Waived: Goodrow waived (claimed by San Jose Sharks)

GoAwayPanarin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 27, 2008
43,685
55,882
In High Altitoad
Yes, so the Rangers giving something to San Jose now would be fishy, and people could connect the dots.

So nothing will happen.

Yeah sometimes teams work things out before the waiver claim and its just a straight trade (See: McDonagh to NSH)

This was a straight waiver claim and it ends there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband

majordomo

Registered User
Oct 29, 2023
1,569
1,332
NYC
Yes, so the Rangers giving something to San Jose now would be fishy, and people could connect the dots.

So nothing will happen.
I suppose some kind of "considerations" deal could occur where Rangers agree to send player or draft pick at a later date.
 

mike14

Rampage Sherpa
Jun 22, 2006
18,437
11,605
Melbourne
I could be wrong, but I would think the NTC is still in effect since the claiming team is picking up the contract intact.
Thanks.
Might then explain the waivers vs future considerations question. Goodrow keeps some protection against being moved again in this case
 

majordomo

Registered User
Oct 29, 2023
1,569
1,332
NYC
Thanks.
Might then explain the waivers vs future considerations question. Goodrow keeps some protection against being moved again in this case
That's correct. If he had waived, SJ would have had the option to honor the NTC after the trade or get rid of it.
 

bhamill

Registered User
Sponsor
Apr 16, 2012
4,163
5,009
why would they take him for nothing? I feel like they’d want a 2nd or something out of it.
They are far from the salary floor and they want a veteran influence for their young team. Why on earth would we ship out a 2nd when we could have bought him out? This isn’t dumpster fire Nemeth, Goodrow actually has worth and was an easy buy out. At worst prob a 5th or we take back some salary in another deal.
 

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
15,291
21,306
That's correct. If he had waived, SJ would have had the option to honor the NTC after the trade or get rid of it.
I don’t think that’s how it goes. They would just re-negotiate the list. Because If the list completely went away, teams would mislead players into waiving their list to a not an ideal but ok place, and then trade them to absolute no-no places for players.
 
Last edited:

Machinehead

GoAwayBrady
Jan 21, 2011
146,242
122,490
NYC
The Rangers can't give anything to San Jose. It would constitute a trade.

If there was a small "favor" it would be the next team the teams or GM's had a legitimate reason to interact.

Also, wouldn't it be going the other way? The Sharks got an asset and we didn't.

Like, ok, Goodrow is bad but SJ obviously wanted him. They claimed him. We're the team that literally didn't get anything.

They owe a favor to us if there is one.

Personally, I don't think there is. The Sharks got an asset and we got space. That's the deal.
 

CTTribe73

Registered User
Aug 17, 2023
449
483
They are far from the salary floor and they want a veteran influence for their young team. Why on earth would we ship out a 2nd when we could have bought him out? This isn’t dumpster fire Nemeth, Goodrow actually has worth and was an easy buy out. At worst prob a 5th or we take back some salary in another deal.
Can we interest them in a shiny, moderately used Zibs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhamill

mike14

Rampage Sherpa
Jun 22, 2006
18,437
11,605
Melbourne
Not 100% sure, but
If Goodrow is waived his NTC remains intact (obviously less the claiming team) so he's assured some protection against being moved again
If he was traded (for futures or whatever) by waiving his NTC then the new team can chose not to honor it, meaning he has less future trade protection.

In that case how he gets to SJS becomes important to him
 

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
15,291
21,306
Not 100% sure, but
If Goodrow is waived his NTC remains intact (obviously less the claiming team) so he's assured some protection against being moved again
If he was traded (for futures or whatever) by waiving his NTC then the new team can chose not to honor it, meaning he has less future trade protection.
I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers
 

mike14

Rampage Sherpa
Jun 22, 2006
18,437
11,605
Melbourne
I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers
Yeah that's why i asked the original question, I wasn't sure how the NTC was structured, if at all, after a trade vs being placed on waivers
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,309
12,875
Elmira NY
It's not clear to me why we should owe San Jose anything. I mean maybe but it might just be as simple as Mike Grier wanting a veteran with past history with the Sharks team and a winning pedigree and is not that concerned about the cap hit right now or even for the foreseeable future of Goodrow's term. Goodrow is a good team guy and it's not like there aren't any intangibles. He's a good guy to have on your bottom lines and a good character player. Also someone he could possibly flip later on for a draft pick. The Sharks I believe got a 1st rounder for him when they moved him to Tampa a few years back. They might be doing us a favor but you could also look at they're getting something out of it too. For instance I'd rather Goodrow in my bottom 6 than Ryan Carpenter.

As well Sharks picked up Emberson on waivers from us last year. It's not like we've been getting players from them.....it's the other way around.
 

majordomo

Registered User
Oct 29, 2023
1,569
1,332
NYC
I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers
From Puckpedia:

If a player waives a clause for a trade, they generally agree to waive it only for the purposes of that specific trade, so the acquiring team agrees to put it back in place.

 

CTTribe73

Registered User
Aug 17, 2023
449
483
It's not clear to me why we should owe San Jose anything. I mean maybe but it might just be as simple as Mike Grier wanting a veteran with past history with the Sharks team and a winning pedigree and is not that concerned about the cap hit right now or even for the foreseeable future of Goodrow's term. Goodrow is a good team guy and it's not like there aren't any intangibles. He's a good guy to have on your bottom lines and a good character player. Also someone he could possibly flip later on for a draft pick. The Sharks I believe got a 1st rounder for him when they moved him to Tampa a few years back.

As well Sharks picked up Emberson on waivers from us last year. It's not like we've been getting players from them.....it's the other way around.
I think it's the fact that this seems to good to be true.
 

majordomo

Registered User
Oct 29, 2023
1,569
1,332
NYC
I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers
The list is not part of the contract.....and doesn't exist until the player is asked for it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad