HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hodgson

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2013, 10:08 PM
  #26
kirby11
Registered User
 
kirby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cleveland, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
41 pt rookie year
58 pt pace in lockout sophomore year

Why is 70 pt center unreasonable?

Hodgson's skating as a weakness is a myth, he's not a burner but he skates smart and efficient lines and thats what creates space.

Ps what is "1st line center pay"? It's 7 million right? I don't think anyone is talking those kind of numbers

I'd lock Cody up long term at 5 if we could. It'll be a bargain in 3 years.

He seems like the type that wants to be the best possible player he can be...I wouldn't have any qualms about him possibly regressing the way myers has.
I could see him turning into krejci: A center who can consistently produce 50-60 points, and sometimes more, while playing decently in his own end

kirby11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2013, 10:17 PM
  #27
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
41 pt rookie year
58 pt pace in lockout sophomore year

Why is 70 pt center unreasonable?

Hodgson's skating as a weakness is a myth, he's not a burner but he skates smart and efficient lines and thats what creates space.

Ps what is "1st line center pay"? It's 7 million right? I don't think anyone is talking those kind of numbers

I'd lock Cody up long term at 5 if we could. It'll be a bargain in 3 years.
It's not a myth, it's just not a hindrance to his game. His skating is his weakness, but he is still a very talented centerman

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2013, 10:42 PM
  #28
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
It's not a myth, it's just not a hindrance to his game. His skating is his weakness, but he is still a very talented centerman
oh... right....

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2013, 11:45 PM
  #29
SabresBillsBuffalo
Registered User
 
SabresBillsBuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 4,143
vCash: 500
It'll get done!!!

SabresBillsBuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 12:21 AM
  #30
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,495
vCash: 500
Not really worried about Hodgson.

SabresAreScaryGood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 01:54 AM
  #31
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 7,682
vCash: 500
I want to judge how he is without Vanek to judge his skill set.

If they trade Vanek he will be hard pressed to get another 70 pt type season.

I would give hodgson a 2-3 yr bridge contract similar to what Ennis got but the amount would be around $3.5M per

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 06:04 AM
  #32
Mergus merganser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
I want to judge how he is without Vanek to judge his skill set.

If they trade Vanek he will be hard pressed to get another 70 pt type season.

I would give hodgson a 2-3 yr bridge contract similar to what Ennis got but the amount would be around $3.5M per

Bridge contracts are stupid. Overpay him while you have the cap space. Then, in 2-3 years when this is a better team and he has matured into an even better player, you are underpaying him by 2 or 3 million. If he turns into a legit 1A center (He obviously doesn't have elite potential at this point, but 70-80 points would be awesome), you are only paying him 5 million, instead of 7.5.

As others have said, the dude has a chip on his shoulder, I don't worry at all about him slacking off once he gets paid. He wants to be a great player.

Buffalo has 11 million in cap space before they do anything with Miller and Vanek, with only CoHo to sign. Would a 5-5.5 million dollar deal for 6 years really hurt them? At worst, he is a 50-60 point player.

Just look at the Roy deal. Even though he was a total tool, you can't argue his production for a $4 million player.

Mergus merganser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 06:29 AM
  #33
Push Dr Tracksuit
Gerstmann 3:16
 
Push Dr Tracksuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivet52 View Post
To be fair, you yourself started the lineup discussion in the fourth post of the thread. The first three posts were about the contract. Second, if Hodgson's place in the lineup affects his contract, which it does, who cares if the lineup is being brought up in a thread in which it definitely pertains to? It's not off-topic.
First that post is about his negotiating position as the first sentence qualifies. Second its about long term roster position. Third if you are going to treat him like the number 1 then you need to pay him like a number 1 and I don't think thats smart to do with a 1 dimensional center who is mediocre at the dot and can't pk. Someone in the top 6 will need to center a pk or you are going to be overpaying your third and fourth line centers. His skating is average. Which is bad because top 6 players on contenders are either good skaters or posses elite offensive abilities. They jumped on me because I said he shouldn't be tagged as the number 1 of the future. He's a 1 dimensional player who was "on pace" (like that matters he didnt get there) for 58 points, with probably the best wing tandem he will have for years. Pommers is gone and Vanek will be too. At that point its Hodgson on his own. If Grigorenko develops Hodgson will be getting the other top 6 wingers, he may NEVER play with guys of Pominville and Vaneks skill again. This is a number 2 center that should be used in specific situations, mainly in the offensive zone. There's only so much offensive time you can hand out and I don't think the organization should treat Hodgson as an irreplaceable player. He's a valuable player (and my favorite on the roster btw) but if you are penciling him in as the go to offensive center I think we are building a fatal flaw into the roster before things even start. When you are negotiating you fire up the crystal ball and look down the road and I don't want it creeping into his mind that his next contract is going to be worth #1 money. You squash it now and sign him to a 2 year deal then get him at Pominville money instead of Vanek money when he goes UFA. If you let him think he's a number 1 his agent will convince him he's worth 7mil and maybe at that point he is, but if he's not then you end up over paying or lose him entirely. This agent has a history of playing hard ball and Darcy needs to be considering what his roster will look like when the next contract is up and be prepared to enter what will hopefully be the more important negotiating with the upper hand or a guarantee that Hodgson can carry this team offensively.

