Confirmed with Link: Sharks claim Goodrow from NYR

[BaileyMacTavish]

Mike giveth and Mike taketh away. Did we need to nab his ass contract for free? Did Mike even try?

 

[STL Shark]

Don't love the take without compensation, but would imagine Grier and Drury have something arranged for that later on. The same usual crop of doomers whining in here are the ones that whined about literally every move that is made (Burns, Hertl, Karlsson, Meier, etc.) so can't really take them seriously.

Hopefully Goodrow is motivated to be here and teach the youngsters and bring a presence that we need in the bottom 6. Play hard and play well the next 18 months and Grier will move you to a contender when a retention slot opens up so you can go back to playing playoff hockey.

 

[TheBeard]

Typical garbage tier Grier move, why he didn’t leverage this into a trade is mind numbing. At least he is consistent in wasting cap space on all the strays in the league

You're right, he should have just signed Guentzel to a 7 year 68 million dollar deal and then Stammer to a 4 year/36 million dollar "steal".

 

[Juxtaposer]

A lot of gloom and doom over a depth move

Goodrow isnt here to play with Celebrini/Smith, he's here to replace Jack Studnicka, our 4th line just got better

Yes, bad contract, no it doesn't matter, we're still $5M below the salary floor AFTER this addition

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

 

[Jargon]

oh shit it just all clicked:

couture is very sad, sees one trade rumor and spirals, called Grier
Grier goes out of his way to talk about it, but Couture is still sad
Grier goes out and buys him a therapy 4th liner (his bff Goodrow)

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

We still don't know about #2, though. That was just a thing someone suggested as a possible reason. But it IS the only reason that makes sense right now, I guess, unless yeah, there's an impending better move coming with the Rangers (but then why not package it with this one?)

 

[Sendhelplease]

I am going to wait on criticizing the waiver claim until it becomes clear that the Sharks and Rangers don't have a handshake deal to circumvent Goodrow's NTC. But if we claimed Goodrow and his contract with no compensation I don't love the deal.

 

[STL Shark]

oh shit it just all clicked:

couture is very sad, sees one trade rumor and spirals, called Grier
Grier goes out of his way to talk about it, but Couture is still sad
Grier goes out and buys him a therapy 4th liner (his bff Goodrow)



We still don't know about #2, though. That was just a thing someone suggested as a possible reason. But it IS the only reason that makes sense right now, I guess, unless yeah, there's an impending better move coming with the Rangers (but then why not package it with this one?)

The fourth move is Jamie McGinn named PP Coach?

 

[TheBeard]

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

I mean there's a lot of speculation there regarding whether or not Barclay even wants to be here. I'm sure there were discussions along the way and he wasn't just blindsided by this. Players (and agents) remember these things.

 

[Juxtaposer]

oh shit it just all clicked:

couture is very sad, sees one trade rumor and spirals, called Grier
Grier goes out of his way to talk about it, but Couture is still sad
Grier goes out and buys him a therapy 4th liner (his bff Goodrow)



We still don't know about #2, though. That was just a thing someone suggested as a possible reason. But it IS the only reason that makes sense right now, I guess, unless yeah, there's an impending better move coming with the Rangers (but then why not package it with this one?)

If Goodrow was willing to waive to go to SJ, they could have traded him for Future Considerations to save him the indignity of going on waivers.

 

[TheBeard]

Also, a lot of people out here talking about we could get other players in free agency instead, but I haven't seen anyone actually mention realistic names.

 

[one2gamble]

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

bingo

 

[Hodge]

Think of it this way: we got Emberson for free from the Rangers, now we take Goodrow's contract off their hands in return.

I wouldn't trade Emberson for a late 2nd round pick which is probably the best case sweetener we could have hoped for.

Like it or not Goodrow's playoff performance raised his value around the league and made the contract a bit less toxic.

 

[Jargon]

If Goodrow was willing to waive to go to SJ, they could have traded him for Future Considerations to save him the indignity of going on waivers.

It’s still possible that Drury asked around and everyone asked for too much to take Goodrow, so he just waived him and Grier said, eh why not…

But yeah, it’s… all a little odd.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Think of it this way: we got Emberson for free from the Rangers, now we take Goodrow's contract off their hands in return.

I wouldn't trade Emberson for a late 2nd round pick which is probably the best case sweetener we could have hoped for.

Like it or not Goodrow's playoff performance raised his value around the league and made the contract a bit less toxic.

My brother in christ, he was on waivers and I would bet real earth money that no one else was gonna claim him.

Emberson was a great pickup, but let’s not act like he would have played on the Rangers last season. They were forced to waive him because the rest of their D was better.

