[POLL] Should We Sign Goodrow if He Costs 4M?

[NYRangers16]

Nope. I don't want to pay 3 for him.

Ideally 2.5-2.75? With term.

 

[ETTER DE]

Tampa was willing to pay a lot for him because he had a low caphit. With the cap staying flat I think this is the way for Rangers as well. Use picks and prospects to trade for players on good contracts. Usually there are several teams who wants picks and prospects because half the league seems to be in some sort of rebuild all the time.

 

[ETTER DE]

I think it is at least a good sign that that Drury traded the 7th for him. Most likely means that Rangers dont want to be in a bidding war. They will most likely try to sign him to a better deal or walk away. I think I would have been more worried if they had traded a 5th. Then it would have signaled that they wanted him at almost any cost.

 

[LOFIN]

Absolutely not. You don't spend big money AT ALL at these complementary pieces, until you know what our core pieces are going to make for at least some medium-long term. We have big contracts to sign in the next 3 years, and some of those will be bridge contracts and not long term...

 

[egelband]

8/9? Who says no. We get AAV. He gets term. Beauuuutiful.

 

[alkurtz]

He is worth what the market says he is worth.

That may be an overpayment, but if we want to compete, address our needs, then we need to pay market price.

Not to do so is to condemn us to using marginal NHL players (in baseball parlance, AAAA players) on our third and fourth lines. Sometimes, we hit it right, as with Blackwell, more often we miss.

Is he worth 4 million? Not judged by his accomplishments. Is he worth 4 million, perhaps a bit more, by his market worth and our perceived needs? The answer has to be yes.

I'm more concerned with term than yearly salary.

Nobody said it is easy being a GM. This is not an easy call, especially in a cap world. But, if we cant to compete and be a better team, these are the gambles you take. Could he be a major disappointment and a product of the unique situation he has been in the last few years? Certainly, and we have seen that before: players who do well in a particular environment but flop elsewhere.

But as long as there is a market and a player is in demand, you either pay the piper or walk away. If you walk away, you do not take the chance of improving your team.

Not an easy call for Drury.

 

[Yuck]

I can stomach 4M up to 2 or 3 years but more term than that it has to come down. I think hes going to come in a about 3.5 though with some extra years.

 

[NYSPORTS]

This was the concern. Lose Fast and potentially pay much more for his replacement.

Cap wise, if the Rangers can front load it, that could be ok. This is a flat so imo, his value shouldn’t have appreciated well beyond Fast’s contract.

 

[bleedblue94]

For reference, Brandon Tanev signed a 6 year / $21,000,000 contract

 

[Fansince1992]

I can deal with 4 mil as long as its not more than 3 years.

 

[Calad]

For reference, Brandon Tanev signed a 6 year / $21,000,000 contract

This will be the barometer for Goodrow's deal.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

absolutely not. We cannot get bogged down in contracts like that. If he gets that offer from someone else and signs that sucks because we can use a player like this but we'd only be out a 7th round pick which is practically nothing.

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

If he’s putting his foot down at $4m, flip him down the line to the next team that wants a crack at negotiating for a 7th and call it a day. He’s a nice player but we have too many important players we need to sign in the near future.

 

[TominNC]

I see suggestions to front load, but how does that help if the cap hit is the average over the contract?

 

[EdJovanovski]

This was the concern. Lose Fast and potentially pay much more for his replacement.

Cap wise, if the Rangers can front load it, that could be ok. This is a flat so imo, his value shouldn’t have appreciated well beyond Fast’s contract.

This is the second time I’ve seen someone say this but doesn’t frontloading a contract only affect how much the player is getting paid in that respective year? I think the cap hit is the same each year, whatever the AAV is is what the cap hit is. @Amazing Kreiderman would know better than me but I think that’s how it works

 

[NYSPORTS]

This is the second time I’ve seen someone say this but doesn’t frontloading a contract only affect how much the player is getting paid in that respective year? I think the cap hit is the same each year, whatever the AAV is is what the cap hit is. @Amazing Kreiderman would know better than me but I think that’s how it works

idk if the NHL is as flexible as the NFL in yearly cap dollar allocation. Imo, it really should be.