Push Dr Tracksuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:10 AM
  #34
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mergus merganser View Post
Bridge contracts are stupid...
We don't know for sure yet how Hodgson will turn out though. It ended up looking great for Roy, but we shouldn't assume too much with any player. Anyway, the idea of a bridge, and then long-term contract is actually utilizing a longer-term outlook and coming out ahead for the back half of his career. If you sign Hodgson for 5-6 years now and he does what Roy did and proves himself to be a better value, the contract he'll be looking for at age 28-29 - in his prime with a much higher cap limit - might be around 7-8 mil (or whatever the approximate max is for 1/2 Cs). That would be a harder deal to agree to when he'll undoubtedly be looking for a career ending term in the 7-8 year range...around age 36-37 when he won't be as effective.

A bridge deal will end at age 26, forcing a higher cap hit deal (but not too high as the cap limit won't be terribly high three years from now) but also allowing the contract years to also be Hodgson's best years, ending at age 33-35.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:13 AM
  #35
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
We don't know for sure yet how Hodgson will turn out though. It ended up looking great for Roy, but we shouldn't assume too much with any player. Anyway, the idea of a bridge, and then long-term contract is actually utilizing a longer-term outlook and coming out ahead for the back half of his career. If you sign Hodgson for 5-6 years now and he does what Roy did and proves himself to be a better value, the contract he'll be looking for at age 28-29 - in his prime with a much higher cap limit - might be around 7-8 mil (or whatever the approximate max is for 1/2 Cs). That would be a harder deal to agree to when he'll undoubtedly be looking for a career ending term in the 7-8 year range...around age 36-37 when he won't be as effective.

A bridge deal will end at age 26, forcing a higher cap hit deal (but not too high as the cap limit won't be terribly high three years from now) but also allowing the contract years to also be Hodgson's best years, ending at age 33-35.
I don't think that's true. Someone posted the numbers last year... best years for forwards are 25-30

but your premise still holds true... I'd still do the long term at 5 now... if he plateaus as a 50 pt 2nd line center, he'll have a market value cap hit... if he reaches his ceiling he'll be a bargain in his prime

6/30/5

at 29/30 when the contract expires, we'll know a lot more about Grigorenko/Girgensons


Last edited by Jame: 07-22-2013 at 08:18 AM.
Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:15 AM
  #36
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imlach a cup View Post
First that post is about his negotiating position as the first sentence qualifies. Second its about long term roster position. Third if you are going to treat him like the number 1 then you need to pay him like a number 1 and I don't think thats smart to do with a 1 dimensional center who is mediocre at the dot and can't pk. Someone in the top 6 will need to center a pk or you are going to be overpaying your third and fourth line centers. His skating is average. Which is bad because top 6 players on contenders are either good skaters or posses elite offensive abilities. They jumped on me because I said he shouldn't be tagged as the number 1 of the future. He's a 1 dimensional player who was "on pace" (like that matters he didnt get there) for 58 points, with probably the best wing tandem he will have for years. Pommers is gone and Vanek will be too. At that point its Hodgson on his own. If Grigorenko develops Hodgson will be getting the other top 6 wingers, he may NEVER play with guys of Pominville and Vaneks skill again. This is a number 2 center that should be used in specific situations, mainly in the offensive zone. There's only so much offensive time you can hand out and I don't think the organization should treat Hodgson as an irreplaceable player. He's a valuable player (and my favorite on the roster btw) but if you are penciling him in as the go to offensive center I think we are building a fatal flaw into the roster before things even start. When you are negotiating you fire up the crystal ball and look down the road and I don't want it creeping into his mind that his next contract is going to be worth #1 money. You squash it now and sign him to a 2 year deal then get him at Pominville money instead of Vanek money when he goes UFA. If you let him think he's a number 1 his agent will convince him he's worth 7mil and maybe at that point he is, but if he's not then you end up over paying or lose him entirely. This agent has a history of playing hard ball and Darcy needs to be considering what his roster will look like when the next contract is up and be prepared to enter what will hopefully be the more important negotiating with the upper hand or a guarantee that Hodgson can carry this team offensively.
Contract negotiations don't really work that way...

