The Niklas Bäckström Conundrum for Minnesota

Source: Winona Daily News

While researching what options the Buffalo Sabres should pursue in goal for the 2015-16 season, I started to consider why Devan Dubnyk should be a serious option for the team next season. I am probably jumping the gun on this but, after reading Kevin Woodley's article on the new technique has Dubnyk added to his game, I would consider Dubnyk to be a low cost, high upside bet to maintain his success next season. But before writing that speculative post, the likeliness that the Wild will keep Dubnyk past this season deserved it's own story - which brings us to the situation they face with their longest tenured goaltender, Niklas Backstrom.

The Wild, for their part, won't worry about the possibility of resigning Dubnyk until after the season. Potentially complicating that decision is the fact the Wild already have a combined $5.3 million committed to Darcy Kuemper and Niklas Backstrom for next season. Should Minnesota resign Dubnyk, the easy call (in theory) is to move on from the Backstrom, who is 13 years older than Kuemper and is in the midst of his third straight season with a sub .920 5v5 save %. Given goalies have been found to rapidly regress in their mid 30s, the 37-year old Backstrom's $3.4M cap hit is one that Minnesota should want to move on from, independent of whether they intend to resign Dubnyk or not.

Complicating things for Minnesota is that Backstrom has almost definitely become what Down Goes Brown calls a "negative value guy" - a player that, if Minnesota were to place on waivers tomorrow, would go unclaimed due to his current contract. Part of that is cap uncertainty - many hockey fans are well aware that Canadian dollar fluctuations and the NHLPA's unwillingness to escalate next year's Salary Cap at the expense of increasing escrow creates uncertainty in how much (if any) the cap will rise for the 2015-16 season. But most of that is because Backstrom's deal is in February 2015 is just a poor contract, one that is paying more for past performance than the future.

Wild fans that would love to test whether Backstrom is actually a negative value guy and waive him will be disappointed, as Backstrom's No Movement Clause prevents him from getting sent to Minnesota's AHL affiliate in Iowa like Josh Harding was earlier this season (though even if he were able to be waived, only $925K of Backstrom's $3.4M AAV would saved against the cap).  Also complicating the situation is Backstrom's modified No Trade Clause; though it's uncertain how many teams he has the right to block a trade to, the player's happiness in Minnesota would likely make him unlikely to waive it for a team he really doesn't want to play for - with the odds being good that teams with the cap space and willingness to take on his full deal if Minnesota were to throw in a positive asset (e.g., Buffalo) are on Backstrom's NTC list.

Among the teams that Backstrom can be traded to, an opposing GM would demand Minnesota hold most, if not all, of the 50% cap hit ($1.7M) GMs are allowed to retain in trades under the current CBA. Veteran backup goalies with no trade protection generally don't fetch much of a return, such as Peter Budaj this past fall (for Eric Tangradi) and Ilya Bryzgalov last season (for a Minnesota 4th round pick). As Backstrom's Modified NTC gives him the some ability to control his own destiny if he's traded, the Budaj and Bryzgalov returns seem like a best case scenario for the Wild.

One last option the team could explore is buying out the remaining year of Backstrom's contract this summer. While CapGeek's closure in January keeps me from being able to link the buyout calculator math from that site, we can manually calculate the buyout as I did in a post a few weeks ago when talking about what Buffalo should do with Cody Hodgson. Those curious on the instructions for calculating a buyout should refer to this Blueshirt Banter post, but the penalty for buying out Backstrom can be calculated as such:

• Per Spotrac, Backstrom is due $4M in Year 3 (2015-16) of his 3-Year, $10.25M deal (AAV of $3.417M). The buyout amount is 2/3 of the remaining salary ($2.667M). That $2.667M buyout amount is spread evenly over the double the remaining length of the deal - i.e., the next two years, so $1.333M each for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.
• For 2015-16, the $1.333M buyout amount is subtracted from Backstrom's $4M salary to calculate a "cap savings" of $2.667M. The cap savings are then subtracted then out of the AAV that gives us a $750k cap penalty ($3.417M - $2.667M) for the 2015-16 season.
• For 2016-2017, the cap penalty is the $1.33M buyout amount.

Given the near zero value the Wild are likely to get back for Backstrom in a trade (even with holding salary), the cost of buying out Backstrom is potentially easier to stomach. Due to his contract being slightly backloaded, Backstrom's cap penalty is actually lower next season than the year that exceeds his original deal. But therein lies the issue with buying out Backstrom. Consider the players the Wild need to resign in the summer of 2015:

• UFAs: Kyle Brodziak, Keith Ballard, Nate Prosser, Ryan Carter, Stu Bickell
• RFAs: Mikael Granlund, Marco Scandella, Erik Haula

Though RFAs Granlund and Scandella are due for sizable raises from their sub respective $900K and $1.025M deals, both are in line for more modest raises than, say, Cody Hodgson in Buffalo. Additionally, all of Minnesota's UFAs should be affordable to resign and/or readily replaceable. As it is, Minnesota has just $56.6M tied up in 15 players for 2015-16 - including Backstrom. In fact, a Backstrom buyout saves Minnesota $2.667M in AAV for 2015-16, versus a trade saving Minnesota as little as $1.67M in addition to the asset the Wild likely have to give up to trade the salary. As a result, those extra buyout savings can be allocated to resign their upcoming FAs and/or another goaltender - say, Dubnyk - with higher upside than Backstrom. 

Where the real issue potentially comes is the the 2016-17 season, when the $1.333M buyout charge will have to be added to a Wild cap that is projected to consist of the elevated Granlund and Scandella salaries, Dubnyk's (or another goalie's) cap hit, any 2015/2016 UFA signings, and four more important RFAs Minnesota will be in line to resign that summer: Jared Spurgeon, Matthew Dumba, Jason Zucker and Darcy Kuemper. In translation - buying out Backstrom may hurt the 2016-17 cap more than keeping or trading Backstrom at a reduced rate hurts the 2015-16 cap.  

Source: USA Today

Alternatively, the Wild could decide to keep Backstrom for next season, perhaps due to a mix of loyalty to the nine year Wild veteran and wishful thinking that Backstrom can regain his form as part of a platoon. Minnesota could then borrow a page from the 2013 Canucks' playbook and trade away the goaltender in waiting (24-year old Kuemper) for a good asset as opposed to trading away the veteran goaltender with a toxic contract (Backstrom) in a salary dump. This option is fairly appealing for the Wild if they have internally given up on Kuemper. As to whether they should trade Kuemper: though his .905 5v5 save % through 29 GP this season is concerning given the success Dubnyk has had behind the same Minnesota defense, the Wild do not have much in the goaltending pipeline beyond Kuemper, who still has the athleticism and upside to be a full-time starter in Minnesota. The Wild only have to look to Dubnyk to see that, with some work on his technique this summer, Kuemper's development can be brought back on track.

Of course, another scenario is Dubnyk's 11-2-1 run in Minnesota this past month is not only unsustainable, but the inevitable drop off in his play is so severe that the Wild decide to walk away from him altogether come June. But even in that case, the decision for the Wild next year should be what other goalie they should acquire over the summer to compete with Backstrom and/or Kuemper for the starter's job next season. Because whether it's Dubnyk or someone else, Mike Yeo and the Wild deserve better than going into next season with the horrid Kuemper / Backstrom tandem that nearly sunk the Wild's 2014-15 season before a rejuvenated Devan Dubnyk brought the team back from the brink.

Rationalizing a Cody Hodgson Buyout

Source: The Vancouver Province

In this week's 30 Thoughts (Point 4), Elliott Friedman was the first I've seen raise possibility of a Cody Hodgson buyout this summer though the idea had previously been suggested on the SabresNoise blog. At first, the idea seemed a surprising given Hodgson being one of the few Sabres on long term deals with offensive upside (e.g., leading the Sabres in points for the 2013-14 season, albeit with just 20 goals and 24 assists in 72 GP). But given his abysmal stat line (2G and 6A in 51GP, tied with Torrey Mitchell for 13th on the team as of February 8th) and mediocre possession numbers (0% Corsi Rel on a league worse 37.1% 5v5 Corsi team, despite having a relatively higher number of offensive zone starts and weaker quality of competition) more than halfway into the 2014-15 season, it is an idea that has become fun to explore as evidenced by recent blogs in favor of and against jettisoning Hodgson. Being a healthy scratch against the Islanders tonight (his third time this season) should only fuel the talk of a Hodgson buyout between now and the start of free agency. 

Source: War-On-Ice; Minimum 200 Minutes Played as of February 8th

First off, with CapGeek & its handy buyout calculator out of business, we will have to do some manual math to calculate why a Hodgson buyout could be an enticing proposition for Buffalo this summer. A 2010 post from Blueshirt Banter has a straight forward bulleted list of how a buyout is calculated, and the first bullet point was the main reason Friedman had highlighted a Hodgson buyout as a real possibility: a player under 26 can be bought out for 1/3 of his remaining salary vs 2/3 of the remaining salary for a player over 26. With Hodgson turning 25 in February, the direct cost of buying out Hodgson significantly raises from this upcoming offseason to the next. 

Prior to the start of the 2013-14 season, Hodgson signed a 6 year, $25.5M extension, working out to a $4.25M AAV. Unlike the kind of front loaded deals that we are used to seeing older players sign, Hodgson's deal was back loaded such that his actual salary was $3M in Year 1 (2013-14), increasing $0.5M every season until he is scheduled to make $5.5M in Year 6 (2018-19). As a result, the Sabres would be on the hook for buying out 1/3 of the remaining $19M in salary he's owed ($6.3M total) as opposed to the remaining total AAV. Should the Sabres hypothetically wait until the summer of 2016, the Sabres would be on the hook for 2/3 of the remaining $15M ($10M total):

Source: CapGeek data via the Wayback Machine 

Sabres Owner Terry Pegula may very well not want GM Tim Murray to spend another $6M this summer for someone to not play in Buffalo following last summer's compliance buyouts of Ville Leino and Christian Ehrhoff, who are respectively being paid $7.33M and $12M over the next dozen or so years to not play professional hockey in Buffalo. However, let's assume that Mr. Pegula would indeed drill another oil well to buyout Hodgson's remaining albatross of a contract if that is what it takes to win a Cup in Buffalo. So how much would a buyout affect Buffalo's salary cap? As shown in the below table, the $6.3M Hodgson is owed will be spread over twice the remaining 4 years of the contract (working out to $0.79M per season through 2022-23). For the years within the contract, the cap hit is equal to the difference in the $4.25M AAV and the "cap savings", which is the annual difference in Hodgson's salary and the $0.79M owed to him (e.g., in 2015-16, the cap saving are $3.21M, which is $4M in salary minus the $0.79M cost). For a summer 2015 buyout, the years that extend beyond the contract are just equal to the $0.79M owed Hodgson:

Source: CapGeek data; black data represents cap penalties, red data represents cap credits

Now contrast the cap hits vs. 2016. From 2016-17 to 2021-22, the buyout would cost an additional $0.88M, a small but not insignificant salary cap penalty for the Sabres to incur. The team's current rebuild means it will be awhile before they would/should realistically want to spend to the cap ceiling; additionally, Buffalo's willingness to spend to cap ceiling since Mr. Pegula's purchase of the team versus the internal cap the team had set under Tom Golisano gives the Sabres more flexibility to incur a buyout cost if that's what the franchise sees fit. An escalating salary cap - which has been predicted by James Mirtle to hit $100 million by the time the current CBA expires in 2022 - would further decrease the relative cost of having Hodgson's bought out salary on the books. 

However, the Sabres almost certainly expect to be contenders by the time Hodgson is due a new contract, let alone any years the bought out contract would sit on the cap. How high the cap will rise over the time frame also remains more in flux now than at the end of 2013 due to a couple different reasons. First off, the NHLPA will remain hesitant to inflate the salary cap at the expense of increasing escrow, the amount of salary the NHL holds out of player paychecks, as explained in the same Friedman piece from this week. Secondly, a strong American dollar multiple years into the future directly affects the value of revenues collected in Canada and would place downward pressure on the salary cap rising in future years. To a lesser extent, a strong American dollar also weakens the profitability of future global events the NHL is pushing forward as revenue drivers in coming years, including the return of the World Cup of Hockey (to take place in Toronto and Montreal in 2016) and a proposed "Ryder Cup" in European markets. 

But back to the main issue at hand: what is Tim Murray to do with Cody Hodgson? The cap savings from moving from Hodgson this year vs. waiting are tempting. But should the Sabres jettison one of the few players with pure scoring talent on their roster, particularly one who under the right system could finally reach the potential to play the two-way game so desired in today's NHL? 

