[Report] Cody Hodgson Could Be Bought Out

[Drewismyname]

Okay so personal insults didnt work to not have to admit youre wrong and now, you reach for symantics to avoid it.

Oh and tyler ennis? The guy who cody couldnt even play well with? Hes a career -46

http://sabres.nhl.com/club/stats.htm Cody isnt too far Removed from some pretty respected players in the plus minus dept. but i repeat, tanking does this. If he had in fact matched his point totals from previous years his plus minus would likely be better than most of them. But thats aside from the point.

so.... Since we have disproven your +/- argument, whats next?

I said youre insane for ripping on him because his only terrible year was a tank year. You respond with saying his plus minus says he sucked every year, but i proved you wrong by showing you that all sabres have $&!#ty plus minus in tanking years.

So , symantics aside whats your next move?

[SabreFan1]

Okay so personal insults didnt work to not have to admit youre wrong and now, you reach for symantics to avoid it.

Oh and tyler ennis? The guy who cody couldnt even play well with? Hes a career -46, so.... Since we have disproven your +/- argument, whats next?

I said youre insane for ripping on him because his only terrible year was a tank year. You respond with saying his plus minus says he sucked every year, but i proved you wrong by showing you that all sabres have crapty plus minus in tanking years.

So , symantics aside whats your next move?

1. I didn't insult you so stop being a drama queen.

2. I'm not going to argue with a Cody Hodgson fanboy. History has proven that arguing with Cody and Zack fanboy's is a giant waste of time and never goes anywhere.

I think that Murray is going to keep him. If I'm wrong and he gets bought out then he'll go to another team and get a fresh start with new linemates. That will be his final chance in the NHL if that's the scenario.

[RWMc1]

John tavarez is a career -40

Tyler Ennis career -46 (the guy who cody apparently couldnt even look good with. I guess this is codys fault ennis has such a bad rating)

Hodgson is a career -56

What do they have in common? Significant playing time on terrible teams. Want more plus minus comparisons?

Erik karlsson career - 19

Phil kessel career -75

Cherry-picking and evasion. Great tactics.

You claimed one bad year. I showed that you were wrong. You then cherry-pick other players using a different criteria. Two consecutive bad years is a trend. That is why they are considering buying him out. Or do you think it's because the management for the Sabres love Kassian too much?

[Boudrias]

1. I didn't insult you so stop being a drama queen.

2. I'm not going to argue with a Cody Hodgson fanboy. History has proven that arguing with Cody and Zack fanboy's is a giant waste of time and never goes anywhere.

I think that Murray is going to keep him. If I'm wrong and he gets bought out then he'll go to another team and get a fresh start with new linemates. That will be his final chance in the NHL if that's the scenario.

Tyler Ennis invited to Team Canada, Cody not. One thing to have a bad year but not the end of the world if the work ethic is there, in the few games I watched it was not there. Maybe Nolan enhanced the process I don't know.

[mikeburn]

The issue isn't who he was playing with. He was tried with just about everybody, including Moulson and Ennis.

If you're speaking to the odd PP shift, true enough. But let's not pretend Hodgson ever played a regular shift with either Moulson or Ennis, even just for a single game.

I reppeat:

Those of you who dump on a guy for plAying an absolutely brutal year on a tanking team need to give your heads a shake. If you need to take your frustrations out by chucking Crap at a public figure, at least sound slightly sane.

They put a guy one year removed from his rookie season on the first line? More reason to blame Buffalo. A team that does this is not only stupid but asking to lose. Whats that called again? Oh, yes, tanking.

He will have a bounceback year, mark my words.

You could add in the concept of "statistical outlier" but many still wouldn't get it. You could even argue that it's insane to plug a kid into a grinder role and then complain because he produces precisely what a grinder is expected to produce. Some just won't get it.

The human species is full of the characters who kick when another is down, period. In Hodgson's case, Gillis made him an easy target in April 2012 for a certain type of character. The type who dismisses any positive and leaps at every negative, real or imagined, to manufacture "cause" for kicking some more.

