Should Preds fans be worried about Pekka Rinne?

Source: USA Today

It goes without saying that Pekka Rinne is central to the Nashville Predators' success in the upcoming playoffs, given his $7M cap hit on the Predators' $60M payroll and 93.66% 5v5 Save % this season. But something has been off with Rinne as of late, with Rinne posting a sub-.900 Save % in his last five consecutive starts. While Predators fans shouldn't point to momentum alone as a reason to be concerned with Rinne headed into the playoffs (e.g., Jonathan Quick's final two games last season were both sub-.900 Save % efforts), there has clearly been a drop-off in Rinne's play. In the below chart, I split Pekka Rinne's 2014-15 5v5 Save % (both regular and adjusted based on average shot distance) into two halves of the season - before and after his knee injury on January 15th. 

Data Source: War-on-Ice.com

Is fallout from Pekka Rinne's knee injury accounting for this recent falloff?  One could look to the unsustainable play of the Predators' skaters as a cause, but Rinne's Shots Against per 60 minutes (SA60) are nearly identical for both halves of the season (28.07 vs. 27.94). Something else is almost definitely explaining why Rinne's Save % has dropped nearly two full percentage points since returning from injury. 

Now, it should be noted that we are of course dealing with sample sizes here: 37 GP / 1,770 Min for the first half and 27 GP / 1,317 Min for the second half, respectively. It's probable that luck played some role in Rinne's early season success, and that Rinne has simply regressed back to the mean. Rinne is a career 92.87% 5v5 / 93.19% Adjusted Save % goalie dating back to 2008-09, his first full season in the league. If we boil that down to his relatively healthy 2008-09 through 2012-13 seasons, the numbers are a bit higher at 92.94% 5v5 / 93.36% Adj., as Rinne played just 24 games in his anomaly of a 2013-14 season. 

Source: War-on-Ice.com

So while Rinne's second half performance is much closer to his career average than his Vezina-worthy first half was, it's not crazy to infer that the knee injury is playing a part in Rinne's recent falloff. After all, Rinne is a butterfly style goaltender, a style that contributed to his needing hip surgery in the 2013 offseason and likely helped induce this year's knee injury given the connection between the hip and knee. Granted if you were to ask David Poile or Peter Laviolette about Rinne's health, they would tell you that the goaltender is just fine. In any case though, when trying to predict Nashville's ability to progress past the Blackhawks and beyond in this year's playoffs, we should expect Pekka Rinne's play to be closer to the second half version than the first partially due to both his career numbers and his recent injury history.

When digging deeper into Rinne's 2014-15 season, I was struck by how different one advanced metric was between the two halves. A trio of statistics recently introduced by War-on-Ice that I find intriguing is the separation of saves into high, medium and low percentage scoring areas as shown in the below graphic:

Source: War-On-Ice

When we compare the two halves of Rinne's in the below chart, it is glaringly obvious where Rinne's game has fallen off since returning from injury: Medium scoring areas. As mentioned previously, we are dealing with somewhat small sample sizes here. But when it comes to shots from the left, right and high slots and center point, Pekka Rinne is having a much harder time stopping these shots now than he was in the first half of the season:

Source: War-on-Ice.com

Now there is almost definitely some bad luck going on here when it comes to Rinne stopping Medium area shots; the question is how much? It is worth repeating that Rinne's workload has not changed too much from the first to second half of the season. The Preds continue to average around 28 SA60 and medium shot opportunities accounted for roughly one quarter of Rinne's workload in both halves of the season. As Rinne's a 93.58% Medium Save % goalie for his career, a little bit of regression was to be expected here; however, Rinne's second half is much further from his career average than the first with respect to Medium Save opportunities:

Source: War-on-Ice.com

While it's probable that Rinne's Medium Save % trends back upwards, it's worth noting that Rinne's only other season where he was this low in Medium Save % opportunities was last season's hip injury-riddled season. Furthermore, 2014-15 now ranks as Rinne's second worst season for Medium Save opportunities by a large margin after being on pace to be his best year in the statistic through 37 games. Compared to his peers, Rinne's overall Save % in the second half of the season still rates him along the lines of an average NHL goaltender such as Marc Andre Fleury or Jaroslav Halak. But among 33 goaltenders that played 1,300+ minutes this season, Ryan Miller was the only goaltender with a sub-.900% Medium Save %, placing the recent version of Rinne at the very low end of the playoff goaltending spectrum in that category.

