Hodgson signs a six-year deal

[Stoner]

This is a good illustration of my Regier Fatigue. It's hard for me to get excited. Darcy did this deal. As Ghost points out, the Darcy who's made so many bad deals. The Darcy who's missed the playoffs so many years and has the franchise in this position in the first place. How excited am I supposed to be? A new GM comes in and makes this deal, I'd probably be whacking off to that photo of Cody on a tractor. Darcy did it, so ###### like me end up hating the kid. Welcome to my world.

[K-9]

Darcy said on WGR this morning that the Sabres were interested in a two year bridge, but had no interest in a four year deal that would allow CoHo to walk into UFA at age 27. They (The Sabres and Rich Winter) settled on a six year deal that essentially buys the Sabres two years of CoHo's UFA status.

 

Darcy also said that the Sabres view CoHo worst case as a high quality 2nd line C because of what he's already shown and also that he's a quality person of high character with the work ethic to improve the deficient areas of his game (D-zone coverage and Faceoffs).

 

Let's hope this trait is infectious. I want this kid to own that locker room. Drury like.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[26CornerBlitz]

ICYMI: 9/12 Darcy Regier talks Hodgson, Miller: http://www.wgr550.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=6521509

[rakish]

Darcy said on WGR this morning that the Sabres were interested in a two year bridge, but had no interest in a four year deal that would allow CoHo to walk into UFA at age 27. They (The Sabres and Rich Winter) settled on a six year deal that essentially buys the Sabres two years of CoHo's UFA status.

 

 

 

Yes, my mistake, I had counted Hodgson playing 4 years instead of 3, meaning that he had 4 more RFA years not 3.

[wjag]

That seems like an okay length and contract to me.

[TrueBlueGED]

I made this point earlier, but I feel it needs emphasis. I know some around here have wondered how somebody like Dustin Brown could make less than Stafford...contracts like this are the reason. If Stafford gets his contract before the 30 goal season, it's much cheaper...if Brown gets his contract two years later, his salary is much higher. Yes, there's some risk in that the player may stagnate, but there's also significant boom potential (in terms of value) that seems to be getting ignored here. Let's say Hodgson maxes out as a 55-60 point #2...$4.25MM is already a bargain, let alone when the cap goes higher.

 

Edit: http://capgeek.com/comparables/?player_id=732

 

Cap hit comparables. Not many on that list I'd rather have than Hodgson, especially when considering age, position, and where the team is at. Of particular note is Voracek, who got his contract before his breakout season last year...if Philly had insisted on a 2-year deal, Voracek would be raping them after this season.

[nfreeman]

I made this point earlier, but I feel it needs emphasis. I know some around here have wondered how somebody like Dustin Brown could make less than Stafford...contracts like this are the reason. If Stafford gets his contract before the 30 goal season, it's much cheaper...if Brown gets his contract two years later, his salary is much higher. Yes, there's some risk in that the player may stagnate, but there's also significant boom potential (in terms of value) that seems to be getting ignored here. Let's say Hodgson maxes out as a 55-60 point #2...$4.25MM is already a bargain, let alone when the cap goes higher.

 

Edit: http://capgeek.com/c.../?player_id=732

 

Cap hit comparables. Not many on that list I'd rather have than Hodgson, especially when considering age, position, and where the team is at. Of particular note is Voracek, who got his contract before his breakout season last year...if Philly had insisted on a 2-year deal, Voracek would be raping them after this season.

 

You are certainly right about all this. I think the issue is that many here are skeptical about DR's ability to forecast this correctly given his poor track record.

[TrueBlueGED]

You are certainly right about all this. I think the issue is that many here are skeptical about DR's ability to forecast this correctly given his poor track record.

 

I think you're right about that, and I understand the sentiment. Personally I make an active choice not to go down that line of reasoning, if for no better reason than "it's a bad move because Darcy did it" doesn't lead to particularly interesting message board discussion IMO.

[...]

I think you're right about that, and I understand the sentiment. Personally I make an active choice not to go down that line of reasoning, if for no better reason than "it's a bad move because Darcy did it" doesn't lead to particularly interesting message board discussion IMO.