I just don't understand the kid. In the CHL he showed he could be an all around dominant force. Dominant in the face-off dot, very reliable on defense, coaches applauded how hard working he was. Yet only his offense translated to the NHL. Everything else fell behind. I can't help but keep thinking he's just a step away from flipping the switch and being a force, but every year we don't see it. He is still just 25, but come on CoHo. If bought out, I don't see him finding much trouble getting a contract from someone though

To understand, you gotta put Hodgson's development into context with four pieces to the puzzle:

1) He lost more than a year of physical development during his prospect/rookie transition to a misdiagnosed and mismanaged back injury. That stretch included two off-seasons of training that were predominantly focused merely on rehab'ing. That injury doesn't happen and/or it's diagnosed properly at the time, and you've got a kid who can be working on his speed and physical play rather than just trying to keep up.

2) You're talking about a kid who went from being properly sheltered on the 3rd (ala Sedins, Kesler, etc.) during his rookie career, to being drop shipped into 1C on a team without any depth to support him on the heavy minutes and match ups. There's a reason coaches and fans alike talk about properly developing a player's whole game, having him earn up the line. Hodgson was never given the chance (or, for those who prefer to sound more demanding, was never "required") to develop his whole game.

3) You're also talking about a kid who landed in an unstable management/coaching scene in Buffalo where the expectations, game play styles, coaching tactics, and roster have been notoriously inconsistent throughout the last three seasons. Gotta impact anyone's development trajectory.

4) And then you've got the issue of the kid himself... Did that injury not only stall his development but also impact his confidence in playing a more physical game? He's actually strong on the puck and will sporadically make the physical play, offensively and defensively, so he's gotta be capable, but perhaps it's just not in his general pyscie to be "that player". Seems more like a Henrik Sedin cerebral type than a Kesler charge all in type. Maybe he's gotta be deployed as the type of player he is rather than putting him into a role to which he's not suited?

Personally I've always liked the kid. He's not my fav type of player, but he's got the talent and character pieces that can't be taught. If he had Burrrow's heart-on-sleeve style, I'd love him, but oh well. Still think he's got a slew of upside and at 25 is nowhere near being done.

But I did make two bad calls after the trade - I though he'd found a long term home in Buffalo (couldn't account for the drafting that put Hodgson out of a 2C future there, period), and I was wrong to think he'd get the development support needed to flush out his entire two-way game (couldn't account for all the mgmt/coaching changes). Sucks for Hodgson.

But at 25, one statistical outlier of a year doesn't preclude the possibility that he's still got time to develop into his scouting potential.

[mikeburn]

Tyler Ennis invited to Team Canada, Cody not. One thing to have a bad year but not the end of the world if the work ethic is there, in the few games I watched it was not there. Maybe Nolan enhanced the process I don't know.

Hodgson was invited to Team Canada, and Ennis not, the year earlier - and lead in production.

Let's see if either are invited back again to break the tie ;-)

EDIT: If Hodgson *does* come back with a more physical and whole game, then it might be argued that Nolan's doghouse tactic salvaged his career. Heck, if he ultimately develops into his scouting potential as a sound two-way pivot with the offensive talents, it could be argued that he was Nolan's greatest success.

[SabreFan1]

If you're speaking to the odd PP shift, true enough. But let's not pretend Hodgson ever played a regular shift with either Moulson or Ennis, even just for a single game.

You could add in the concept of "statistical outlier" but many still wouldn't get it. You could even argue that it's insane to plug a kid into a grinder role and then complain because he produces precisely what a grinder is expected to produce. Some just won't get it.

The human species is full of the characters who kick when another is down, period. In Hodgson's case, Gillis made him an easy target in April 2012 for a certain type of character. The type who dismisses any positive and leaps at every negative, real or imagined, to manufacture "cause" for kicking some more.

To understand, you gotta put Hodgson's development into context with four pieces to the puzzle:

1) He lost more than a year of physical development during his prospect/rookie transition to a misdiagnosed and mismanaged back injury. That stretch included two off-seasons of training that were predominantly focused merely on rehab'ing. That injury doesn't happen and/or it's diagnosed properly at the time, and you've got a kid who can be working on his speed and physical play rather than just trying to keep up.