So while we can't definitively link Rinne's drop in Medium Save % to his recent knee injury, it's worth exploring in future research whether a link can be established between lower body injuries and a drop-off in Medium Save % for goalies. In theory, medium opportunities could be where goaltender health and skill and most differentiable. After all, High Save % opportunities are largely based on goaltending fundamentals than differentiable goaltending skill and health, while Low Save % opportunities have a lot more luck involved due to the shot proximity. 

So how concerned should the Predators be? While there should be more room for optimism in Nashville than other markets due to the Laviolette-coached Predators' improved ability to drive possession through multi-shot shifts, the team should at best expect Rinne to play at his career averages. Perhaps that could be enough, as this year's Blackhawks only scored on 7.62% of shot attempts. However, Rinne's recent play (not to mention the probable return of Patrick Kane for Game 1) could very well help the Blackhawks regain their goal scoring clip of 9-10% from the previous five seasons. Whether it's a function of injury or not, Pekka Rinne's play will definitely be one of the top storylines to follow in the NHL's opening playoff rounds. 

Handicapping the 2016 NHL Entry Draft

Source: The Hockey News

From the first NHL Entry Draft Lottery in 1995 up until this summer's 2015 draft, the NHL's worst team in the league has been rewarded with the knowledge that they will either have the No. 1 or No. 2 pick in the upcoming NHL Entry Level Draft. Sure, the odds of winning No. 1 have gotten progressively worse in recent seasons. In 2013, the league removed the four spot maximum the lottery winner would jump up in the draft, nearly cutting Team 1's chances of winning the lottery in half. For 2015, the odds that the four worst teams in the NHL could win the draft lottery were reduced to further discourage tanking. However, there remains a 100% chance for 2015 that the worst team in the league will come away with a Top 2 pick, as the only chance that the 3rd through 14th worst teams in the league have to move into the Top 2 is by winning the lottery.

So despite the recent best efforts of the Arizona Coyotes and Edmonton Oilers to lose games, the Buffalo Sabres are potentially just 13 games away from securing the highest odds to select either Connor McDavid or Jack Eichel, two of the most celebrated prospects in recent NHL history. But the story of the Sabres' 2014-15 tank job in the pursuit of McDavid/Eichel has already been very well documented. This post looks at the Sabres of next year and beyond, and why the diminished returns of tanking starting in the 2015-16 season means the Sabres are geared to actively try winning games again next fall.

The new NHL draft lottery system

Buffalo is a city that is not used to catching many breaks in sports, as there is still plenty of time for the Sabres to overachieve and close the season in 29th place. But Sabres fans should nevertheless take comfort in the fact that the NHL delayed implementing its version of the NBA's draft lottery until 2016, when the top 3 spots in the draft are subject to a lottery as opposed to just the top pick. Take the draft classes of 2008 and 2009, for example. Though elite centers Steven Stamkos and John Tavares were drafted No. 1 overall in those respectable drafts, the No. 2 teams had the likes of Victor Hedman, Matt Duchene, Drew Doughty and Alex Pietrangelo to pick from in those drafts (not to mention recently acquired Sabres Evander Kane and Zach Bogosian).

Source: Lighthouse Hockey

The league made it well known last summer that, starting in the 2016, the worst team in the league is able to slide back as far as No. 4 in the draft as the NHL will hold three separate lotteries for the #1, #2 and #3 picks. The question is, how often should last place expect to win any of the three lotteries vs. sliding back to #4, and how much riskier does that uncertainty make it for teams to pursue a full scale, "tear it down" rebuild going forward? We can apply concepts from a probability mass function to calculate the odds the teams the NHL teams that miss the playoffs, ranked 1-14, have of winning a coveted 2016 draft position (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and contrast those odds with 2014 and 2015 - two years where the Sabres were constructed to pick at the top of the draft.

