Toggle sidebar

Waived: Goodrow waived (claimed by San Jose Sharks)

Hire Sather said:
Well he's going to try to sour the organization and persuade other players to not sign with us.

I feel like we'll pay for this. Just because that's how it goes
Click to expand...
Damn, the McDavid dream ended when we were mean to Goodrow and put him on waivers.
 
rangers1314 said:
It sounds like NYR didn’t tell Goodrow until right before he was put on waivers, which is what annoyed him the most
Click to expand...
Last I checked, he wasn’t an AGM.

Although Drury probably could have handled it better.

Hire Sather said:
Well he's going to try to sour the organization and persuade other players to not sign with us.

I feel like we'll pay for this. Just because that's how it goes
Click to expand...
We’re not going to pay anything for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LGR92, deathb4disco and nsvoyageurs
bhamill said:
Yes. It takes away accountability, whether by being claimed off of waivers or passing through, showing just how not worth your contract you are, and being assigned to the minors.
I’ll repeat: NMC’s are nothing but a safety net for poor performance. The player still gets paid, whether he’s claimed or passes. But the NMC allows you to just torpedo a team with your bad play. Shouldn’t exist. A player shouldn’t expect a team to keep them on the roster when underperforming so badly. Or force a team to keep them on the NHL roster. The player is protected financially without it. It’s just a shit clause in a hard cap league.
Click to expand...

Here's a scenario: You sign a player at age 30 to a great cap hit, but it's an 8 year contract. The team profits because it gets a player for less than market value and the player profits, because he has long term security. Now obviously said player's ability will drop towards the end of the contract, which is not at all unexpected. But now suddenly the team wants to get rid of him and waives him. So now the player, who signed a team friendly deal, has to ride busses in the AHL to get his money. I can understand players wanting insurance against that.

And again, I find it very strange to blame the players for stupid owners giving out NMCs like candy. They are not forced to do it and if it is a winning strategy to give our fewer NMCs, then maybe some teams should start trying it.
 
will1066 said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...


Why the long face?
 
Goodrow has the right to be unhappy.

The Rangers also had the right to waive him and give him away for free. The guy had a brief impressive playoff spurt and a really, really terrible season for a guy making 3.6M. That money can certainly lead to better results with a different player.

The Rangers also had a right to be "unhappy" with what they got from this player this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopShelfSnipes, nsvoyageurs and TheWrongWay
IDvsEGO said:
I think Goodrow mostly earned his contract with us. He performed in the playoffs. He legitimately was shown to be a big locker room guy which was really important with the amount of guys who had never made playoff runs before.
We got out before it got worse.
Click to expand...
Being able to offload him at this point, the contract doesn’t look nearly as bad as a 3 year deal at 3.6m per as it did originally as a 6 year deal. Still overpaid but the term is reasonable and near peak age. Guys like Goodrow on expiring deals get second or third rounders at the deadline and we got 3 playoff runs out of him.
 
bobbop said:
They can give Lindgren any length contract they want as long as it’s doesn’t have a NTC.
Click to expand...
Not sure what’s the exact question but they can’t give Lindgren NTC in the first year of a multi-year deal. Once contract goes into UFA years NTC or NMC can be a part of the contract from that point on.
 
Neither side won or lost this one IMO. Goodrow got a very nice contract that still has 3 years remaining on it and the Rangers got 2 decent years from him and a good playoff run this year. Was he overpaid a little? Yes he was. This regular season was not a good one for him but we need to remember he lost half his jaw and was drinking from a straw for a month. I think a young SJ team will benefit from what he brings and the Rangers save a much needed 3.6 mil a year.
 
jniklast said:
Here's a scenario: You sign a player at age 30 to a great cap hit, but it's an 8 year contract. The team profits because it gets a player for less than market value and the player profits, because he has long term security. Now obviously said player's ability will drop towards the end of the contract, which is not at all unexpected. But now suddenly the team wants to get rid of him and waives him. So now the player, who signed a team friendly deal, has to ride busses in the AHL to get his money. I can understand players wanting insurance against that.

And again, I find it very strange to blame the players for stupid owners giving out NMCs like candy. They are not forced to do it and if it is a winning strategy to give our fewer NMCs, then maybe some teams should start trying it.
Click to expand...
That's a valid concern, but really a little far fetched, unless you are the Devils and Kovalchuck trying to circumvent the cap. I mean if it is structured like that it will be hard for a player to underperform a low cap hit, no?
The solution there is for the player to heavily front load the contract (ala the Devs and Kovalchuck). They get all their money up front and if they are waived and NO team thinks they are worth the low cap hit they engineered, with practically NO salary due, they just retire. Or the team will buy them out to lower the cap damage. Since a lot of your AAV stays on the cap even when you are in the minors unless you are close to league min. Or even better: Don't play games to try to circumvent the cap hit... that goes for the team AND player.

I'm not sure where I blamed ANYONE for NMC's though. If I HAD to blame someone it would be the owners, they always have more leverage than the NHLPA. Who knows? It may have even been their stupid idea. It definitely benefits players who ridiculously underperform their contracts though. I don't think any player should be ENTITLED to an NHL roster spot if they are that bad. That's my take on it. Don't know if it can be fixed or not, I just know NMC's suck and take away accountability. And it's bad for the fans.
 
Jeff Skinner's contract might be bought out so why not trade Trouba for him? 1 million difference... hell maybe we can get futures or more back as well.
 
Mac n Gs said:
Because you'd be taking on an additional year of Skinner at $9M in that scenario. He has 3 years left on his deal, while Trouba has 2. That's terrible for the Rangers.
Click to expand...
That's why i said with more coming back
 
bobbop said:
Pretty soon, Goodrow will talk to someone in the media and we will all know his side of the story. As for Drury, you ‘ll have to wait for the movie.
Click to expand...
He probably would’ve liked time to try and arrange a trade to a team of his choosing. That wasn’t likely to happen without giving away assets. Most contenders don’t have 3.6 sitting around for Goodrow. On the flip side, Grier changes his mind for whatever reason and the chance to move him could be gone. Drury did the right thing - acted quickly and quietly, and got it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom