The way these bold sections are worded leaves no room for other interpretations, but none of these are facts yet they are stated as facts or extremely obvious.
I don't think it's typical to see this sort of arrangement and I don't think we know the nature of the arrangement.
I don't think it is fact that this move makes the team worse (my opinion is it is slightly negative but other reasonable people disagree).
And I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Goodrow is mad at the Sharks for making a waiver claim which inadvertently protects him from a buyout which might have cost him millions. He might be mad at going to a non playoff team - that's a different and more reasonable assumption to make than assuming it is obvious he's mad at the Sharks Organization.
You shouldn't just bold them and cut them out then because that's going to take it out of context then. Literally, the first line of the post you're quoting is leaving open the possibility of it just being a stupid waiver claim by Grier.
Waivers has been a fairly routine threat for players that teams want to get rid of for the sake of flexibility. One recent example of this was Ryan McDonagh. For our team, it was Dan Boyle when he was in Tampa. It shouldn't just be ignored that this handshake agreement was reported on before the claim even transpired.
I don't think it's fact that it makes the team worse either. I think it's a pretty obvious subjective opinion based on reasoning. Better is subjective. The only thing objective about it is that Goodrow has a high cap hit, low production rate for his role, and tends to be on the losing end of play at evens...where most of a player's impact is going to be. It's still hockey and anything can happen but the odds don't exactly look great for someone who looks to be in decline as a bottom six forward that was getting cut.
I'm not assuming that Goodrow is mad at the Sharks. The bolded is exactly what I meant to say. It's silly to pretend like he can't be mad at the team for helping the Rangers get around it. He can if he wants and would likely have reason. He doesn't have to be and he might not be but why are we continuing to pretend like a guy who had us on his no-trade list couldn't be upset at the team for acquiring him when they knew he didn't want to be there because of his no-trade list. Like, even if the Sharks were completely innocent in all of this, he can still be mad at us for claiming him. Now, he may not have any real recourse to that and we can think he's still worth having in the short term (even though he probably isn't), but he can still be mad at us for making him play where he didn't want to play and potentially not giving him any options elsewhere.
There's still more to this for us to unpack and none of what's been talked about is some hard and fast steadfast belief. They are scenario-based beliefs and opinions based off incomplete information with the intent of refining such beliefs and opinions when new information pops up.
But if all there is to this transaction is claiming a waived Goodrow, I have no beef with the Sharks' part in that whether Goodrow is mad or not. I would only be upset with Grier for thinking Goodrow is worth his contract to our team.