The #1 pick lottery

Source: NHL.com

As most fans are well aware of, the odds of winning first place were reduced from 2014 to 2015. The new first place odds will also apply to 2016, and presumably 2017 and beyond. However, it's conceivable that these odds end up being too low and tweaked again in the future if enough teams from the "field" end up winning the lotteries. The NBA set the precedent for this sort of chaos happening when the 1992 Orlando Magic won the rights to draft Shaquille O'Neal despite their 1.5% lottery odds, which would rank somewhere between a team like the Winnipeg Jets or San Jose Sharks winning the Connor McDavid sweepstakes this season.

But as far as Sabres fans are concerned, any team that finished last this season was going to have better odds of picking second than first. That scenario is now just more likely in 2015 than it was in 2013 draft, around the time when then-Sabres GM Darcy Regier made the decision to start "rebuilding". As far as Sabres fans should be concerned, winning the 2015 draft lottery would be gravy. What was most important about this draft was at least being able to draft second, where a prospect that would go #1 overall most other draft years would fall to #2.

The #2 pick lottery

To calculate the odds of winning the 2nd lottery draft for 2016, we have to consider that the abilities of each team winning the 2nd pick are affected on a "proportionate basis" by the team that won the 1st pick. For example, let's pretend that the 2012-14 Draft Lottery results reoccur in 2016 and the second worst team from the previous season wins the 1st lottery. As a result of Team 2's 13.5% odds being removed from the 2nd lottery, Team 1's chances of winning the #2 pick improve to 23.12% (i.e., 20% / (100% - 13.5%)). Alternatively, a "Shaq" scenario like Team 14 winning the lottery would only result in Team 1's 2nd lottery odds improving to 20.20%:

When we add up all scenarios for how often the worst team in the league wins the No. 2 pick and multiply them by the frequency that they are expected to occur, the odds of last place winning the No. 2 pick total up to 17.5%. Though it seems counter intuitive, this is largely due to the fact that the worst team in the league wins the #1 selection 20% of the time - meaning it only eligible to win the #2 selection 80% of the time. Teams 2 and 3 also have more scenarios where they draft first than second. Though team 4-13 have better odds of picking second than first, that is mostly because Teams 1 or 2 or 3 are expected to win the #1 lottery 45% of the time. Though Teams 1-3 have better odds of winning the lotteries than the "field" does, what makes the field potentially big winners of the new draft lottery system is that they now have three opportunities to move into the Top 3 of the draft versus just one.

The #3 pick lottery

The increased uncertainty of pursuing tanking as a team building strategy is reinforced in the above table, as the field continues to have a larger number of scenarios where they win a Top 3 pick at the expense of the dregs of the league. The new system is particularly bad for the worst two teams in the league, whose odds of securing a Top 3 are respectively reduced by 48.49% and 61.95% from this year to next - a scenario in 2015 that would remove the guarantee that 29th place, at worst, wins the rights to draft stud defenseman Noah Hanifin.

In total, the worst team in the league wins the #3 draft lottery in 15.02% of scenarios - a function of it winning the #1 or #2 pick 37.49% of the time as well as its low initial draft odds only slightly improving its win odds in the subsequent lotteries. Even when the 2nd and 3rd worst teams in the league win the Top 2 spots in the draft, the worst team can only expect to win 3rd place 26.67% of the time (i.e., 20% / (100% - 25%)):

Starting in 2016, last place can expect to fall back to #4 draft spot 47.49% of the time. If the 2016 system were in place for 2015, Sabres fans would be almost just as likely to agonize over which of Lawson Crouse or Dylan Strome they would rather see the Sabres draft as they would be to look forward to McDavid or Eichel (or Hanifin, for that matter) being at training camp in the fall.

Source: Buffalo Hockey Beat

Turning the page on the Sabres rebuild

The good news for Sabres fans tired of tanking is that the new draft odds should only further encourage Tim Murray to actively build a winning roster again. Two other main factors in the Sabres' favor against again tanking in 2015-16 include:

1) Competition for 30th place: Headed into tonight's St. Patrick's Day tilt vs. the Bruins, the 2014-15 Sabres are on pace to set new single season lows for puck possession (5v5 Corsi % of 37.1%) and goal differential (-101) in the NHL Salary Cap era. If the season were to end tonight, they would annihilate the 2013-14 Toronto Maple Leafs' 5v5 Corsi % of 42.8% and the 2013-14 Sabres' -91 goal differential marks. Despite these historically abysmal stats, the Sabres still only trail Edmonton and Arizona in the standings by 5 points - with a game in hand on both!