 

 

With all due respect, that's hyperbole, and somewhat insulting. "Just because Darcy did it" is certainly NOT the sole, or greatest, reason for the dissent on Hodgson's signing. This isn't because "Darcy" is some comic-book character bad-guy whom we are conditioned to hate regardless of what he does.

 

Hodgson has a record to refer to. The league has standards and precedent to refer to. Regier, yes, has a record to refer to. The team has a record to refer to. And those things have all been discussed to some degree or other. If you collate these things and look at the result, there are several reasons to not like this signing.

 

If you ignore Regier's body of work, then you are purposely skewing the results. That's a bias.

 

 

[IKnowPhysics]

If you ignore Regier's body of work, then you are purposely skewing the results. That's a bias.

 

Keep in mind that the owner is, by this definition, biased. The clean slate established by Pegula in Feb 2011, leaves the only long term contracts as Ehrhoff, Hodgson, Leino, and Myers. Ehrhoff's turning the corner on his contract into something very good, jury's out on Leino (injury), and probably Myers (youth, etc).

[...]

 

 

Keep in mind that the owner is, by this definition, biased. The clean slate established by Pegula in Feb 2011, leaves the only long term contracts as Ehrhoff, Hodgson, Leino, and Myers. Ehrhoff's turning the corner on his contract into something very good, jury's out on Leino (injury), and probably Myers (youth, etc).

 

So the fans need to fall in line, too, and forget all of Sabres history prior to 2011? Why did Pegula have that statue made, then?

 

You stats guys saying this contract is a worthwhile gamble are throwing the stats out of the window to make that conclusion. You're making a gut-decision.

[darksabre]

 

 

So the fans need to fall in line, too, and forget all of Sabres history prior to 2011? Why did Pegula have that statue made, then?

 

You stats guys saying this contract is a worthwhile gamble are throwing the stats out of the window to make that conclusion. You're making a gut-decision.

 

The stats aren't any more useful to evaluate Hodgson than Enroth. Gut feeling and direct observation are just about all anyone can go on.

[IKnowPhysics]

So the fans need to fall in line, too, and forget all of Sabres history prior to 2011? Why did Pegula have that statue made, then?

 

Of course not. I didn't imply that at all. Why are you now giving me the insulting hyperbole? Whether Pegula should go clean slate on Regier is a (relatively hot) matter of debate, but he's doing it anyways, so it should be taken into account if there's any confusion about why things are being done the way they're being done.

 

You stats guys saying this contract is a worthwhile gamble are throwing the stats out of the window to make that conclusion.

 

As are "the stats guys" (see the WGR quote) that throw out the stats that support Hodgson. I presented a brief statistical case that deomnstrates that there's more data available than was presented by that negatively-biased statistical argument, and that data can be interpreted as positive for Hodgson, with the data-supported caveat that he'll need to continue to improve.

 

The stats aren't any more useful to evaluate Hodgson than Enroth. Gut feeling and direct observation are just about all anyone can go on.

 

I don't necessarily believe this. The stats do illuminate and support the reality, which is also (pretty easily) seen with direct observation: Does CoHo need to improve his defensive game? Yes. Did he get a lot of ice time and was on the ice for a lot of goals against? Yes. Was he the worst defensively-performing Sabres forward last year? No. Is he good offensively? Yes.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

The stats aren't any more useful to evaluate Hodgson than Enroth. Gut feeling and direct observation are just about all anyone can go on.

I agree. I'm mixed on this. The positives on Hodgson are that he has incredible offensive vision, and a skillset that can allow him to both feed, and finish. He seems to be a subdued kid, but still shows confidence. Off the ice he seems to be a good soldier, and now that he is signed for so long, we better not hear a peep from his entourage going forward.......on the downside....I will disagree with Weave. The kid floats without the puck on the defensive side at times. He, much like Myers, is not a tiny build, but does not seem to enjoy laying the body on anyone at anytime. His personality is also low key enough that when combined with the fact that he doesn't seem to "enjoy" contact, I have a hard time seeing him as a true captain in the future. He's much more a Pominville than a Gare, and Pominville was a hustler on the back end from day 1. I am also concerned that he is a big injury risk going forward with his back. Back problems usually don't disappear. They become chronic as you get older. I find Hodgson's skating without the puck very rigid. Much too upright and not fluid at all. His straightline speed and hustle when on the attack seems fine, but if they didn't wear numbers, you could tell Hodgson just the way he is hunched without the puck. To me, this is the biggest wildcard that would help explain his lackadaisical approach to defense at times.......All in all it isn't a horrible deal, and you could do a lot worse than penciling him in as a #2 for the next few years (problem is he's playing #1), but given Darcy's record...it is only logical to hear a few "Uh-Oh"'s.

[...]

 

 

Of course not. I didn't imply that at all. Why are you now giving me the insulting hyperbole? Whether Pegula should go clean slate on Regier is a (relatively hot) matter of debate, but he's doing it anyways, so it should be taken into account if there's any confusion about why things are being done the way they're being done.

 

 

That point is typically brought up as a defense against Regier's prior record. The implication is clearly that if The Pegula is doing it, we have to do it, too, to make sense of Regier's activities. I completely and utterly disagree with this. There is no reason to discount Regier's prior record, at all, regardless of what The Pegula wants us to do.

 

The comment was made in the context of whether WE should discount Regier's prior recording when assessing CoHo's contract. So, when you throw The Pegula's perspective into this, it muddies up the waters unnecessarily, because he is clearly not looking at it from the same perspective we are.

 

 

[IKnowPhysics]

The implication is clearly that if we are doing it, Terry Pegula has to do it, too, to make sense of Regier's activities. I completely and utterly disagree with this. There are many reasons to discount Regier's prior record, at all, regardless of what we want Pegula to do.

 

The comment was made in the context of whether PEGULA should discount Regier's prior recording when assessing CoHo's contract. So, when you throw SabreSpace's perspective into this, it muddies up the waters unnecessarily, because we are clearly not looking at it from the same perspective he is.

 

It's hilarious to me that the exact opposite of what you said can be stated and be entirely reasonable.

 

Folks can argue all day long about whether anything should or should not be done. Go for it. It's fun. But if you want to explain why something occured and ground that explanation in reality, reality needs to be taken into account, regardless of whether that reality is preceived as unreasonable. The reality is that Pegula gave Regier a clean slate. One of the remaining questions becomes: does the way DR does business change under this owner? And from the get go- the long term deal for Myers, the Ehrhoff deal, and the Leino deal- I interpret these deals as evidence of a departure from the way DR previously did business.

 

 

All of that said, there's similarities to Derek Roy's old deal: 6 year $4M/yr after the three year ELC, with some consideration that Roy was being paid more in "cap adjusted dollars" or whatever.

[...]

 

 

It's hilarious to me that the exact opposite of what you said can be stated and be entirely reasonable.

 

Folks can argue all day long about whether anything should or should not be done. Go for it. It's fun. But if you want to explain why something occured and ground that explanation in reality, reality needs to be taken into account, regardless of whether that reality is preceived as unreasonable. The reality is that Pegula gave Regier a clean slate. One of the remaining questions becomes: does the way DR does business change under this owner? And from the get go- the long term deal for Myers, the Ehrhoff deal, and the Leino deal- I interpret these deals as evidence of a departure from the way DR previously did business.

 

 

 

What does the "clean slate" have to do with Regier's record? The Pegula Era does not wipe away Regier's record. A player's individual stat history doesn't disappear if they change teams.

 

The WHY of the contract was pretty clear the moment it was announced. The projected OUTCOME of the contract is what's being debated here.

 

I have no idea why you want to turn this into a Regier argument and why he does things under The Pegula. We were discussing CoHo's contract and whether HE is worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bcsaberks]

I like the signing. Hopefully it will be like Roy's where it's very good value in the meat of it. If he grows into a leadership roll and improves defensively, it could look great in 3 years.

 

Dark here's a more suitable and well earned cookie, compared to that Chips-Ahoy looking one up thread.

 

[TrueBlueGED]

With all due respect, that's hyperbole, and somewhat insulting. "Just because Darcy did it" is certainly NOT the sole, or greatest, reason for the dissent on Hodgson's signing. This isn't because "Darcy" is some comic-book character bad-guy whom we are conditioned to hate regardless of what he does.

