Confirmed with Link: Sharks claim Goodrow from NYR

[nabbyfan]

Nobody wants to play for the Sharks rn because we suck, it’s extremely expensive to live in the area, and the taxes are very high.

There’s a reason Florida and Vegas have become such hot destinations to sign with, even w the way Vegas has treated their players. I firmly believe SJ will struggle signing players just due to those conditions.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Nobody wants to play for the Sharks rn because we suck, it’s extremely expensive to live in the area, and the taxes are very high.

There’s a reason Florida and Vegas have become such hot destinations to sign with, even w the way Vegas has treated their players. I firmly believe SJ will struggle signing players just due to those conditions.

The taxes are something that will hinder us...but we'll just have to sign players to higher cap hits to compensate just like Toronto does.

That said it is a more enticing area to sign/live in than Winnipeg/Calgary/Ottawa/etc so we still can be a free agent destination.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Because no players will want to play on this Sharks team after last season. So they have to go above and beyond to add NHL players to the team. In this case it was manipulating waivers to circumvent a NTC.

No UFA wants to join this team and even if the Sharks overpay to sign someone they still don’t want to be here they are just willing to because it helps their bank account.

Do you think Granlund and Hoffman wanted to be traded to the Sharks? One was a professional and made the best of it and the other pouted and might not ever play in the NHL again.

The Sharks showing they're willing to go along with circumventing limited trade protections isn't going to make it easier to play here either. Now I'm not opposed to this practice if they're getting something substantial out of it that goes towards their rebuild efforts. But until that actualizes, this is nothing but a negative move for the Sharks because Goodrow isn't even a good player nor good value on his own. I know some like to throw out there the floor and needing to get to it but we don't need to pretend like this was the only avenue to achieve that. It wasn't going to be difficult to have this team with its current holes in the lineup spend 13-16 million in free agency or with trade acquisitions to get there. Last offseason, we traded for about 5 mil and signed about 7.4 mil. A slight increase on that when cap flexibility was being created wasn't something we needed to desperately address.

 

[gaucholoco3]

The Sharks showing they're willing to go along with circumventing limited trade protections isn't going to make it easier to play here either. Now I'm not opposed to this practice if they're getting something substantial out of it that goes towards their rebuild efforts. But until that actualizes, this is nothing but a negative move for the Sharks because Goodrow isn't even a good player nor good value on his own. I know some like to throw out there the floor and needing to get to it but we don't need to pretend like this was the only avenue to achieve that. It wasn't going to be difficult to have this team with its current holes in the lineup spend 13-16 million in free agency or with trade acquisitions to get there. Last offseason, we traded for about 5 mil and signed about 7.4 mil. A slight increase on that when cap flexibility was being created wasn't something we needed to desperately address.

Oh I am certain there will be a trade with the Rangers this offseason and the value of taking Goodrow’s contract will be built into that trade. Of might not be much more than a 4th round pick but there will be a move.

But.

Even if there is no compensation for taking this contract what are the alternatives to fill out a competent bottom 6 with legitimate NHl players which Goodrow is. People want to sign Joshua who will probably get 4x$4 million which would require the Sharks to add a year or $1 million per year to sign him since he won’t want to sign with the Sharks.

Goodrow would get a 3x$3 million deal on the open market if he was a UFA. Now he would probably take less to play for a contender but also require let’s say 600k more to sign with the Sharks.

The cap is going up and a $3.6 million cap hit is no longer crazy for a competent bottom 6 forward.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Because we want useful players and useful players don't want to be here

The whole "we want players who want to play for us" line is platitudinal, players want to play for winners, literally no one in the league wants to play for us right now

Players will want to be here if and when we start winning again, even our draft picks don't want to be here, I'm sure Celebrini would much prefer to be drafted by the Panthers right now but we get to hold him hostage under contractual control for the next 7 years

But the Panthers are a perfect example, no one wanted to play in Florida for over 20 years and the second they put together a stretch of winning seasons they're suddenly a destination for players all over the league

We're terrible, no one wants to be here except for players with no other way to be in the NHL, we're going to have to have some unhappy players for quite a while until we can finally build an attractive team

1) Goodrow isn’t a useful player, he’s more of what we already have.