 

[LOFIN]

I see suggestions to front load, but how does that help if the cap hit is the average over the contract?

There are always teams who are willing to take on cap if they don't have pay actually real money that much and they can get some picks or something else for it.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

This is the second time I’ve seen someone say this but doesn’t frontloading a contract only affect how much the player is getting paid in that respective year? I think the cap hit is the same each year, whatever the AAV is is what the cap hit is. @Amazing Kreiderman would know better than me but I think that’s how it works

Cap-hit is the anual average based on base salary + signing bonus

AAV is cap-hit + potential performance bonuses

Example: Lafrenière

 

[LOFIN]

This is the second time I’ve seen someone say this but doesn’t frontloading a contract only affect how much the player is getting paid in that respective year? I think the cap hit is the same each year, whatever the AAV is is what the cap hit is. @Amazing Kreiderman would know better than me but I think that’s how it works

Yes, the cap hit doesn't change. However, if the contract is really frontloaded it makes moving it much easier. There are always teams in rebuild, who have plenty of cap space and are willing to take bad contracts if they don't actually have to pay that much real money for them, and they can maybe get assets for it.

So let's say we sign Goodrow to a 5 year 4 million dollar deal = 20 million (I hope not), and we frontload the f*** out of it. Say we pay him 18 million in the first three years, and then 1 million each on years 4 and 5. Then if we trade that contract in year 4 we can say to some team hey, here's Goodrow for a caphit of 4 million, but you only have to pay him 2 million (or less, if it's signing bonuses and we have payed some of them), how about it? You get a 4th round pick as well. Some team would absolutely take it. Stuff like this happens quite often actually. Andrew Ladd to some extent is an example of this.

 

[Fansince1992]

Is Goodrow playing Center or Right wing? This makes a difference in negotiating his contract and terms.

 

[Off Sides]

Yes, the cap hit doesn't change. However, if the contract is really frontloaded it makes moving it much easier. There are always teams in rebuild, who have plenty of cap space and are willing to take bad contracts if they don't actually have to pay that much real money for them, and they can maybe get assets for it.

So let's say we sign Goodrow to a 5 year 4 million dollar deal = 20 million (I hope not), and we frontload the f*** out of it. Say we pay him 18 million in the first three years, and then 1 million each on years 4 and 5. Then if we trade that contract in year 4 we can say to some team hey, here's Goodrow for a caphit of 4 million, but you only have to pay him 2 million (or less, if it's signing bonuses and we have payed some of them), how about it? You get a 4th round pick as well. Some team would absolutely take it. Stuff like this happens quite often actually. Andrew Ladd to some extent is an example of this.

There is a variance limit between contract years.

"The contract also limits salary variance on contracts from year to year to no more than 35% and no year can be less than 50% of the highest year."

 

[LOFIN]

There is a variance limit between contract years.

"The contract also limits salary variance on contracts from year to year to no more than 35% and no year can be less than 50% of the highest year."

Yeah true, maybe I exaggerated a bit with the numbers. But the point still stands with front loading.

 

[Off Sides]

Yeah true, maybe I exaggerated a bit with the numbers. But the point still stands with front loading.

Front loading can at times help, yet most of the time the player will have a clause preventing movement to at least some amount of teams. Teams who are rebuilding are not often desired destinations for older player.

 

[n8]

yeah, for a 3 year deal because we can still get good value for him at a TDL.

 

[LOFIN]

Front loading can at times help, yet most of the time the player will have a clause preventing movement to at least some amount of teams. Teams who are rebuilding are not often desired destinations for older player.

Which is another problem unfortunately. Too many GMs give out NMCs or NTCs to players, probably in order to cut away a million or something from the AAV. I welcome the day when we have a GM in the league who goes against the tide and doesn't give out these clauses to players, even star players.