 

Hodgson has a record to refer to. The league has standards and precedent to refer to. Regier, yes, has a record to refer to. The team has a record to refer to. And those things have all been discussed to some degree or other. If you collate these things and look at the result, there are several reasons to not like this signing.

 

If you ignore Regier's body of work, then you are purposely skewing the results. That's a bias.

 

I was a bit strong on that. Of course the track record shouldn't be entirely ignored, but it's also open to interpretation. I'd argue Roy, Pominville Sekera, Ehrhoff and to a lesser extent Lydman and Tallinder were all longer term deals that worked to be good to great values, even if inflated at the time of signing.

 

When we traded for Hodgson, people were saying "how can anyone believe Regier got the better of Gillis?" I find that kind of thing a really weak, even if it is has some validity.

 

I think there's reasons to dislike the signing, I just happen to think Regier's track record is the weakest among them.

 

You stats guys saying this contract is a worthwhile gamble are throwing the stats out of the window to make that conclusion. You're making a gut-decision.

 

The thing is, the relevant stats will vary based on where you project Hodgson. Matt Coller was evaluating him in the #1,do it all center framework. I think that's flawed, in large part because this contract isn't a 1C contract, it's the deal a #2 gets. The defensive warts on Hodgson's game are much less important in than #2 role.

 

It's possible Hodgson develops into a #1,but I don't think it's particularly likely. And that's fine, because his contract doesn't dictate that he must. Saying he's not as good as Tavares offensively nor as good as Toews defensively, therefore this is a bad contract is shoddy analysis. If he were making $6MM+ I think Coller's analysis, and the dissatisfaction with the contract, would have much much more traction.

 

At the end of the day, if he gets evaluated as a #1,it's because Darcy failed to find a true 1, not because of a 6 year contract that pays him as a #2.

[...]

 

I think there's reasons to dislike the signing, I just happen to think Regier's track record is the weakest among them.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with this at all.

 

Grrr, the Coller article is gone off of WGR's site, so I can't verify, but Coller's article was published the day before Hodgson signed.

 

The scuttlebutt has been since Hodgson came aboard is that he was the Sabres' best bet for a number one center; they made NO moves since Hodgson's acquisition to temper that notion. Indeed, everyone here has him pegged as the number one. Whether he is number one caliber or not, this is what the Sabre's have. So, I do not see how the comparisons to a number one can not be made.

 

You have swerved us into an interesting scenario: if Hodgson becomes number one caliber, then, of course, this is a brilliant signing...but it also begs the question of whether or not the Sabres are leaving room for a REAL number one center - this putting CoHo appropriately in the second slot. If the latter is what plays out, CoHo still needs to improve on faceoffs and backchecking.

[Derrico]

The thing is, the relevant stats will vary based on where you project Hodgson. Matt Coller was evaluating him in the #1,do it all center framework. I think that's flawed, in large part because this contract isn't a 1C contract, it's the deal a #2 gets. The defensive warts on Hodgson's game are much less important in than #2 role.

 

It's possible Hodgson develops into a #1,but I don't think it's particularly likely. And that's fine, because his contract doesn't dictate that he must. Saying he's not as good as Tavares offensively nor as good as Toews defensively, therefore this is a bad contract is shoddy analysis. If he were making $6MM+ I think Coller's analysis, and the dissatisfaction with the contract, would have much much more At the end of the day, if he gets evaluated as a #1,it's because Darcy failed to find a true 1, not because of a 6 year contract that pays him as a #2.

 

I think that's bang on. We're talking about $4.25 mil per season here. Yes back in 2005 that was pretty big money that's not the case in 2013 with where the cap is projected to go. I think Cody will develop his game into a nice number 2 centre. It's still Darcy's job to go out there and get us that number 1 and the cap should be there to pay the #1 longterm at the going rate of $6 to $8 mil when that time comes. I think this deal will be looking very nice in 2 or 3 years. Don't let Staffords decline scare anyone into thinking that will happen with every player that signs a contract longer than 2 years.

 

I don't disagree with this at all.

 

Grrr, the Coller article is gone off of WGR's site, so I can't verify, but Coller's article was published the day before Hodgson signed.