2) Guys like Zetterlund, Granlund, etc. may not have been thrilled to be traded from good teams to an awful one, but they sucked it up and played well and provided leadership.

The fact that this is even a story shows that Goodrow is not like those two.

 

[Sysreq]

I sort of skimmed the thread and there seems to be a lot of angst about this. Goodrow is a culture guy plain and simple. Undrafted, worked his way up from the AHL after being declared a washout and then proves his worth time and again in the post season.

Goodrow is the anti-Goldobin. He isn’t here because of some natural gifts. He is here because of attitude and work ethic. Exactly what we need to surround these young guys with.

Building a culture takes time. The Edmonton McDavids failed over and over because they just tried to throw as much talent as possible on the ice without thinking about the human aspect. We are probably looking at another top-5 draft pick. It takes time to grow.

 

[STL Shark]

1) Goodrow isn’t a useful player, he’s more of what we already have.

2) Guys like Zetterlund, Granlund, etc. may not have been thrilled to be traded from good teams to an awful one, but they sucked it up and played well and provided leadership.

The fact that this is even a story shows that Goodrow is not like those two.

Or, the fact that it is a story shows that the largest media market in the world did something and a players agent doesn't love how it went down. Had this happened in Winnipeg, doubtful that you literally ever hear from said player or agent (even in a hearsay situation such as this) because it isn't a media mecca.

Think you're very much overblowing the media reports out of proportion and once the dust settles with the totality of the offseason this will be a big fat nothing burger.

 

[Alaskanice]

Players often get waived if a trade can’t be found.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh I am certain there will be a trade with the Rangers this offseason and the value of taking Goodrow’s contract will be built into that trade. Of might not be much more than a 4th round pick but there will be a move.

But.

Even if there is no compensation for taking this contract what are the alternatives to fill out a competent bottom 6 with legitimate NHl players which Goodrow is. People want to sign Joshua who will probably get 4x$4 million which would require the Sharks to add a year or $1 million per year to sign him since he won’t want to sign with the Sharks.

Goodrow would get a 3x$3 million deal on the open market if he was a UFA. Now he would probably take less to play for a contender but also require let’s say 600k more to sign with the Sharks.

The cap is going up and a $3.6 million cap hit is no longer crazy for a competent bottom 6 forward.

There are always lots of alternatives for filling out a competent bottom six. That doesn't really matter much if you can't fill out a competent top six with legitimate NHL players. For that matter, it won't matter much if we can't fill out most of our blue line with legitimate NHL players. This was always a low priority thing to address unless we were getting compensated for it. And if there is no compensation for claiming Goodrow and that contract, it is a huge minus on Grier's standing as a manager to me. It should register to everyone here as a huge red flag that a competitive team like the Rangers were willing to give up someone with that contract for free after producing as he did in the playoffs. And to me, it's a huge red flag that Grier would do a former teammate and buddy a favor for nothing under your scenario.

I don't care if there's a GM out there that would throw Goodrow a 3x3 for his playoff performance. He was still getting caved in even with the goals he scored just like he has been getting caved in for a lot of his career. We don't need to give other teams free cap space for a bad player who will likely only be able to help the team during PK's and not evens. It'd be one thing if it was for a year. This is for three years. Even if our contractual timeline matches up with not having to pay anyone for those three years, we're not doing anything that actively makes this team better during that time with this move. Goodrow is still a net negative player even without the cap hit factored in.

Rebuilding teams need to still be very particular about who they add along the way and not give off the impression that they don't have the team's best interests in mind when they're either bringing back former glory players that aren't what they used to be or more worried about giving their buddies on another team a break. To me, if Goodrow is claimed w/o any compensation, it would put Grier on thin ice because it screams willing to put something other than the team he manages ahead of the team and I do not want that from our team's GM.

 

[weastern bias]

1) Goodrow isn’t a useful player, he’s more of what we already have.

2) Guys like Zetterlund, Granlund, etc. may not have been thrilled to be traded from good teams to an awful one, but they sucked it up and played well and provided leadership.

