Roster Speculation 2015-16 Pt. III

[joshjull]

Why sit down with WGR now? It seems like they wanted to get out a controlled message on particular players........for motivational purposes ??

How is it controlled message when the guys from WGR are the ones that asked about those players? As an example all the stuff about Hodgson was due to questions from Hamilton.

Murray is known for being blunt and straightforward with his players and what he expects of them. He hardly needs a Q and A session with WGR to let the players know what he wants. And that's what it was, a straight forward Q and A with WGR staff. Every player mentioned already knows what's up with their respective situations and what they need to do.

Not to mention most of what was said is already know from previous Murray interviews. For example, Murray' said in an interview at the end of the season that Zads needed to come into camp in shape and also needed to grow up. He also said if Reinhart is physically ready for the NHL next year he will be in the NHL.

It's kind of odd to call this simple Q and A session a motivational tactic when he has said the same things about these players before. Plus the players in question knew two months ago, at the end of the season, what was expected of them. because Murray told them face to face and he also said these things in the press back then. Do you think these players don't know Murray feels this way and are learning these things for the first time?

Obviously. What other purpose was there?

Hodgson was given 12 million reasons to have the best offseason of his life

I have no idea if he will be bought out. But the idea that the comments about Hodgson were to motivate him by "scaring" him over a buyout is silly for two reasons. 1) He already knows the stakes because he and his agent already discussed them with Murray at the end of the season. Which was about two months ago. It's why he is in Sweden working on his skating and sending tapes of his work to Murray. 2) if he is bought out it will be happening in the next couple weeks. It's a little late for a pep talk at this point. And once that time frame passes the threat of buyout is gone until next year(though there is another window after arbitration hearings but we have none to worry about). When he can be bought out for 2/3rds instead of the 1/3rd right now.

 

[Bps21*]

It's a risk, but I wouldn't buy out Hodgson. Let him come back motivated and have a great season.

Then you either keep him, because he's earned a spot in the future

- or -

you trade him at higher trade value.

If he doesn't bounce back... there's the risk.

He's not going to have a good season. He is terrible. He might score more. Wooo. He's among the biggest liability to have on the ice in the entire league. That's not changing. If he goes back to 40 points because of a bigger role it just means I got scored on more often because he was out there.

He doesn't have to go because he stopped scoring. He has to go because he is one of the worst players in the league. And on top of that...he stopped scoring.

And there isn't anywhere for him to play that makes sense anyway. Eichel and Reinhart shouldn't get stuck with him. He is paid to much to he a 4th liner. 3rd liners...do something. Hit, possess, defend, block shots I don't care...they do something.

 

[mikemcburn]

Maybe it's because Hodgson was ****ing horrible last year? There's a weird team ennis vs team Hodgson fight going, but last year Ennis wasn't worthless but Cody was.

I think you missed the thread of thought to which I was responding. Nuttin' to do with Ennis, much less Ennis vs Hodgson, nor even any reference to Hodgson's dismal season.

In fact, the names mentioned were Gionta, Girgensens, Larrson, and Grigorenko. Not an Ennis in sight.

 

[mikemcburn]

How is it controlled message when the guys from WGR are the ones that asked about those players? As an example all the stuff about Hodgson was due to questions from Hamilton.

Murray is known for being blunt and straightforward with his players and what he expects of them. He hardly needs a Q and A session with WGR to let the players know what he wants. And that's what it was, a straight forward Q and A with WGR staff. Every player mentioned already knows what's up with their respective situations and what they need to do.

Not to mention most of what was said is already know from previous Murray interviews. For example, Murray' said in an interview at the end of the season that Zads needed to come into camp in shape and also needed to grow up. He also said if Reinhart is physically ready for the NHL next year he will be in the NHL.

It's kind of odd to call this simple Q and A session a motivational tactic when he has said the same things about these players before. Plus the players in question knew two months ago, at the end of the season, what was expected of them. because Murray told them face to face and he also said these things in the press back then. Do you think these players don't know Murray feels this way and are learning these things for the first time?

I have no idea if he will be bought out. But the idea that the comments about Hodgson were to motivate him by "scaring" him over a buyout is silly for two reasons. 1) He already knows the stakes because he and his agent already discussed them with Murray at the end of the season. Which was about two months ago. It's why he is in Sweden working on his skating and sending tapes of his work to Murray. 2) if he is bought out it will be happening in the next couple weeks. It's a little late for a pep talk at this point. And once that time frame passes the threat of buyout is gone until next year(though there is another window after arbitration hearings but we have none to worry about). When he can be bought out for 2/3rds instead of the 1/3rd right now.

Precisely, way too late for a "motivational tactic".

But that leads me to a possibly odd question - where did I miss it that Hodgson showed up out of shape at the beginning of last season? According to the WGR blog, that's the case. But it's the first I've heard of it, and seeing how it'd be a big black mark against the kid it woulda been talked about incessantly throughout the season too - meaning impossible to miss. So, was this the case? If so, when/where does this source to?

