Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
People have complained about things since the beginning of time, this is nothing new
Confirmed with Link: Sharks claim Goodrow from NYR
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Then he could get the regular salary for his new contract while getting the smaller payments over a longer period for the bought out one. There's no offset situation where the buy out bucks are reduced by the salary on his new contract. Him getting bought out would potentially be more lucrative over the long haul, assuming he could get another NHL team to sign him after being bought out. Get ~10 mil that's left spread out over time while he gets paid by the new team as well.
Yah, but the whole "would have been a trade, but NTC list" thing sits kinda wrong with me. I've been trying to follow along but like the articles seem to just elude to things. I think the one fact is Sharks were on his no trade list from all the hubbub so far. I get that he's mad at the Rags for waiving him without giving him a say in things, but not even sure that's from his mouth.
I'm just saying that if there's a grain of truth to him not wanting to be a Shark, then it's weird. I don't want the Sharks to take him hostage. If it's weird for me imagine what it'd be like in the room. At least free agents get to feel like they agreed to it.
TheBigDrunkPanda
Registered User
- Oct 19, 2021
- 1,279
- 1,263
You generally have a sensible approach or at the very least to a conversation about the topic, I don’t I’ve ever seen you respond with just a “because Grier”
Alaskanice
Registered User
We should take into account that all these high draft picks are going to be paid in a few years. We then turn into Toronto.
TheBigDrunkPanda
Registered User
- Oct 19, 2021
- 1,279
- 1,263
I mean it supposed be In the upper 80’s with a slight breeze this weekend in Waikiki I’ll do my best
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
Only if you don't know how to put together a competent defense, scout for goaltending, or hire good coaches
The kids can learn something from vets. My problem is that Goodrow is a bad player. We should be capable of getting veterans that can still put out on the ice.
TheBigDrunkPanda
Registered User
- Oct 19, 2021
- 1,279
- 1,263
I haven’t seen him with the Rags other then then playoffs so I have recency bias on his play, just seemed like a solid 3/4 line player. I’m guessing you consider him worse then Giovanni Smith?
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 2,318
- 3,873
I've had a fun time reading this thread over the past few days while waiting...and waiting (through two straight days of flight cancellations) to return to New York from Ireland. So much to unpack!
I shared some doubts at first, like many others, but I do see the logic behind the move better now no matter if there's some handshakey payback coming from the Rangers. Three more years at $3.6 does feel a little crazy for a player who had the kind of year Goodrow did, but...
1) The Sharks need to get to the cap floor this year (and I doubt they'll be anywhere near the ceiling during these next three years,
2) Goodrow is only 31 and his two years before this one featured 11/13 goals and 20 assists in each, so it's no guarantee that he actually is cooked,
3) The leadership qualities are for real, I'd say, as someone who watches most Rangers games and gets the insight into how Goody plays and how he's respected by everyone around the team.
I saw a comment that this could be seen as similar to Chicago bringing in Nick Foligno prior to last season, and I agree. Foligno's more of a scorer, but also was 35 when he signed his deal--two years, $9 million. Obviously an overpay, but that was the situation Chicago was in even after drafting Bedard.
Guys like Goodrow and Foligno simply aren't likely to come to bottom-feeders unless they're totally at the end of the line, so it takes overpayment. There's a chance that Grier already knows that it's going to be hard to get anyone of this mold in free agency who's still useful, so there's some decent logic to grabbing a player like this when you can.
4) Going back to the cap floor situation: I think we all can acknowledge that Goodrow is overpaid, but Grier may well see this as a good way to get to the floor--a better way, in fact, than signing a better (currently) player in FA to an overpayment deal that's more than three years long and more than $3.6 per.
Sure, maybe Grier could get someone this offseason by going overboard on like a 5/$30 deal, but then you have to deal with two more years of a bad contract at a time when Celebrini and Smith and Co. are hopefully starting to turn things around...and that very bad contract/player could be an actual albatross. Goodrow likely won't be that, not in a meaningful sense, at least during these next two years.
Like I said, I had a lot of time to think about all this stuff and no one to say it to!
I shared some doubts at first, like many others, but I do see the logic behind the move better now no matter if there's some handshakey payback coming from the Rangers. Three more years at $3.6 does feel a little crazy for a player who had the kind of year Goodrow did, but...
1) The Sharks need to get to the cap floor this year (and I doubt they'll be anywhere near the ceiling during these next three years,
2) Goodrow is only 31 and his two years before this one featured 11/13 goals and 20 assists in each, so it's no guarantee that he actually is cooked,
3) The leadership qualities are for real, I'd say, as someone who watches most Rangers games and gets the insight into how Goody plays and how he's respected by everyone around the team.