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:47 AM
  #37
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,136
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
Hodgson has proved so much more than any other center on our roster. He has the potential to be a number one center. I'm not all too worried about him.
I disagree with each individual sentence here. At least, they are each very debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
41 pt rookie year
58 pt pace in lockout sophomore year

Why is 70 pt center unreasonable?

Hodgson's skating as a weakness is a myth, he's not a burner but he skates smart and efficient lines and thats what creates space.

Ps what is "1st line center pay"? It's 7 million right? I don't think anyone is talking those kind of numbers

I'd lock Cody up long term at 5 if we could. It'll be a bargain in 3 years.
Interesting, coming from the king of "I don't do pace arguments."

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:48 AM
  #38
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyAreGoodScaryGood View Post
Not sure he'll ever be a consistent 70 point guy but if he becomes at least average defensively while putting up 60-65 points I'd be extremely happy
Same here

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 08:56 AM
  #39
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I don't think that's true. Someone posted the numbers last year... best years for forwards are 25-30

but your premise still holds true... I'd still do the long term at 5 now... if he plateaus as a 50 pt 2nd line center, he'll have a market value cap hit... if he reaches his ceiling he'll be a bargain in his prime

6/30/5

at 29/30 when the contract expires, we'll know a lot more about Grigorenko/Girgensons
I meant that a contract from age 27-28 to 33-35 will include his best years, rather than a deal ending at age 36-37 which would include his most ineffective years.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 09:07 AM
  #40
ZeroPT*
He's comin for us!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,476
vCash: 50
I agree with Jame, 70 points 1b is totally reasonable, his skating doesn't really bother me. I think that skating is an overrated attribute. I would hope we could get him locked up to a 3 year bridge contract and then lock him up later for a long term deserving contract.

ZeroPT* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 09:20 AM
  #41
Push Dr Tracksuit
Gerstmann 3:16
 
Push Dr Tracksuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Contract negotiations don't really work that way...
o ya I forgot Jarius Byrd wasnt happening.

Push Dr Tracksuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 09:47 AM
  #42
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post

Interesting, coming from the king of "I don't do pace arguments."
I don't like pace arguments in years where a player misses time due to injury. But I think we are stuck with it when discussing the growth of a player in a lockout shortened season.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 09:52 AM
  #43
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
I meant that a contract from age 27-28 to 33-35 will include his best years, rather than a deal ending at age 36-37 which would include his most ineffective years.
gotcha

Here's what I'd do
6 yrs / 30 mil / 5.0 cap

Year 1 / 23 yo : 5.0 salary
Year 2 / 24 yo : 5.0 salary
Year 3 / 25 yo : 6.0 salary
Year 4 / 26 yo : 6.0 salary
Year 5 / 27 yo : 4.0 salary
Year 6 / 28 yo : 4.0 salary

He'd be UFA at 29 years old... with a couple prime years left. We'd know whether we had his replacement (Grigorenko, Girgensons, future draft picks, development, signings). With a 5.0 cap hit, I think we blow some cap space the first 2 years (so what), by year 3, even if he's only a 50 pt player he'll still have a market value cap hit IMO. If his growth continues (make no mistake, Hodgson improved from Rookie through Sophmore year), then we have a bargain player, in his prime, right when we hit the young core/playoff years...