To Hodgson's credit, this season has been a confluence of bad factors that many players of his tier would also falter under. For starters, Hodgson's 2 goals can largely be explained by his 3.0% overall shooting percentage (3.6% 5v5) thus far in the 2014-15 season, significantly below his career average of 10.8%. Part of it is also Hodgson is shooting the puck at a lower clip this season. With just 67 shots through 51 GP, Hodgson's 1.3 shots per game would be the lowest of his career as a full time NHLer (he had 9 shots over 8 games as an AHL call-up for Vancouver during the 2010-11 regular season). Another issue has also been the subtraction of Thomas Vanek and Jason Pominville from the roster, who Hodgson played the majority of his relatively successful 15G 19A lockout-shortened 2013 season. Adjusting for zone starts during that 2013 season, Hodgson was better at driving possession when he was on the ice with Vanek and Pominville than without. Conversely, Vanek and Pominville also played with Hodgson than without, a credit to Hodgson's ability to be more than just a passenger with Top 6 talent. 

Replacing Vanek and Pominville on Hodgson's line has primarily been Chris Stewart (a soon to be ex-Sabre largely more renowned for his size than for his ability to score or drive possession) and a revolving door of wingers and centers, as Hodgson himself has spent time this season alternating between the wing and center. Following the expected exodus of forwards such as Stewart, Torrey Mitchell and Drew Stafford at the trade deadline, Hodgson could get a chance to close the season out on a higher note by getting more playing time back in the Top 6 of the lineup. As it is, Hodgson is one of the "unluckier" players on Buffalo, with a PDO of 97.6 due to the Sabres scoring just 5% with him on the ice at 5v5 (vs. 8.1% 5v5 overall).  

In my own opinion, there's enough evidence to believe that if Hodgson were to be placed with better line mates and was having better luck shooting the puck, we'd more so be talking about what Buffalo could possibly trade Hodgson for than whether he should be bought out or not, which I ultimately don't believe the Sabres should do. However, the question is whether Buffalo should keep him long-term, and I am inclined to lead towards no on this. Though Hodgson can again be a 20 goal scorer when playing with quality line mates, Coach Ted Nolan seems insistent on burying Hodgson on the bottom 6. Perhaps part of that is bad defense, but if the Sabres are to trade Hodgson they will need to showcase him with Top 6 forwards to convince teams with a need for scoring wingers that he is worth the majority of his $4.25M AAV in a trade with the Sabres.

Speaking of trading Hodgson, as it's inconceivable seeing a team taking on 100% of Hodgson's contract for a few reasons. First off, another team would almost certainly require sending back a similarly bad or even worse contract to Buffalo if they were to acquire Hodgson at full cost, making the proposition of buying out Hodgson more appealing. As they did with the Vanek and Pominville trade, the Sabres would almost certainly offer to hold salary to maximize the return they get for trading Hodgson. Secondly, Hodgson's back-loaded contract structure makes him slightly more desirable to big market teams than small market teams, who are more likely to prefer back loaded deals with lower AAVs than salary that help them cost effectively reach the cap floor. But since many big market teams are so close the cap ceiling as is, prospective Hodgson acquires will want to acquire him at the lowest AAV possible. 

At this moment in time, Hodgson is probably what you would consider to be a "negative value guy" as defined by Sean "Down Goes Brown" McIndoe - a guy who, if Buffalo were to place on waivers tomorrow would go unclaimed at a $4.25M AAV given this season's play. Yet part of that is due to teams' ability to acquire guys at lower AAVs than the deals they were originally signed to thanks to the new CBA. Trading Hodgson within the next year or two at a pro-rated salary after his luck will have taken a turn for the better provides Buffalo the best chance at turning him into another asset. Even if an eventual Hodgson trade turns out to be a salary dump, any salary Buffalo holds back in a trade would come off the books at the end of Hodgson's current contract in 2019 versus 2022 or 2023 - a significantly more advantageous year to be free of dead money given where Buffalo hopes to be in their current rebuild.

So in conclusion, Murray's decision on Hodgson's future should be when/if to trade Hodgson as opposed to when/if to buy him out, and part of that will involve getting Ted Nolan to bring Hodgson back into the Top 6 of the lineup where he will be most productive (and hence most valuable). Sure, Hodgson is most likely not the Top 6 center the Sabres hoped they acquired in exchange for Zack Kassian at the 2012 trade dealine. Yet despite his current scoring struggles, below average faceoff numbers and reputation as a soft, "injury prone" player, at a lower AAV there's definitely still a place for Hodgson in the NHL as a depth scoring forward, like he was his rookie season in Vancouver. That place is just not in the bottom 6 of a rebuilding Sabres team.