With the Arizona Coyotes and Toronto Maple Leafs potentially all in on rebuilds for next season, the Sabres could hypothetically try to tank again in 2015-16 and only come away with the third worst record. But as established in the above sections, the scenarios where 4th or 5th worst team end up picking in the Top 3 are only slightly worse than the 2nd and 3rd worst teams in the league, Tim Murray should turn his focus towards building a roster that can win hockey games. Perhaps the Sabres are a playoff team again in a few years, but they will be hard pressed as is to finish outside of the Top 5 next season.

2) They don't need to be last again. 2015 will mark the Sabres' third straight draft picking in the Top 10 of the 1st round, and 2016 will most likely make it four straight given the current state of the Sabres' defense. But because the key building blocks of the last few drafts - McDavid/Eichel, Reinhart, Ristolainen, Zadorov and Girgensons, just to name a few - will be locked into the organization, it is not imperative for Buffalo to get the best player possible as it is for the Sabres to properly develop the ones they already have. As it is, they are only slightly less likely to win a coveted draft position should they try to win games again next year than if they try to tank again.

Though GM quotes always need to be taken with a grain of salt, Tim Murray is on the record saying he doesn't plan to be bad again in 2016. Given the recent acquisition of Evander Kane and rumored interest the team has in a player of Ryan O'Reilly's caliber, Buffalo certainly appears to be serious trying to win again in 2015-16. In this own writer's opinion, the expected replacement of Andrej Meszaros and Andre Benoit on the blue line with two league average defensemen will alone be worth several points in the standings. Furthermore, this summer's goalie market is a buyers one, making the cost of upgrading the current goaltending tandem of Chad Johnson/Anders Lindback modest for a team with ample cap space like Buffalo should they choose to go that route.

For the foreseeable future, the NHL has allowed the Sabres to get away with the last "easy" rebuild in terms of accumulating top end talent. And whether it's McDavid or Eichel taking the ice at Sabres' training camp in September, fans can be confident that the team is actually trying to win again. The team will still be a couple season away from competing for a playoff spot - let alone a Stanley Cup - but the worst of the Sabres rebuild should be in the rear view mirror.

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.

Sloan Recap: Oh, Brian Burke

Source: National Post

Last week, I wrote at length about how hockey could learn a thing or two from basketball in using optic-tracking cameras and wearable devices to capture new data streams. At MIT's Sloan Sports Analytics Conference (SSAC) last weekend, MLB announced that Milwaukee, Minnesota and the New York Mets would be debuting field-tracking cameras to help quantify player positioning and movement from multiple directions, with all stadiums having the cameras installed by 2015.

Mark Newman's article on MLB.com does an excellent job of breaking down the implications for baseball, and many of these would be directly applicable to hockey. When it comes to quantifying general athletic attributes such as speed, positioning, and hand-eye, optic-tracking cameras are helpful towards more accurately quantifying all sports. The potential for optic-tracking video cameras was introduced at Sloan's hockey analytics panel by Eric Tulsky of SB Nation who, as always, fought the good fight for advancing the discussion and application of statistical analysis in hockey.

Alas, Brian Burke showed up and, well, this oral history from a few attending media members should tell you how it went (note: some strong language thanks to Brian Burke).

