts. You wished Moulson was the one we were talking about buying out not Hodgson

It was pretty obvious in your initial post that you were comparing the two and felt Hodgson was the better option to keep on the roster even though you understand he doesn't fit going forward.

I didn't post the cap hit? OMG! Guess no one has been referring to cap hits ad nauseam for weeks now huh?

Josh, look for nefarious intent elsewhere, cuz really, if I'd been trying to "spin" a thing, I'd have put the good news (re: cap floor nattering) of Moulson's far larger buyout cap hit for the first 4 years in pink, and the measely $125k difference (between Moulson's buyout cap hit and Hodgson's buyout cap hit in the important years) in pink neon.

In a roster building thread there is literally no reason to bring up a buyout unless you're going to discuss its cap implications. No one cares about the payouts in that context. Its irrelevant.

Anyway, thanks for your indulgence, but really the focus of the comparative commentary was directed at Moulson's fit going forward specifically and the roster generally.

For a variety of reasons, Cody Hodgson is pretty close to irrelevant to where or whether Moulson fits on this team.

It sure seemed to me like you wanted to take some shots at Moulson and lament Hodgson's situation. All perfectly fine. But don't drag me into it and then pretend thats not what your doing. Then act is if I'm daft for suggesting otherwise. Whether it was your intent or not, your posts sure came across the way I am portraying them.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

I've loved a few of the roster arrangements posted so far, but just wanted to consider another tweak for if we want to spread our the scoring (for starting next year)…

McGinn - O'Reilly - Eichel
Moulson - Larsson - Ennis
Kane - Reinhart - Girgensons
Foligno - Legwand - Gionta

There're just so many possibilities…

 

[jvirk]

Kane O'Reilly Eichel
Girgensons Reinhart Ennis
Moulson Larsson McGinn
Foligno Legwand Gionta

Would like to see something along these lines to start the season. Bottom two somewhat interchangeable but nice combo of skill and grit spread throughout all of the lines.

I love this but I would switch Kane and Girgensons. This isn't to say that Kane isn't better, because he is lol but I think long term I'd see Kane on a wing with Reinhart and also I don't want opposing teams taking liberties with Reinhart. Kane is not someone teams want to mess with.......

 

[mikemcburn]

In case YOU missed it…….

My initial post you quoted to start this back and forth said absolutely nothing about Hodgson. Nor did the post I quoted. You are the one that made this into a Moulson vs Hodgson affair.

You quoted me and quite clearly compared Moulson and Hodgson and claimed their situations would be reversed if Cody was given the "opportunity" Moulson was. You then when on to compare their respective deficiencies and strengths and then buyouts. You wished Moulson was the one we were talking about buying out not Hodgson

It was pretty obvious in your initial post that you were comparing the two and felt Hodgson was the better option to keep on the roster even though you understand he doesn't fit going forward. So give me a break now trying to say it wasn't the case.



In a roster building thread there is literally no reason to bring up a buyout unless you're going to discuss its cap implications. No one cares about the payouts in that context. Its irrelevant.



In the context of this team right now, Cody Hodgson is pretty close to irrelevant to where or whether Moulson fits on this team.

It sure seemed to me like you wanted to take some shots at Moulson and lament Hodgson's situation. All perfectly fine. But don't drag me into it and then pretend thats not what your doing and give me attitude for suggesting otherwise.

I obviously compared the two, nothing even remotely subtle about it, and also rather obviously as a lead-in to looking at where Moulson fits going ahead (see: the balance of the post you quoted but ignored).

(EDIT: player comparisons are not unusual when looking at where guys fit in, and seeing how you had described Moulson's defensive and skating game very alike to how Hodgson, who is a buyout candidate, is described, it shouldn't be a big deal to you that I used Hodgson's situation to flag that Moulson isn't far off from being the same non-fit)

So, again, look for nefarious (or otherwise hidden) intent elsewhere; I've already openly declared my intentions and my positions. Nor am I interested in your attitude conveyed under the guise of erroneous allegations that I was "spinning" something merely because I didn't copy 'n paste an entire spread sheet the first time.

Another approach to take would be to ask a question about intent, purpose, etc. before leaping to presume - and post - character-based insinuations. I'd have been glad to clarify and negate a wholly unnecessary ruffle.

 

[Sabre the Win]

With TM's comments about not wanting to start Eichel/Reinhart at centre, I have been thinking about forward lines and I've come up with.

Kane-O'Reilly-Ennis
Moulson-Girgensons-Eichel
*Reinhart/McGinn-Larsson-Gionta
*Deslauriers/McGinn-Legwand-Foligno


Those are along the lines I would expect come opening night.

