Star Platinum
Registered User
- May 11, 2024
- 819
- 1,175
That said, I also reserve the right to be angry about all changes to my occupational roles that aren't my choice, especially when I don't get $3M a year to assuage my butthurtedness.
Confirmed with Link: Sharks claim Goodrow from NYR
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,402
- 5,466
Feel like he's Utah bound even though I agree he's a guy that would help a lot (assuming he'd be engaged). Goodrow, Kunin, etc. that are the big physical guys won't be on the ice with Macklin/Smith so their presence to protect isn't likely to be there. Trouba would be right there a lot of the time on our top pairing and make people uncomfortable if they took shots at our young pups.
Utah would be like a Vegas lite for some guys in that it will be juiced up with fans and excitement even though the team has been awful for a decade. Easier to get a guy to waive to go to a new market like that than to come here as it will resemble something competitive/exciting as opposed to sort of bland (like SJ will be the next year or two still).
TheBigDrunkPanda
Registered User
- Oct 19, 2021
- 1,279
- 1,263
That’s one if the rumors floating right now doesn’t make sense for the sharks unless a first rounder comes over with or a highly touted D or goalie prospect
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,402
- 5,466
He's still a top 4 defenseman. Might be more like a $6.5M player than $8M player, but he's still good (especially when he's not playing with a broken ankle like he did for the final month of the RS and all of the playoffs). That injury is probably more of the reasoning behind him being bumped down in the lineup than he just isn't good anymore. If you took Trouba and Goodrow and got either a 1st or Kakko out of it, that would be good use of cap space.
weastern bias
worst team in the league
Trouba would be by far our best defenseman and honestly I'd welcome him just because of how dirty he is
The Sharks have never had a dirtbag team and I think it's probably the biggest thing they were missing at their peak
You wanna teach the kids what wins? Well. . .
The Sharks have never had a dirtbag team and I think it's probably the biggest thing they were missing at their peak
You wanna teach the kids what wins? Well. . .
TealManV
A man has said
I also felt the right deal between the Rags & Sharks would’ve been built around:
Kakko & Trouba & Goodrow & ++
Kakko & Trouba & Goodrow & ++
Proving it is irrelevant to the point. If Goodrow is upset because the Sharks were on his no-trade list and they worked with the Sharks to get around it, he has plenty of standing to be upset over it and upset at the Sharks over it. Getting bogged down in the technical details of him having to go through the waivers process isn't going to change whether or not he's going to be mad at the Rangers and us for doing that. Pretty much any trade that happens between the two of us will only solidify that. Goodrow will still have to suck it up since he's under contract but he has every right to be upset about it and as it relates to Grier, is something he ought to have and maybe did take into account before going through with it.
The only reason they'd have a handshake agreement to claim him prior to the process playing out is if both teams knew and worked together on it. Goodrow would have every right to be upset at the Sharks for their part in it regardless of whether it can be proven through some sort of arbitration or grievance process. Both teams knew Goodrow had the Sharks on the list and went around it. Yes, through legal means but that technicality isn't going to assuage a player's anger over it and isn't going to change how he'll decide to be on a team that pulled this over on him.
- Oct 12, 2020
- 1,778
- 3,084
It would fit the timeline for the Rangers, since Schneider should push for that 2RD spot with Fox having that 1RD locked for a long time. Also Trouba could enjoy having PP time again since he hasn't had that in a while because the Rangers defensive depth. Would love it, but definitely a long shot for now, let's see what Grier has planned.
Honestly from the Sharks perspective I would not need any asset to take Trouba, Goodrow, Lee, JGP, or Laine. Yes all these players are cap dumps by their current teams but all of them would provide value in their role with contracts that do not negatively impact the Sharks.
Even though it wouldn’t maximize the value the Sharks could get from a team dumping those players if I had the choice of getting those players for free or not having them on the roster and having to pay a UFA I would choose the option to take all those “cap dumps” for free. Filling those roster spots with UFA’s will be almost as expensive and likely for more than 3 years.