And we're off. Burke asked immediately if his view on analytics has changed. Says no immediately: "I think it's an eyeballs business."
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Burke: "Still an eyeballs sport. We see things that even video scouting doesn't show, like how a player responds after a coach yelling."
— Frank Seravalli (@DNFlyers) February 28, 2014

Burke: "If you're on a horseshit team, you're probably a minus player." #SSAC14
— Frank Seravalli (@DNFlyers) February 28, 2014

Jesus. The moderator just cites Bergeron as a guy who analytics don't value right. He leads the league in Corsi Rel. #ssac14
— Blake Murphy (@BlakeMurphyODC) February 28, 2014

Lots on intangibles and character talk on the hockey analytics panel at the biggest sports analytics conference in the country.
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

In defending Ovechkin, Don Fishman says AO's ability to score clutch goals isn't always appreciated: "That's the thing analytics misses."
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

"Cap not difficult to manage. Just simple math." - Brian Burke #SSAC14
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

Tulsky really has not had much of an opportunity to speak. The only guy with a true analytics back ground (as far as I know)
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

Burke: "If you ever want to see statistics misused, sit in on an salary arbitration in the NHL. The creativity is staggering." #SSAC14
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Burke: "I would never do Moneyball because it's boring... I have to entertain people." #SSAC14
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

I can't even keep up.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Asked what needs to change, @BSH_EricT basically BEGS for NHL SportVu. #ssac14
— Blake Murphy (@BlakeMurphyODC) February 28, 2014

Moderator lobs Burke a softball to counter Tulsky and say coaches could give you what Tulsky admits he couldnt (finer details). Burke agrees
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

Burke talks about learning character of a player, talks to his family, "his grade school teachers" before drafting a guy.
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

"Let's not confuse analytics for basic arithmatic" - Guy on hockey analytics panel at biggest sports analytics conference (Burke)
— Derek Jedamski (@D_Jedamski) February 28, 2014

This is endlessly entertaining for me. I just feel bad for anyone who travelled to Boston hoping to actually learn about hockey analytics.
— 67Sound (@67sound) February 28, 2014

Burke: "I don't like the shootout It's a circus stunt- like NFL games being decided by QB throwing balls through tires. It's horseshit."
— Frank Seravalli (@DNFlyers) February 28, 2014

Burke says there is a movement to change overtime but shootout is here to stay. Believes 3-4 playoff races will be determined by shootouts.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Burke thinks NHL rinks are too small. Wants to go to Boston University 91-foot rink.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Also, we might be getting off track here.
— Craig Custance (@CraigCustance) February 28, 2014

Unfortunately, there is actually very little analytics talk right now for hockey at #SSAC14. Convo has been steered away from analytics.
— Frank Seravalli (@DNFlyers) February 28, 2014

Quick Hit: The Economics of Trading Christian Ehrhoff

Source: Canucksarmy.com

Well, that escalated quickly. With Ryan Miller and Steve Ott shipped off to the Blues, the Tim Murray era is off with a bang with more moves expected ahead of the March 5th trade deadline. Forthcoming UFAs Matt Moulson and Henrik Tallinder are expected to follow Miller and Ott out of Buffalo, with virtually every player (save for Zemgus Girgensons) available for the right price. That would include the two newest Sabres - Jaroslav Halak and Chris Stewart - acquired from St. Louis, as well as Christian Ehrhoff, who submitted his list of eight teams he wouldn't accept a trade to earlier this week.

As with Pominville last year, Ehrhoff's no trade list does not necessitate that he will be traded before Wednesday, but gives Murray the ability to see what he can get in return from the 21 teams where Ehrhoff can be traded. Though the the salary cap will increase for the 2014-15 season (speculation says the 2012-13 level of $70 million is a fair estimate), just how much is still unknown. As a result, GMs enter Wednesday's trade deadline weary of taking on term - to which Ehrhoff's remaining 7 years will be an issue. However, the bigger issue will be Buffalo's willingness to lose certainty over Ehrhoff's cap recapture penalty in the expected event that he retires before the term of the contract is up.

From a hockey perspective, Ehrhoff has been one of the team's few bright spots during his tenure with the Sabres. Sabres blog The Hosers did a really nice job last year showing how much better Ehrhoff's 2013 Sabres teammates controlled the puck with Ehrhoff on the ice vs. without him:

 I'd imagine Sekera would look favorably on an Ehrhoff trade to Carolina.
Source: TheHosers.com

While Ehrhoff's possession stats are down this year, he has taken on greater responsibility in defensive zone starts and playing time on the PK due to hemorrhaging of the Sabres roster over the past calendar year. Should the Sabres try to push their luck and bottom out in 2015 to win the Connor McDavid sweepstakes, trading away Ehrhoff is arguably the second most effective way to do that after trading Ryan Miller. The reason for keeping Ehrhoff, however, may less so lie in staying competitive than the structure of his contract providing little incentive to move him: 