The fact that this is even a story shows that Goodrow is not like those two.

I agree that he has a limited utility, but management sees him as a useful player, hence the acquisition

We actually haven't heard anything from Goodrow, the article has the following excerpts:

Start Quotes

After speaking to multiple sources on Wednesday, there is widespread belief that Barclay Goodrow had included the Sharks on his 15-team, no-trade list that GM Chris Drury got around by placing No. 21 on waivers, where San Jose exercised the first claim to take the two-time Cup-winner," Brooks writes. "We're told that Goodrow's 15-trade list included teams in less-than-desirable locations and those who are not contenders. San Jose would fit into that last category. But the 31-year-old's feelings did not enter into this."

"We've been told by several folks that Goodrow — who scored six goals in 16 postseason matches after recording four in 80 games during the regular season — is not happy about how this went down. I guess I don't blame him," Brooks said.

End quotes

3rd hand accounts claiming "belief" that Goodrow "is not happy about how this went down"

Nothing from Barclay, nothing from his agent, nothing about dissatisfaction with the Sharks in particular, rather an allusion to frustration with the Rangers' handling of this

There's nothing here, the biggest city in the country's hockey team made a marginal move that people didn't expect which got them out of cap trouble and the New York media found an angle to write about it, there is no actual reason to read anything into this until we hear something from Goodrow's camp

 

[rideaucrusher21]

Don’t want to oversell it here, but Goodrow is the type of guy you want on the team in order to show the younger kids what it takes to play in the NHL. He was never given the benefit of the doubt as an undrafted player, and had to scratch and claw for every opportunity. Strum and Rutta (and Sean Walker, who the Sharks have been linked to) are also undrafted players who I’m sure provide great examples for the young guys. I can think of worse ways to overspend on players given the current situation.

Also, to the extent that Goodrow isn’t as effective as he used to be, it certainly isn’t for lack of effort. I’ve mentioned this a few times already, so I’ll shut up now, but I’m definitely pro-Goodrow pickup.

 

[Hodge]

None of the whiners have been able to articulate what the actual downside of this move is.

 

[coooldude]

And to me, it's a huge red flag that Grier would do a former teammate and buddy a favor for nothing under your scenario.

Rebuilding teams need to still be very particular about who they add along the way and not give off the impression that they don't have the team's best interests in mind when they're either bringing back former glory players that aren't what they used to be or more worried about giving their buddies on another team a break. To me, if Goodrow is claimed w/o any compensation, it would put Grier on thin ice because it screams willing to put something other than the team he manages ahead of the team and I do not want that from our team's GM.

I personally think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, it seems like a bit too much of a "help out your old roommate" move, as of right now, and it has seemingly more downsides than upsides. But "huge red flag" feels way overstated. "Grier is on thin ice" feels way overstated.

Not every move is going to be positive, and the moves that matter the most are the big ones. If he had made continually bad small moves, I would be more worried. He's batting about 0.500 on these smaller moves, and the big moves are more positive than negative. This isn't positive, it's probably negative, but it's not that big a deal.

 

[STL Shark]

None of the whiners have been able to articulate what the actual downside of this move is.

The downside is apparent in that we took on a team's undesirable contract in exchange for nothing (yet). Degree of overpaid and level of compensation to take that on is obviously up for debate though. Goodrow isn't a great player on the ice (at least in regular season action this last year). Think it would be disingenuous to laud it as all totally fine/good without at least acknowledging those aspects.

That said, it's not like there is a youngster that he's taking ice time away from on the 4th line and assuming he comes around to the move (likely that he will given the bevy of factors that have been laid out by you, me, and others) he will be a good leadership piece to transition this team from the final years of Couture, Vlasic, Goodrow, etc. to the Celebrini, Smith, Muk, etc. group.

I'd probably have rather gone out and paid Dakota Joshua $4M a year for 3 years to be a physical guy on the LW, but I also don't know that he has the experience and intangibles that the group really needs. There also might be room for both on this roster too, so that is always an option. I think in addition to helping Smith/Celebrini off the ice, he's going to help the likes of Zetterlund and Kostin on the ice that are going to have to be the winning players like Goodrow in the future.