*Reinhart shares a spot with McGinn. GMTM wants him in the big leagues but he may not be quite ready so they have another forward dressed to take more pressure off while allowing him to study the game.

*Deslauriers might be an expandable asset or playing in Rochester next season. McGinn has more considerable offense to Deslauriers upside and I could just leave Reinhart at LW on the 3rd line and move McGinn into Deslauriers spot.

 

[Vito_81]

Im as big of a Hodgson supporter that there is. But it's not even close of a choice between Moulson and Hodgson.

Moulson is going to be an important piece on this team for the next few seasons. You need a vet in the top 6 mix to help ease the kids out there. Moulson can still play and be productive out there.

Josh said it right when he said Moulson is the sure thing at wing compared to Hodgson who is still a maybe. I was all for giving Cody a big time shot ay earning a job this season. After Friday, I just don't think theres room for him unless it's because guys like Foligno and Larsson have been moved for D.

 

[Matt Ress]

**** Christian Ehrhoff.

I second this

 

[ottawa]

Man the sabres offense is looking pretty damn good.

 

[jvirk]

I hope we don't buy out Hodgson b/c someone accepts a trade for him. I want his contract completely off the books.

 

[Sabre the Win]

Man the sabres offense is looking pretty damn good.

its quite exciting, I haven't seen this depth at centre in a very long time.

Very exciting time to be a Sabres fan.

 

[mikemcburn]

Im as big of a Hodgson supporter that there is. But it's not even close of a choice between Moulson and Hodgson.

Moulson is going to be an important piece on this team for the next few seasons. You need a vet in the top 6 mix to help ease the kids out there. Moulson can still play and be productive out there.

Josh said it right when he said Moulson is the sure thing at wing compared to Hodgson who is still a maybe. I was all for giving Cody a big time shot ay earning a job this season. After Friday, I just don't think theres room for him unless it's because guys like Foligno and Larsson have been moved for D.

On where Moulson fits into things, I honestly don't how he's an important piece this season, much less for the next few. I say "honestly" cuz I'm not trying to argue against it so much as simply not seeing it. But then I just can't see how he's needed in the top 6 even to start this next season unless it's specifically to be a gap filler that, as you say, allows for easing the youngsters into the lineup?

After some sheltering/seasoning time for those youngsters though, wouldn't the top 6 look something like Kane, Eichel, Ennis, Girgensens, O'Reilly, and Reinhart? If so, then how does Moulson remain important on a 3rd line?

I dunno, guess I just don't see it. At the risk of another Hodgson comparison, I really do see Moulson as that passenger type top 6 Josh has referred to in the past. But after yesterday I can't spot a seat open for his ticket.

 

[Tapu Coco]

Thoughts on Mike Richards on a similar deal that Brad Richards got last offseason, 1 year/~2 mil, now that he's on unconditional waivers?

Now that we got ROR, does Murray still feel the need for a Vermette type?

 

[slip]

its quite exciting, I haven't seen this depth at centre in a very long time.

Very exciting time to be a Sabres fan.

Not since Roy/Connolly/Gastaud have we been this stacked down the middle.

 

[Paxon]

With TM's comments about not wanting to start Eichel/Reinhart at centre, I have been thinking about forward lines and I've come up with.

Kane-O'Reilly-Ennis
Moulson-Girgensons-Eichel
*Reinhart/McGinn-Larsson-Gionta
*Deslauriers/McGinn-Legwand-Foligno


Those are along the lines I would expect come opening night.

*Reinhart shares a spot with McGinn. GMTM wants him in the big leagues but he may not be quite ready so they have another forward dressed to take more pressure off while allowing him to study the game.

*Deslauriers might be an expandable asset or playing in Rochester next season. McGinn has more considerable offense to Deslauriers upside and I could just leave Reinhart at LW on the 3rd line and move McGinn into Deslauriers spot.

I never heard him say he didn't want to start them at center, just that he didn't want to start with a #1 and #2 combo of Eichel and Reinhart. Separately, when asked about potentially having too many centers, he noted that Girgensons, ROR, and Larsson all have proven they can play wing in the NHL. He then noted that star center prospects often ease in at wing. All I draw from that is anything is possible except for starting with Eichel and Reinhart as our two most-used centers, which is supported by Bylsma saying ROR slots in as our top-line center at the moment. So it could be Eichel as our #2 and Reinhart as our #3.

 

[slip]

Thoughts on Mike Richards on a similar deal that Brad Richards got last offseason, 1 year/~2 mil, now that he's on unconditional waivers?

Now that we got ROR, does Murray still feel the need for a Vermette type?

No space in the top 6. Our forwards are set, IMO.