With regards to trading Ehrhoff, sure, what team wouldn't want to free themselves of seven years worth of salary? Well, as many hockey fans know, teams that benefited from the weighting / front-loading of contracts seven years or longer stand to be penalized the amount of cap savings upon the player's retirement thanks to the cap recapture rule under the new CBA. To date, the Sabres have benefited $10 million from the difference in Christian Ehrhoff's contract relative to his cap hit. The good news for trading away Ehrhoff is that the Sabres have already realized the whole benefit from front loading the deal. The bad news for Buffalo is that the cumulative cap benefit remains at $10 million until the 2017-18 season - at which point it only decreases to $9 million:

The 2018-19 season is when Ehrhoff will start making $1 million dollar in annual salary and likely mark his retirement from NHL if Miikka Kiprusoff's recent retirement is a cautionary example. Even if Ehrhoff plays past 2018, his retirement before 2021 would leave Buffalo with a per year cap penalty $3 million:

Under cap recapture, should the Sabres trade Ehrhoff, the cumulative cap benefit (i.e., $10 million) will be frozen and spread out following the player's retirement from the NHL. While this would have little effect on the Sabres cap situation should Ehrhoff retire ahead of the 2018-19 season like his contract incentives him to, his retirement following the 2018-19 or 2019-20 seasons could be considerably damaging to Buffalo's cap situation:

Contrast Ehrhoff's situation with Marian Hossa's for a minute. The Blackhawks, who have realized a cumulative cap benefit of $13 million to date, have incentive to "freeze" the benefit and trade Hossa this season, as opposed to incurring an additional $5 million cap benefit over the following two seasons:

While Chicago, like Buffalo, incurs the risk of Hossa retiring with 1-2 seasons remaining on the deal and hurting Chicago's cap situation the most in those seasons, the upshot of Hossa likely retiring with four year left on the deal (prior to 2017-18, when he is scheduled to start making $1 million in annual salary) would cost Chicago about $1 million less per season should they trade Hossa instead of holding on to Hossa until his retirement date. Given Hossa is one of the few players on Chicago without a no trade clause and the Blackhawks already used compliance buyouts on Steve Montador and Rostislav Olesz in the 2013 off-season, his contract could very well push him out the door this upcoming offseason.

Source: NHL.com

Circling back to the Sabres, there is an upshot to the dilemma of trading Christian Ehrhoff. If Tim Murray knows that Ehrhoff isn't in Sabres' plans past 2018, or if the player is likely to want a trade before that time, then the Sabres can confidently trade him when they can get the best value knowing that the future cap recapture penalty is a sunk cost. Given Ehrhoff is 31, that time is likely to be this trade deadline or off-season, where Ehrhoff has more useful seasons at a modest $4 million cap hit remaining in the NHL versus dead years.

As far as an acquiring team is concerned, there is no cap recapture or long-term salary left on the books from acquiring Ehrhoff - the biggest risk is that he outruns his usefulness before he decides to retire. For an acquiring team, there could even an out here: a hypothetical buyout of Ehrhoff for 2017-18 or a subsequent season, when his annual salary falls to $1 million a year, is very reasonable in terms of money coming out of the owner's pocket as the buyout cost teams roughly two-thirds in salary. Given the buyout additionally counts roughly two-thirds in cap hit, a buyout of Ehrhoff's contract could even be an attractive proposition for a small market team struggling to keep up with an escalating salary floor. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Given Ehrhoff's on ice play, affordable cap hit and and modest $3 million cap penalty in what could eventually be a $90 million salary cap world, I would personally lean towards not trading him. The potential for the $10 million cap recapture to be concentrated in just one year is extremely frightening. However, given the likeliness that Ehrhoff and the Sabres will wish to part ways with each other before Ehrhoff's cap penalty will start to reduce (2017), the best course of action is probably to accept the cap penalty as a sunk cost and shop Ehrhoff to the highest bidder. Whether Tim Murray can find a trade worth taking is another story.