 

[Sharkz4Fun]

Think of it this way: we got Emberson for free from the Rangers, now we take Goodrow's contract off their hands in return.

I wouldn't trade Emberson for a late 2nd round pick which is probably the best case sweetener we could have hoped for.

Like it or not Goodrow's playoff performance raised his value around the league and made the contract a bit less toxic.

Emberson is an AHL defensemen.

 

[spintops]

Pretty terrible deal if we aren't going to be getting a sweetener with him.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

You're right, he should have just signed Guentzel to a 7 year 68 million dollar deal and then Stammer to a 4 year/36 million dollar "steal".

It was a stupid pick up especially after the trade with Dallas, Drury needed to get rid or Goodrow Grier didn’t “need” Goodrow or to help Drury out. It should’ve at least cost the rangers a pick. You’re confusing ,e for someone else if you think I want either Guetzel or Stammer in San Jose it’s pointless

 

[weastern bias]

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

Waiver claims aren't nefarious, they're part of the collective bargaining agreement, if Goodrow didn't want to be made available to any team at a moment's notice he should have negotiated for an NMC

And that's the only reason we didn't get any assets back, he has us on his NTC, but that doesn't mean he won't be valuable to us, worst case scenario he's an easily flippable piece in a year once a retention slot opens back up, but for now he's our best penalty killer and he brings a lot of playoff experience and is a clutch player, he makes us better today than we were yesterday

*whisper*also, there's probably a handshake agreement between Grier and Drury that they're gonna do us a favor for this, they're old friends and are likely to help each other out*whisper*

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

It’s not about the player or the money to me, it’s about 1) not getting anything in return to take Goodrow, which is objectively a terrible contract and 2) Goodrow not wanting to be here. You should never acquire a player through nefarious means who has already blocked a trade to your team.

Oh no a sensible outlook

 

[TheBeard]

If Goodrow was willing to waive to go to SJ, they could have traded him for Future Considerations to save him the indignity of going on waivers.

Or he was, but SJ wanted a return, and NY knew he was going to get picked up by Chicago or Columbus or someone else regardless.

 

[PattyLafontaine]

A lot of gloom and doom over a depth move

Goodrow isnt here to play with Celebrini/Smith, he's here to replace Jack Studnicka, our 4th line just got better

Yes, bad contract, no it doesn't matter, we're still $5M below the salary floor AFTER this addition

It's not about it being depth more, but rather Grier not getting a prospect(s)/pick(s) to take on the bad contract.

 

[LadyStanley]

San Jose Sharks claim forward Barclay Goodrow | San Jose Sharks

San Jose Sharks (@SanJoseSharks) General Manager Mike Grier announced today that the club has claimed forward Barclay Goodrow. Goodrow, 31, recorded 12 points (four goals, eight assists) in 80 games last season for the New York Rangers en route to capturing the Presidents’ Trophy as the best...

www.nhl.com

Sharks announcement

 

[Cas]

I hope no one expects that we get any actual performance here. I'd expect Goodrow winds up waived before this contract ends.

 

[TheBeard]

It was a stupid pick up especially after the trade with Dallas, Drury needed to get rid or Goodrow Grier didn’t “need” Goodrow or to help Drury out. It should’ve at least cost the rangers a pick. You’re confusing ,e for someone else if you think I want either Guetzel or Stammer in San Jose it’s pointless

GMs help each other out all the time. Grier building relationships with other GMs and all it cost us was us getting a free albeit overpaid 4th liner with proven playoff experience is what we call 4D chess.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Waiver claims aren't nefarious, they're part of the collective bargaining agreement, if Goodrow didn't want to be made available to any team at a moment's notice he should have negotiated for an NMC

And that's the only reason we didn't get any assets back, he has us on his NTC, but that doesn't mean he won't be valuable to us, worst case scenario he's an easily flippable piece in a year once a retention slot opens back up, for for now he's our best penalty killer and he brings a lot of playoff experience and is a clutch player, he makes us better today than we were yesterday

*whisper*also, there's probably a handshake agreement between Grier and Drury that they're gonna do us a favor for this, they're old friends and are likely to help each other out*whisper*

I’m not trying to argue that Grier didn’t have the right to claim Barclay or that Barclay doesn’t have to live with the consequences of not being good enough to earn an NMC by any means. I’m purely stating that I would not want to take a player who refused to be traded to me, from the perspective of the acquiring GM.

I also think it would be a huge waste to use our only retention slot on Barclay freaking Goodrow. Even at 50% he’s not worth much if anything.

If there is a handshake where Drury does us a favor in the near future and that favor is worth taking this contract, then I will formerly redact my criticism of this move. But I refuse to justify it right now with “well maybe we’re getting something!” when that’s at this point baseless speculation.