I saw a comment that this could be seen as similar to Chicago bringing in Nick Foligno prior to last season, and I agree. Foligno's more of a scorer, but also was 35 when he signed his deal--two years, $9 million. Obviously an overpay, but that was the situation Chicago was in even after drafting Bedard.
Guys like Goodrow and Foligno simply aren't likely to come to bottom-feeders unless they're totally at the end of the line, so it takes overpayment. There's a chance that Grier already knows that it's going to be hard to get anyone of this mold in free agency who's still useful, so there's some decent logic to grabbing a player like this when you can.
4) Going back to the cap floor situation: I think we all can acknowledge that Goodrow is overpaid, but Grier may well see this as a good way to get to the floor--a better way, in fact, than signing a better (currently) player in FA to an overpayment deal that's more than three years long and more than $3.6 per.
Sure, maybe Grier could get someone this offseason by going overboard on like a 5/$30 deal, but then you have to deal with two more years of a bad contract at a time when Celebrini and Smith and Co. are hopefully starting to turn things around...and that very bad contract/player could be an actual albatross. Goodrow likely won't be that, not in a meaningful sense, at least during these next two years.
Like I said, I had a lot of time to think about all this stuff and no one to say it to!
Should we? I think you underestimate how undesirable a situation like the Sharks' is right now to free agents who give a f*** and are decent players, even with the lottery win.
tahoesharksfan
Old-Timer
Who knows, especially at this point in his career, if having us on his list wasn’t purely a financial decision. Were the other California teams also on his list?
I don’t think it’ll impact his commitment, he is a professional.
On the other hand though I don’t think he adds much, if anything, to the team.
I’m still watching to see if he is actually on our roster come camp…
It depends on what your expectations are for someone like Goodrow. For as many goals as Goodrow managed to put up in these playoffs, he still gave up more goals than he scored. The shot and chance numbers were drastically against him in the playoffs. He took the 4th most faceoffs for that team and 3rd in defensive zone draws and was largely losing them. He was alright in that department during the regular season but what has consistently remained true with Goodrow is that between the whistles, he gives up a lot more than he generates. I don't know how it can be justified to pay him 3.6 mil to have that sort of output. I get that some people look at our team as still being bad but the process of making our team better is by bringing in guys who have solid even strength output on their resume if we're going to bring in players from outside the organization.
I only consider Goodrow worse than Smith when you account for contracts and cap hit. The expectations for Goodrow are higher solely because of the contract and his experience and role as a regular in the lineup. Smith is just an extra that fills in from time to time and doesn't make much more than the minimum. He's a terrible hockey player too but nobody is looking to him to make a real impact on the ice. You don't pay Goodrow that much to not expect at least the ability to break even when he's on the ice.
Yes, we should. San Jose has always been an undesirable location. However, players at the level of Goodrow are routinely and regularly available on the trade and free agent markets. There are numerous veterans that fill a bottom six role that remain unsigned for most of July. We signed Sturm as a Cup-winning veteran under similar circumstances. Guys will come at that level if we pay them enough and there are only so many NHL spots.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,765
- 8,027
So you're mad that we're paying 3.6 million for a 4th liner instead of 2 million. While being 10 million under the cap floor.
No, I'm mad they think spending 3.6 mil on an ineffective hockey player is worthwhile especially if they use the cap floor as a chicken shit excuse. They need to bring in effective hockey players. What are you not getting about that?
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
They do eventually, but for right now they just need vets who will insulate the rookies. They're not going to be a playoff team if they somehow sign a couple of actually-good UFAs or anything.
sharski
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2012
- 5,835
- 5,074
i feel like Goodrow needs to pick either the high road or scorched earth... if he's ok with playing with the sharks this season, i don't think it's unreasonable to put the fans out of our misery and drop a courtesy "looking forward to having a great season in san jose! 
" tweet
also, my guess is that no trade lists have degrees of no-tradeness... like the agent probably negotiates the # of teams, then the players has to fill the entire list even if not all of them are equally undesireable... ex: if a player has a full NMC i don't think that necessarily means that thinking of putting any other team's jersey makes them puke... see: EK65
" tweetalso, my guess is that no trade lists have degrees of no-tradeness... like the agent probably negotiates the # of teams, then the players has to fill the entire list even if not all of them are equally undesireable... ex: if a player has a full NMC i don't think that necessarily means that thinking of putting any other team's jersey makes them puke... see: EK65
spintops
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2013
- 1,767
- 1,170
Mad we are stuck paying someone bad at hockey for 3.6 million for 3 years, meaning he will be clogging up a roster spot. Roster is too full to "waste" a single spot on someone like Thomas Bordeleau for 850k, someone that could be sent down or benched if kids are coming up ready to play. No matter how Goodrow performs he is probably going to play every night, blocking kids that are potentially better then him.