Another thought, why mention the buyout thinking at all before just doing it? Me, I'd let the player know the thinking well ahead as a matter of good form and basic common decency, but otherwise keep entirely mum to the public until pulling the actual trigger. The kid's trade value is already at an all time low, I wouldn't make it worse until exhausting all possible options up to the last moment available to pull that trigger.

 

[Matt Ress]

I'm president of his "love the person hate the player" club.

Between his NTC and the circumstances around his signing, Buffalo won't have the leverage to force him out until he actually proves to be a roadblock to our success, instead of just looking like one on paper.

Kinda sucks TM painted himself into that corner but I'll wait 2 years to get mad about it.

 

[dotcommunism]

It's a risk, but I wouldn't buy out Hodgson. Let him come back motivated and have a great season.

Then you either keep him, because he's earned a spot in the future

- or -

you trade him at higher trade value.

If he doesn't bounce back... there's the risk.

Buying out Hodgson in two years (for example) certainly carries a higher cap hit than doing it now, but it's far from something that would seriously handicap the team.

 

[Chemical]

Where, without forcing him in? Are we going to send Grigorenko through waivers because we need to fit Hodgson in somehow?

Kane - Girgensons - Ennis
Mouslon - Eichel - Gionta
Larsson - Reinhart - Grigorenko

Are you planning to make him your 4C? I don't get it.

Kane - Girgensons - Ennis
Moulson - Eichel - Hodgson
Larsson - Grigorenko - Gionta

With Reinhart in Rochester to save another year of his ELC/gain strength.

I'm torn on the Hodgson buyout but here's how I look at it. The upside of the buyout is more cap space in 4 years.(we likely won't need it until then), but the negative ramifications drag on past that.

The upside of not buying him out is the chance that his production reverts back to the mean and he's once again a tradeable asset. Downside being less cap space in 4 years. But even that might not matter becasue he can be traded with salary retained or bought out.

 

[Der Jaeger]

He's not going to have a good season. He is terrible. He might score more. Wooo. He's among the biggest liability to have on the ice in the entire league. That's not changing. If he goes back to 40 points because of a bigger role it just means I got scored on more often because he was out there.

He doesn't have to go because he stopped scoring. He has to go because he is one of the worst players in the league. And on top of that...he stopped scoring.

And there isn't anywhere for him to play that makes sense anyway. Eichel and Reinhart shouldn't get stuck with him. He is paid to much to he a 4th liner. 3rd liners...do something. Hit, possess, defend, block shots I don't care...they do something.

Hmmm. What if he bounces back scoring, ups his value somewhat, and the Sabres can off-load him in a trade (say to Arizona and Regier...)?

That's the advantage of keeping him. Murray might avoid the buyout altogether.

 

[TehDoak]

A thought:

Bogo+Foligno+21st

For

Hamilton+Kelly+Subban

Boston gets cap relief and RH d-man under 25, and a young physical LW

Buffalo gets a 21 year old d-man, a goalie prospect, a 4th line veteran center.

 

[Jame]

I have no idea if he will be bought out. But the idea that the comments about Hodgson were to motivate him by "scaring" him over a buyout is silly for two reasons. 1) He already knows the stakes because he and his agent already discussed them with Murray at the end of the season. Which was about two months ago. It's why he is in Sweden working on his skating and sending tapes of his work to Murray. 2) if he is bought out it will be happening in the next couple weeks. It's a little late for a pep talk at this point. And once that time frame passes the threat of buyout is gone until next year(though there is another window after arbitration hearings but we have none to worry about). When he can be bought out for 2/3rds instead of the 1/3rd right now.

So, he's already been motivated. Thanks

 

[Captain Holt]

The fact is that he doesn't fit for the future (Jack, ZG, Sam, Kane, Moulson, Ennis are all top 6 guys on our team, he is not a 3rd or 4th liner) we're loaded down the middle, he's a defensive liability, he gets paid an absurd amount, and the time is NOW to buy him out. Not only that, he's 25 years old and has been told I'm sure countless times since he was 18 that he needed to improve on his skating. What's going to change now?

 

[old kummelweck]

I personally assume that anything that is put out there by the GM and Coach is in line with an agenda - either PR or otherwise. And the reason they go to WGR is they are more likely to behave themselves due to the stations broadcasting relationship with the Sabres, legal agreements, etc. I listen to WGR all the time, but I'm not under any illusion that they are anything other than mouth pieces for the sabres org. Even with that arrangement, it's still interesting and entertaining.

TBN is just lazy, but also doesn't have the same access as WGR.

 

[CaptPantalones]

A thought:

Bogo+Foligno+21st

For

Hamilton+Kelly+Subban

Boston gets cap relief and RH d-man under 25, and a young physical LW

Buffalo gets a 21 year old d-man, a goalie prospect, a 4th line veteran center.

Can't see Boston doing that.

But I wouldn't be too against trying to get up to 14 and offering cap relief

 

[Jim Bob]

I'd rather buy out Hodgson in 3 years when we need the cap space and pay for it then than take on a cap hit, albeit a small one, for the next bazillion years.

I'd rather buy Hodgson out now when it is a 1/3 of the remaining deal rather than after this season when it jumps to 2/3.

So, it's Hodgson costs $708k over the next 8 seasons (through 2022-23) if he's bought out this summer.