 

The scuttlebutt has been since Hodgson came aboard is that he was the Sabres' best bet for a number one center; they made NO moves since Hodgson's acquisition to temper that notion. Indeed, everyone here has him pegged as the number one. Whether he is number one caliber or not, this is what the Sabre's have. So, I do not see how the comparisons to a number one can not be made.

 

You have swerved us into an interesting scenario: if Hodgson becomes number one caliber, then, of course, this is a brilliant signing...but it also begs the question of whether or not the Sabres are leaving room for a REAL number one center - this putting CoHo appropriately in the second slot. If the latter is what plays out, CoHo still needs to improve on faceoffs and backchecking.

 

The $4.25 mil signing does leave that room. The interview with Darcy this morning stated worst case Cody would be a #2, so it sounds like he realizes Hodgson is not a sure fire #1C. Although I think that Darcy still plans on Grigorenko being the top line centre based on that interview. However, that may be a discussion for another thread and won't be settled for atleast two more seasons.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't disagree with this at all.

 

Grrr, the Coller article is gone off of WGR's site, so I can't verify, but Coller's article was published the day before Hodgson signed.

 

The scuttlebutt has been since Hodgson came aboard is that he was the Sabres' best bet for a number one center; they made NO moves since Hodgson's acquisition to temper that notion. Indeed, everyone here has him pegged as the number one. Whether he is number one caliber or not, this is what the Sabre's have. So, I do not see how the comparisons to a number one can not be made.

 

You have swerved us into an interesting scenario: if Hodgson becomes number one caliber, then, of course, this is a brilliant signing...but it also begs the question of whether or not the Sabres are leaving room for a REAL number one center - this putting CoHo appropriately in the second slot. If the latter is what plays out, CoHo still needs to improve on faceoffs and backchecking.

 

Hodgson is clearly the #1 right now, but I don't think this contract means they're banking on him being the #1 long term. At least I hope not, because if he's the #1 by the time the rest of the team is ready to contend (and he hasn't greatly improved defensively), I think we're screwed.

 

I do agree he needs to improve his two-way game regardless, but the burden of improvement to be a #2 is much lower and much more likely to happen than improving enough to be a #1.

[Weave]

Hodgson is clearly the #1 right now, but I don't think this contract means they're banking on him being the #1 long term. At least I hope not, because if he's the #1 by the time the rest of the team is ready to contend (and he hasn't greatly improved defensively), I think we're screwed.

 

I do agree he needs to improve his two-way game regardless, but the burden of improvement to be a #2 is much lower and much more likely to happen than improving enough to be a #1.

 

Judging solely on the players that have been drafted the last few seasons I expect Cody will be centering whatever our ":#1" line is. But I think a traditional #1, 2, 3 scenario will not be in play. I expect we will have a center situation in a few years similar to Boston's where they have a #1 line but there isn't alot of difference between their 1, 2, 3 centers overall.

 

In that scenario Cody's contract is right about where it should be.

[IKnowPhysics]

I think there's reasons to dislike the signing, I just happen to think Regier's track record is the weakest among them.

 

I can support that as well. Good middle ground. The kid does need to improve his defensive play, even being paid as a #2C (this is made evident with the quick GVS upthread).

 

The scuttlebutt has been since Hodgson came aboard is that he was the Sabres' best bet for a number one center; they made NO moves since Hodgson's acquisition to temper that notion. Indeed, everyone here has him pegged as the number one. Whether he is number one caliber or not, this is what the Sabre's have. So, I do not see how the comparisons to a number one can not be made.

 

DR has said (today or yesterday, somewhere) that he expects Hodgson to be a #1 or #2 center. I don't think he's limited his options yet with this signing- I don't think we just signed on for six years without a #1C. We may try to see how things shake out a little before trying to sign big UFAs or trade for one (we now have three centers drafted in the first half of the first round), but I don't think signing Hodgson will be prohibitive (especially at $4M) if that doesn't work out.

[nfreeman]

I'd argue Roy, Pominville Sekera, Ehrhoff and to a lesser extent Lydman and Tallinder were all longer term deals that worked to be good to great values, even if inflated at the time of signing.

 

I emphatically disagree with all of these except perhaps Ehrhoff and Lydman.