We are still tanking so it probably doesn't matter in the long run. But lol at the logic that we can sign anyone for any amount and it's a good move because we have the cap space. If we give Labanc 2 years 10 million per it's a fine move because we have the space and it's not going to hurt us when our kids are ready to get paid guys.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,520
- 5,532
How can we be so mad or happy about this until we see what the full off-season looks like? If the only moves Grier makes this summer are signing Smith, trading for Dellandrea and picking up Goodrow, he didn't do nearly enough to take a step forward next year. If we add 2-3 FAs in the top 6/ top 4, plus Dellandrea (which seems like a popular move all around) and Goodrow (VERY controversial so far, but Sheng's article indicates at least a few pros think it makes sense), then maybe the 3.6 to Goodrow is all good in context.
Hell, maybe we get lucky and sign Stammer and we have grinders AND scorers who have won cups to teach the kids how to succeed. Wishful thinking but who TF knows. Just feels like we should all wait and see, and be angsty on the draft thread instead.
Hell, maybe we get lucky and sign Stammer and we have grinders AND scorers who have won cups to teach the kids how to succeed. Wishful thinking but who TF knows. Just feels like we should all wait and see, and be angsty on the draft thread instead.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,765
- 8,027
The same hockey player can be effective or ineffective depending on his role. Goodrow is an effective 4th line center and penalty killer. In order to bring in an effective first line forward or top pairing defenseman the Sharks will have to commit a lot more money, term and/or trade assets which would likely not be worth it considering where the team is in its competitive cycle. It's also important to note that adding a player like that is in no way precluded by this move.
Barclay Goodrow is a better hockey player than Thomas Bordeleau. Their cap hits are irrelevant because, again, we're still $10 million under the floor. We're not going to come close to the cap ceiling during Goodrow's contract. The "kids" are not competing for the same role as Goodrow. Even if they were, he can also be sent down or benched if necessary.
The difference between Goodrow and Labanc is that Labanc has no utility to a NHL team. He doesn't score at a top six level and he won't hit, forecheck, fight or kill penalties like Goodrow does. Every team needs players like Goodrow. Nobody needs Labanc.
I don't think they need to choose one or the other. There are veterans that are effective hockey players. We don't have to choose an ineffective one. Getting an effective veteran to play the bottom six is not going to dramatically alter their draft standings either. I think we're just rationalizing settling because we suck.
Except Goodrow doesn't show a metric where he demonstrates that he is an effective 4th line center. I agree he's an effective penalty killer but a player's impact on the team is still largely at even strength and he's horrendous in that department. A guy that is always in the defensive zone giving up chances is not winning hockey. You don't need to bring players like that in regardless of the cost much less what his contract is.
I don’t want to take the time to look up the advanced stats of all the leagues 4th liners but I am confident in saying that the majority of all 4th liners have negative advanced stats (that’s why they are on the 4th line). Any player the Sharks put in that spot instead of Goodrow will also be a negative player.
So I don’t get the fuss about bringing in a veteran who can play C or W on the 4th line and has the cup experience Goodrow does.
If we had Goodrow last year then Carpenter could have stayed with the Cuda and helped them be a more competitive team (maybe even playoffs) which would also help the young players develop.
I don’t think Goodrow is some amazing player. I just see this as a positive for the Sharks when looking at it as a whole and what the alternatives are.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,765
- 8,027
If you insist on judging Goodrow solely based on his stats during a season when he was reportedly playing through an injury and his most common linemates were Pitlick, Vesey, Bonino and Rempe then sure he sucks. But you're ignoring that he was a consistent 30 point scorer for the three seasons before that in addition to his physical play and penalty killing. Claiming him on waivers is a risk free bet that he will get back to that level. If he doesn't, nothing of value has been lost.
weastern bias
worst team in the league
How is this 13 pages? Lol
No matter whether or not you think this was a good move, it's fundamentally inconsequential, Goodrow is not going to make or break the rebuild
I think we're gonna be alright, folks
No matter whether or not you think this was a good move, it's fundamentally inconsequential, Goodrow is not going to make or break the rebuild
I think we're gonna be alright, folks
- Jun 23, 2020
- 5,938
- 8,579
Goodrow's advanced stats look worse than Ryan Carpenter, as an example. He's really bad.