2) You're talking about a kid who went from being properly sheltered on the 3rd (ala Sedins, Kesler, etc.) during his rookie career, to being drop shipped into 1C on a team without any depth to support him on the heavy minutes and match ups. There's a reason coaches and fans alike talk about properly developing a player's whole game, having him earn up the line. Hodgson was never given the chance (or, for those who prefer to sound more demanding, was never "required") to develop his whole game.

3) You're also talking about a kid who landed in an unstable management/coaching scene in Buffalo where the expectations, game play styles, coaching tactics, and roster have been notoriously inconsistent throughout the last three seasons. Gotta impact anyone's development trajectory.

4) And then you've got the issue of the kid himself... Did that injury not only stall his development but also impact his confidence in playing a more physical game? He's actually strong on the puck and will sporadically make the physical play, offensively and defensively, so he's gotta be capable, but perhaps it's just not in his general pyscie to be "that player". Seems more like a Henrik Sedin cerebral type than a Kesler charge all in type. Maybe he's gotta be deployed as the type of player he is rather than putting him into a role to which he's not suited?

Personally I've always liked the kid. He's not my fav type of player, but he's got the talent and character pieces that can't be taught. If he had Burrrow's heart-on-sleeve style, I'd love him, but oh well. Still think he's got a slew of upside and at 25 is nowhere near being done.

But I did make two bad calls after the trade - I though he'd found a long term home in Buffalo (couldn't account for the drafting that put Hodgson out of a 2C future there, period), and I was wrong to think he'd get the development support needed to flush out his entire two-way game (couldn't account for all the mgmt/coaching changes). Sucks for Hodgson.

But at 25, one statistical outlier of a year doesn't preclude the possibility that he's still got time to develop into his scouting potential.

Here's a local article on the pros and cons of keeping Cody. Complete with statistics. Notice at the end it also mentions that Cody began the year poorly by showing up to camp out of shape. The lack of effort began even before the season started.

http://www.wgr550.com/Should-the-Sabres-buy-out-Hodgson-/21625288

[mikeburn]

Here's a local article on the pros and cons of keeping Cody. Complete with statistics. Notice at the end it also mentions that Cody began the year poorly by showing up to camp out of shape. The lack of effort began even before the season started.

http://www.wgr550.com/Should-the-Sabres-buy-out-Hodgson-/21625288

I've read the article, but thanks for the link anyway of course.

What I found most striking about it was precisely what you flagged - showing up "out of shape". But the reason it struck me was because it's the first time it's ever been mentioned. Can't find a single other source.

Now don't you think that's odd? I mean, if the kid had really shown up "out of shape", it should have been (and would have been) harped about non-stop throughout the entire season. There shouldn't be just a single unsourced editorial comment months after the season wrapped. Very odd.

Or not so odd if the writer, already qualified as having a negative perspective on the kid, took a bit of... oh, say, "artistic license". The profession of sports "journalists" isn't what it used to be.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and about those "statistics" - interesting how the ones selected further the author's argument, and all the advances stats that show the contrary argument were magically left out eh?

https://twitter.com/SeanTierneyTSS/status/609123931023409153/photo/1

"He's been all over the map but Hodgson was actually a help for his linemates last season"

https://twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/609419535620243456

"a bit of an offensive boost relative to the team with Larsson. Blandly average for most of the year. Not esp. linemate driven."

"Pretty middle of the pack Sabres-wise with Stewart. Definitely "better" post deadline - as was the whole team."

Reality is that Hodgson's advanced stats do actually plug him "middle of the pack" - and in defensive categories, ahead of the likes of Moulson, Ennis, etc. Go figure.

But stats, just like anecdotal evidence, can be interpreted any which way to fit one's given position. Just ask the writer of that article - who selected two of Hodgson's worst video clips to "prove" his case, conveniently leaving out all the clips that would disprove the notion he's a total loss defensively. And of course failing to flag that there's not a single player in the NHL for whom we couldn't easily scramble together a whole mini-movie of lookin' sucky.