Or, he costs $4.25M in 15-16 and is bought out next summer. Then he's on the books for $1.417M for the following 6 seasons (through 2021-22).

If he's bought out in 2017, he counts $1.417M against the cap for the following four seasons (through 2020-21).

If he's bought out in 2018, he counts $1.417M against the cap for the following two seasons (through 2019-20).

If they can't trade him, buying him out this summer makes a lot of sense due to the buyout percentage doubling after this year.

 

[tmack224]

Grigorenko, and 31st overall for T.J. Oshie

Hodgson and a 4th for Mike Richards and Martin Jones (LA can buyout Hodgson and save money. Buffalo can use Mike Richards in a checking line role.)

Kane-Girgensons-Larsson
Moulson-Eichel-Ennis
Oshie-Reinhart-Gionta
Foligno-Richards-Deslauriers

 

[stokes84]

Kane - Girgensons - Ennis
Moulson - Eichel - Hodgson
Larsson - Grigorenko - Gionta

With Reinhart in Rochester to save another year of his ELC/gain strength.

I'm torn on the Hodgson buyout but here's how I look at it. The upside of the buyout is more cap space in 4 years.(we likely won't need it until then), but the negative ramifications drag on past that.

The upside of not buying him out is the chance that his production reverts back to the mean and he's once again a tradeable asset. Downside being less cap space in 4 years. But even that might not matter becasue he can be traded with salary retained or bought out.

Reinhart is going to be in Buffalo next year, it's one thing that was made clear in this press conference. No need to make line up predictions without him anymore.

 

[TehDoak]

Can't see Boston doing that.

But I wouldn't be too against trying to get up to 14 and offering cap relief

I would do 21+51 for 14 + Kelly

 

[TehDoak]

Re: Martin/Ehrhoff

Unless Ehrhoff has a real desire to return to Buffalo (My best guess is he goes to Chicago to replace Oduya for cheap), gotta think the Bylsma/Gionta/Martin connection is there.

 

[Jame]

Reinhart is going to be in Buffalo next year, it's one thing that was made clear in this press conference. No need to make line up predictions without him anymore.

Based on the same commentary from Murray/Bylsma... Grigorenko really doesn't have a spot, and there's no need to make lineups with him in the top 9 either...

Unless changes are made, i could easily see the following lineup making sense to start the 2015 season.

Moulson-Larsson-Ennis - top line
Kane-Reinhart-Hodgson - ozone start
Girgenson-Eichel-Gionta - dzone start (Girgs can play center)
Foligno-Grigorenko-Deslauriers - energy

which hopefully evolves (over the next 12 months) in to...

Larsson-Eichel-Ennis - elite line
Kane-Reinhart-Girgensons - selke line
Moulson- xxxx - xxxx - feast line
xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - kill ine

 

[Sabretip]

Based on the same commentary from Murray/Bylsma... Grigorenko really doesn't have a spot, and there's no need to make lineups with him in the top 9 either...

Unless changes are made, i could easily see the following lineup making sense to start the 2015 season.

Moulson-Larsson-Ennis - top line
Kane-Reinhart-Hodgson - ozone start
Girgenson-Eichel-Gionta - dzone start (Girgs can play center)
Foligno-Grigorenko-Deslauriers - energy

The mere mention that Hodgson might be bought out also should end any line projections with him in them.

 

[stokes84]

Based on the same commentary from Murray/Bylsma... Grigorenko really doesn't have a spot, and there's no need to make lineups with him in the top 9 either...

Unless changes are made, i could easily see the following lineup making sense to start the 2015 season.

Moulson-Larsson-Ennis - top line
Kane-Reinhart-Hodgson - ozone start
Girgenson-Eichel-Gionta - dzone start (Girgs can play center)
Foligno-Grigorenko-Deslauriers - energy

which hopefully evolves (over the next 12 months) in to...

Larsson-Eichel-Ennis - elite line
Kane-Reinhart-Girgensons - selke line
Moulson- xxxx - xxxx - feast line
xxxx - xxxx - xxxx - kill ine

Which brings us back to the point, are you going to risk losing Grigorenko for nothing because you don't want to buy out Hodgson? That would be dumb.

E: never mind, I see what You did. Responded after quick glance.

 

[Jame]

The mere mention that Hodgson might be bought out also should end any line projections with him in them.

I have no problem with dumping Hodgson or starting him in the top 6 to generate some trade value.

I'm merely pointing out that IF we do keep him, there is clearly a short term path to a role that would at least assist in getting his game back on track and putting some value into him in terms of trade.

All he has to do is score a little bit for the first few months, and he's back to being a 25 year old 50 point player... something that should be easily tradeable.

 

[Jame]

Which brings us back to the point, are you going to risk losing Grigorenko for nothing because you don't want to buy out Hodgson? That would be dumb.

E: never mind, I see what You did. Responded after quick glance.

I don't see any reason anything leads to losing Grigo for nothing.

 

[enthusiast]

They'd have to be Oilers level incompetent to lose Grigo for nothing

 

[TehDoak]

A thought: Grigo for Lack + Kassian.