In a best case scenario by year 3 of his contract we are a playoff team with a young core.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:01 AM
  #44
brian_griffin
"Elite Poster" ???
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hiding Robert Durst
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 7,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
gotcha

Here's what I'd do
6 yrs / 30 mil / 5.0 cap

Year 1 / 23 yo : 5.0 salary
Year 2 / 24 yo : 5.0 salary
Year 3 / 25 yo : 6.0 salary
Year 4 / 26 yo : 6.0 salary
Year 5 / 27 yo : 4.0 salary
Year 6 / 28 yo : 4.0 salary

He'd be UFA at 29 years old... with a couple prime years left. We'd know whether we had his replacement (Grigorenko, Girgensons, future draft picks, development, signings). With a 5.0 cap hit, I think we blow some cap space the first 2 years (so what), by year 3, even if he's only a 50 pt player he'll still have a market value cap hit IMO. If his growth continues (make no mistake, Hodgson improved from Rookie through Sophmore year), then we have a bargain player, in his prime, right when we hit the young core/playoff years...

In a best case scenario by year 3 of his contract we are a playoff team with a young core.
First impression is the above proposal buys a year of UFA, but pays for it in advance, so to speak, and there's the option if it's a gross underpayment and Sabres want him longer term, to extend offseason between yr 5 & 6.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:08 AM
  #45
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 40,259
vCash: 500
Sam Gagner's deal is a decent comparable. Last years numbers were pretty close. The major difference is Gagner is on his 4th contract.

5M per season is certainly fair. If the deal is shorter and doesn't buy UFA years, 3.5-4 might be reasonable (like a 2-yr bridge deal). But if you can lock him up 6 years at 30 M? I'd do it.

New Sabres Captain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:12 AM
  #46
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_griffin View Post
First impression is the above proposal buys a year of UFA, but pays for it in advance, so to speak, and there's the option if it's a gross underpayment and Sabres want him longer term, to extend offseason between yr 5 & 6.
I think it buys 2 years of UFA, because Hodgson will turn 27 in year 4 of the contract (feb birthday), but I always mess up CBA contract/age/rules

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:17 AM
  #47
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroPT View Post
I agree with Jame, 70 points 1b is totally reasonable, his skating doesn't really bother me. I think that skating is an overrated attribute. I would hope we could get him locked up to a 3 year bridge contract and then lock him up later for a long term deserving contract.
Something to consider when talking about him as a 70pt center is how rare that is becoming. The last two full NHL season there were roughly ten 70+pt centers. If you're saying he can consistently be a 70pt center. That would mean he is one of the top offensive centers in the game. And the amount of 70pt or greater players at any position has trended downward since the previous lockout.

05-06 - 48 players with 70pts or more
06-07 - 44
07-08 - 39
08-09 - 40
09-10 - 30
10-11 - 24
11-12 - 21


I doubt the trend changes much barring some rule adjustments from the league.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:22 AM
  #48
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Something to consider when talking about him as a 70pt center is how rare that is becoming. The last two full NHL season there were roughly ten 70+pt centers. If you're saying he can consistently be a 70pt center. That would mean he is one of the top offensive centers in the game. And the amount of 70pt or greater players at any position has trended downward since the previous lockout.

05-06 - 48 players with 70pts or more
06-07 - 44
07-08 - 39
08-09 - 40
09-10 - 30
10-11 - 24
11-12 - 21


I doubt the trend changes much barring some rule adjustments from the league.
I completely agree... and I think the use of "xx point player" is out of control. i need to remind myself of that the next time the phrase roles off my fingertips

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:24 AM
  #49
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 40,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Something to consider when talking about him as a 70pt center is how rare that is becoming. The last two full NHL season there were roughly ten 70+pt centers. If you're saying he can consistently be a 70pt center. That would mean he is one of the top offensive centers in the game. And the amount of 70pt or greater players at any position has trended downward since the previous lockout.

05-06 - 48 players with 70pts or more
06-07 - 44
07-08 - 39
08-09 - 40
09-10 - 30
10-11 - 24
11-12 - 21


I doubt the trend changes much barring some rule adjustments from the league.
A 70 point pace would be ~41 points this past season. 30 players hit that mark (Vanek just barely made it). Granted over a full year factors such as players getting hot/cold over the other 34 games, injuries, etc. would change things.

New Sabres Captain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2013, 10:31 AM
  #50
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
A 70 point pace would be ~41 points this past season. 30 players hit that mark (Vanek just barely made it). Granted over a full year factors such as players getting hot/cold over the other 34 games, injuries, etc. would change things.
I'm well aware of the stats from this past season. I saw little reason to use this past year as a trend breaker for a variety of reasons and its why I didn't include it.

Also 30 players overall and 15 centers among them doesn't really change my overall point much either. Getting 70pts is less common than some on here think it is.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.