Even though it wouldn’t maximize the value the Sharks could get from a team dumping those players if I had the choice of getting those players for free or not having them on the roster and having to pay a UFA I would choose the option to take all those “cap dumps” for free. Filling those roster spots with UFA’s will be almost as expensive and likely for more than 3 years.
The ideal solution to this is that the compensation for the Sharks is Trouba but they have to wait until July 1 when his NMC expires and the Rangers can waive him and we can claim him. The old double whammo waiver claim. lol
For me, it depends on who it is. Goodrow isn't one I'd do that for. Trouba only would be if we're getting rid of Rutta, Burroughs, or Benning. I don't see what value Trouba brings to a losing Sharks team making 8 mil. Considering how he got to be a Ranger, I wouldn't expect a player like Trouba to not do everything he could to go where he wants to and make a stink if he doesn't.
TheBigDrunkPanda
Registered User
- Oct 19, 2021
- 1,279
- 1,263
Yeah that’s my point, Grier needs to get something of value for his cap space like Arizona did, they stacked 1st rounders and prospects for it. I think if he were to target a prospect it’s should be a D man or Goalie the sharks have no clear cut #1’s in either of those areas and Kakkos trade value is pretty low.
It would be nice if he went after Carolina and Kasperi off their hands along with Pesce or Drury
When the Sharks are not going to spend to the cap for at minimum the next 2 seasons then it is irrelevant how much Trouba makes unless you are Hasso.
- Jun 23, 2020
- 5,938
- 8,579
I don-t particularly want Trouba, because he's the kind of dirty that I think should be banned, and he's also stupid at being dirty.
He's also a low-quality, overpaid malcontent, but at least he only has two years and were he to prove unworkable, we could always just buy his last year out ($4 million in 25-26, $2 million in 26-27).
He's also a low-quality, overpaid malcontent, but at least he only has two years and were he to prove unworkable, we could always just buy his last year out ($4 million in 25-26, $2 million in 26-27).
Why does Grier “need” to get value for the cap space.
Everyone needs to wake up.
THE FLAT CAP ERA IS DONE!
Getting first or second round picks to take on cap is just not an option anymore. PLD got moved with no retention and without the Kings having to pay to move him.
Alaskanice
Registered User
All jokes aside, it really is. They lost the series against the Blues in 2019 purely because they couldn't even attempt to play dirty.
Trouba/Zadorov would be awesome adds this offseason. If things go really off the rails in Washington, the best move is to add Wilson by Celebrini's side regardless of his contract.
Getting value for your cap space is a fundamental building block for being competitive. A trade where two teams got something they wanted isn't a waivers claim. You're wanting that contract as is. Even if getting draft picks for bad contracts isn't an option anymore, it doesn't mean you have to accept overpaying ineffective players. They didn't need this kind of help to reach the floor.
Teams still trade assets to get rid of bad contracts in the NBA with no hard cap and contracts being a lot shorter.
Bailing out the Rangers for nothing is a head scratching move. You don't think the Rangers are going to run into cap issues with the extensions they need to give out even if "THE FLAT CAP ERA IS DONE"?
No they won’t because they can waive Trouba so the Sharks pick him up.
It is a no brainer for Grier to claim Trouba’s contract. He makes the team better and harder to play against without handing out term to a UFA.
Why should the Sharks care if they do the Rangers a favor? If claiming Goodrow or Trouba make the Sharks better without effecting their long term cap then it doesn’t matter how it effects the Rangers who won’t be competing during the same timeline as the Sharks.
spintops
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2013
- 1,767
- 1,170
I see you are sliding back to the way you used to post. Respect for faking the nice guy act this long lol.
The fact that Goodrow would probably have preferred passing through waivers instead of just coming to SJ for 10 million bucks says all you need to know about just how desirable SJ is gonna be when free agency opens. Barclay Goodrow doesn't even wanna be here!
Sharks should just skip free agency and work out deals with every team looking to "trade" a cap dump. Probably get better pieces this way.
Jargon
Registered User
Players talk to each other, especially before making decisions, and while the allure of playing with 18 year old prospects is appealing, they're still just 18 (or 19), and I'm sure even the most professional sharks would readily admit how difficult and demoralizing it was to play out the season. Why would anyone with options choose San Jose?