[RWMc1]

I've read the article, but thanks for the link anyway of course.

What I found most striking about it was precisely what you flagged - showing up "out of shape". But the reason it struck me was because it's the first time it's ever been mentioned. Can't find a single other source.

Now don't you think that's odd? I mean, if the kid had really shown up "out of shape", it should have been (and would have been) harped about non-stop throughout the entire season. There shouldn't be just a single unsourced editorial comment months after the season wrapped. Very odd.

Or not so odd if the writer, already qualified as having a negative perspective on the kid, took a bit of... oh, say, "artistic license". The profession of sports "journalists" isn't what it used to be.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and about those "statistics" - interesting how the ones selected further the author's argument, and all the advances stats that show the contrary argument were magically left out eh?

https://twitter.com/SeanTierneyTSS/status/609123931023409153/photo/1

"He's been all over the map but Hodgson was actually a help for his linemates last season"

https://twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/609419535620243456

"a bit of an offensive boost relative to the team with Larsson. Blandly average for most of the year. Not esp. linemate driven."

"Pretty middle of the pack Sabres-wise with Stewart. Definitely "better" post deadline - as was the whole team."

Reality is that Hodgson's advanced stats do actually plug him "middle of the pack" - and in defensive categories, ahead of the likes of Moulson, Ennis, etc. Go figure.

But stats, just like anecdotal evidence, can be interpreted any which way to fit one's given position. Just ask the writer of that article - who selected two of Hodgson's worst video clips to "prove" his case, conveniently leaving out all the clips that would disprove the notion he's a total loss defensively. And of course failing to flag that there's not a single player in the NHL for whom we couldn't easily scramble together a whole mini-movie of lookin' sucky.

As opposed to the Cody supporters who totally minimize and trivialize his short-comings. They are considering buying him out for a reason. They are trying to light a fire under his butt. You Cody-lovers act as if he doesn't need to get his act together. You make it sound like his position is not any fault of his. He is only 25 and can rise back up, but he needs to put in the work; thus the call-out!!! Do you honestly believe that it's only about dislike?

[mikeburn]

As opposed to the Cody supporters who totally minimize and trivialize his short-comings. They are considering buying him out for a reason. They are trying to light a fire under his butt. You Cody-lovers act as if he doesn't need to get his act together. You make it sound like his position is not any fault of his. He is only 25 and can rise back up, but he needs to put in the work; thus the call-out!!! Do you honestly believe that it's only about dislike?

FYI, the whole "cody lover" thing is about as lame a deflection tactic as is the "cody hater" coming from the other direction. Just sayin'

But anyway, if one can accept that no situation is black and white, or otherwise void of context, then we could discuss the merits and weight of all contributing factors rather than cherry pick only those that fit a particular position.

For my part, and for an example only of course, I think my comments here again today ought to flag a few points -

I'm biased in favour of the kid.

I acknowledge his negatives while still valuing his positives.

I don't question the potential exists and fundamentally believe he's got upside.

I do question if he's got the mentality/psyche to develop or otherwise demonstrate his potential in any reliable/consistent fashion.

I think it's ludicrous to judge any player out of context with the whole of both his own background and the circumstances in which he's plugged presently.

I think it's equally ludicrous to judge any player that has multiple seasons producing at a the top 6 to be a total loss cause because of one dismal season under adverse and toxic conditions.

I believe it's fundamentally irrational to assert that player Y ought to be cut some slack because all players develop differently, and not give the same slack when discussing player X.

I subscribe to the notion that statistics (regardless of the topic) can be interpreted to fit any argument, all sides to the debate can offer up anecdotal evidence to support their position.

I question the motive (and opinions) of anyone who dismisses rational counter points to their staked position and/or who engages in lame name-calling as though being a "lover" or a "hater" somehow magically equates to not having a reasoned positioned.

Oh, and yeah, I am biased in favour of the kid. With caveats but without apology.

EDIT:

I forgot to address your other comments

1) To clarify - it was not my intent to suggest Hodgson is not, himself, a contributing factor to his situation.

2) Yep, totally agree that he can "rise back up" as you say, but also only if he "puts in the effort". Again, I'm of the take that if he does come back and put himself into developing his two-way and physical game, he could be considered one of Nolan's greatest achievements.

3) But let's not pretend the only reason Buffalo doesn't have a spot for him going forward is because of the kid himself. If he'd had an awesome year, he'd still be odd man out. He'd simply have way better and more easily defined/argued trade value.

4) Where it goes to management's decision on his future, nope, I don't think it's about "dislike" whatsoever. His own GM has in fact spoken well of his character. But yeah, totally, I think there's a certain fan/media segment that simply judges all in because of what they "like" or "dislike" in any given player.

Hodgson's playing style is never going to attract the same rush of adoration that, say, a Burrows heart-on-sleeve or a Kesler's power drive will. Like Naslund, Sedins, etc. I suspect Hodgson is the type of player who inspires the diehard "like" only after sustained success, and who will always attract the "dislike" because he's just never gonna wear his heart on sleeve.

[Guest]

Hodgson could take a big payout, then sign with a KHL team and earn even more. This may be no bad thing for his bank account. His career was likely doomed when he was still in juniors.

[SabreFan1]

Hodgson could take a big payout, then sign with a KHL team and earn even more. This may be no bad thing for his bank account. His career was likely doomed when he was still in juniors.

His buyout isn't much more than 1 year's salary.

There's no way that he'll go play in the KHL.

[RWMc1]

He's actually in Sweeden right now playing, working more on his defensive game just fyi.

But alright.

Sedin Sedin Burrows

Hodgson Bonino Vrbata

Baertschi Horvat Virtanen

Kassian Matthias Dorsett

Kenins/Vey

I don't have a problem parting ways with Hansen and Higgins, the more I look at this I like these lines a lot, thx.

Why would we do that?

Consider that our prospects have to play a complete game before they will be given a slot. Jensen has been taken off the top lines and has to learn to play support role before he will be called up. We are not going to gift a spot to Cody just to satisfy fans who can't let go. Hodgson would not fit here. Years later so many still have to get over it!!!!!!

[RWMc1]

FYI, the whole "cody lover" thing is about as lame a deflection tactic as is the "cody hater" coming from the other direction. Just sayin'

But anyway, if one can accept that no situation is black and white, or otherwise void of context, then we could discuss the merits and weight of all contributing factors rather than cherry pick only those that fit a particular position.

For my part, and for an example only of course, I think my comments here again today ought to flag a few points -

I'm biased in favour of the kid.

I acknowledge his negatives while still valuing his positives.

I don't question the potential exists and fundamentally believe he's got upside.

I do question if he's got the mentality/psyche to develop or otherwise demonstrate his potential in any reliable/consistent fashion.

I think it's ludicrous to judge any player out of context with the whole of both his own background and the circumstances in which he's plugged presently.

I think it's equally ludicrous to judge any player that has multiple seasons producing at a the top 6 to be a total loss cause because of one dismal season under adverse and toxic conditions.

I believe it's fundamentally irrational to assert that player Y ought to be cut some slack because all players develop differently, and not give the same slack when discussing player X.

I subscribe to the notion that statistics (regardless of the topic) can be interpreted to fit any argument, all sides to the debate can offer up anecdotal evidence to support their position.

I question the motive (and opinions) of anyone who dismisses rational counter points to their staked position and/or who engages in lame name-calling as though being a "lover" or a "hater" somehow magically equates to not having a reasoned positioned.

Oh, and yeah, I am biased in favour of the kid. With caveats but without apology.

So where have you acknowledged his short-comings? Could you list them for me please? You have been denying his short-comings and making excuses for him. Do you deny that his decline has anything to do with Hodgson? Does he have any culpability for his situation at all in your eyes?

[mikeburn]

So where have you acknowledged his short-comings? Could you list them for me please? You have been denying his short-comings and making excuses for him. Do you deny that his decline has anything to do with Hodgson? Does he have any culpability for his situation at all in your eyes?

I think you need to read more than the one statement you flagged. The answers to your questions are right there. For one example only -

"I do question if he's got the mentality/psyche to develop or otherwise demonstrate his potential in any reliable/consistent fashion."

I'll provide you with a full list (much of which will be derived from copying 'n pasting from my posts of just today alone) when and if you elect to demonstrate your comparable capacity to consider the whole picture - by providing a list of the kid's positives

[RWMc1]

I think you need to read more than the one statement you flagged. The answers to your questions are right there. For one example only -

"I do question if he's got the mentality/psyche to develop or otherwise demonstrate his potential in any reliable/consistent fashion."

I'll provide you with a full list (much of which will be derived from copying 'n pasting from my posts of just today alone) when and if you elect to demonstrate your comparable capacity to consider the whole picture - by providing a list of the kid's positives

That's the only one. What about his d? What about his skating? What about his commitment to the team? What about his lack of effort after being demoted? What about his coaches and GMs comments. Do you know Hodgson better than they do?

He has puck-handling skill. He's fairly solid on his skates. I don't see much else that you can count as a positive.

[mikeburn]

Why would we do that?

Consider that our prospects have to play a complete game before they will be given a slot. Jensen has been taken off the top lines and has to learn to play support role before he will be called up. We are not going to gift a spot to Cody just to satisfy fans who can't let go. Hodgson would not fit here. Years later so many still have to get over it!!!!!!

Actually....

With the caveat (as inferred by the poster you responded to) that Hodgson does come back with an improved defensive game (I'd also throw in an improved physical game - for example, his play off Suban in the ozone followed by the slick hands to set up a goal, needs to be a regular rather than sporadic thing), there's definitely a spot for Hodgson in Vancouver-land....

The kid's strongest tools are his play making vision, soft hands and wicked shot. Wrap him in a stronger physical game (ozone particularly) and don't give him Patrice Bergeron's 43.6% d-zone starts as though he's a somehow gonna be a two-way star, then plug some quality on his wings to close deals, and you've got a great second line.

Still can't Hodgson as a 1C caliber for a contending team though, so you'd need to look elsewhere for a Henrik replacement when the time comes. But yeah, he'd fit right in at 2C.

Btw, notwithstanding that in theory every player at every stage of his career ought to earn his spot, there is in fact a big diff between the prospects you refer to being gifted a spot and a proven top 6 producer getting a shot to show if he's got what the job requires.

[ilduce39]

Barf. No thanks.

I remember when I thought that trade was going to be a turning point for the franchise. Now it's as anticlimactic it as a silent fart.

[mikeburn]

That's the only one. What about his d? What about his skating? What about his commitment to the team? What about his lack of effort after being demoted? What about his coaches and GMs comments. Do you know Hodgson better than they do?

He has puck-handling skill. He's fairly solid on his skates. I don't see much else that you can count as a positive.

Seriously? Let's clarify here - questioning the kid's mentality/psyche covers each one of your proposed negatives - and a great many more you haven't flagged.

But to be fair, I'll match your weak effort of listing his positives with a second example drawn from my posts of today alone - another negative on the kid is his demeanor. His lack of heart-on-sleeve style naturally infers that he doesn't have the means to inspire his linemates (or team) by sheer will alone.

Oh, and FYI, if you're gonna refer to comments made by his coaches and GMs, then you gotta also include all the favorable quotes attributed to the same. Again, like any player, nothing is black 'n white.

EDIT: Oh what the heck, just to out-match your listing effort, I'll point you to another negative drawn from my comments just today - Hodgson's d game obviously needs to improve. Obviously you missed my repeated commentary in this regard, perhaps in the quick leap to keep on an unwarranted attack.

[Drewismyname]

Cherry-picking and evasion. Great tactics.

You claimed one bad year. I showed that you were wrong. You then cherry-pick other players using a different criteria. Two consecutive bad years is a trend. That is why they are considering buying him out. Or do you think it's because the management for the Sabres love Kassian too much?

How did you show i was wrong? You posted three years of terrible plus minus and i showed you that all of the sabres had horrid plus minus.

I wasnt cherry picking i was answering false unaimed false target frustration venting on a stranger.