All in all, without any compensation for him it's a B- move. With compensation it's probably a B+ to A- (depending what that comp is).

 

[Hodge]

The downside is apparent in that we took on a team's undesirable contract in exchange for nothing (yet).

But that's not an actual downside to this move. That's an entirely different transaction - the Rangers attaching a sweetener to Goodrow in order to trade him - that people have imagined was on the table despite zero evidence. It's a fantasy invented by fans who don't understand that the cap going up by $5 million this year and next has completely changed the dynamics of cap dump trades and how cap space is valued generally.

 

[gaucholoco3]

But that's not an actual downside to this move. That's an entirely different transaction - the Rangers attaching a sweetener to Goodrow in order to trade him - that people have imagined was on the table despite zero evidence. It's a fantasy invented by fans who don't understand that the cap going up by $5 million this year and next has completely changed the dynamics of cap dump trades and how cap space is valued generally.

I agree and would add that the going rate for a UFA 4th liner will be 3.5 million per year in the last year of this deal. The cap will probably increase the 5% max each if the next 3 years after being artificially deflated due to the PA repaying the league with escrow. The cap will be $15 million higher than last year’s cap in the last year of Goodrow’s deal.

This contract is not as bad as people think and will do nothing to prevent the Sharks from spending money when they actually need to maximize every dollar of the cap.

 

[STL Shark]

But that's not an actual downside to this move. That's an entirely different transaction - the Rangers attaching a sweetener to Goodrow in order to trade him - that people have imagined was on the table despite zero evidence. It's a fantasy invented by fans who don't understand that the cap going up by $5 million this year and next has completely changed the dynamics of cap dump trades and how cap space is valued generally.

It is a legitimate point that a $3.6M 4th liner is negative value whether the cap is $80M or $88M or $92M to a team that is competing for a Cup. Like that much is not really debatable. Sure, the amount of which that is a negative value will change as the cap continues to climb, but it is still not going to be a positive value contract to production situation for the Rangers (which is why he got waived). That said, he fills certain needs for us that we might struggle to find in UFA given we're not a desirable destination. So all in all, it's close to a wash (or we may have bailed NYR out of a 3rd rounder - something we may get later on anyway in a future deal).

By way of objective evidence, cap space does have value. Whether a team is retaining $750k or $4M, there is a value assigned to taking that cap space and real money off another team's hands. The actual value of that will change as the cap increases, but it's not some made up concept by fans (as evidenced by years of transactions). That isn't made up no matter how much you try and speak it into existence.

 

[Hodge]

By way of objective evidence, cap space does have value. Whether a team is retaining $750k or $4M, there is a value assigned to taking that cap space and real money off another team's hands. The actual value of that will change as the cap increases, but it's not some made up concept by fans (as evidenced by years of transactions). That isn't made up no matter how much you try and speak it into existence.

And my point is those "years of transactions" were all under an unexpectedly flat salary cap.

It's just supply and demand. When the cap barely moves for years there's less cap space to go around across the league which allows the teams with space to squeeze the teams desperate to shed salary.

Every single team in the league is under the 2024-25 salary cap right now without even factoring in LTIR. Only an idiot would look at that landscape and try to compare it to the leaguewide situation in say 2021 when the Coyotes were getting 2nd round picks for taking on Ladd and Gostisbehere.

 

[Star Platinum]

Because we want useful players and useful players don't want to be here

The whole "we want players who want to play for us" line is platitudinal, players want to play for winners, literally no one in the league wants to play for us right now

Players will want to be here if and when we start winning again, even our draft picks don't want to be here, I'm sure Celebrini would much prefer to be drafted by the Panthers right now but we get to hold him hostage under contractual control for the next 7 years

But the Panthers are a perfect example, no one wanted to play in Florida for over 20 years and the second they put together a stretch of winning seasons they're suddenly a destination for players all over the league

We're terrible, no one wants to be here except for players with no other way to be in the NHL, we're going to have to have some unhappy players for quite a while until we can finally build an attractive team

 

[STL Shark]

And my point is those "years of transactions" were all under an unexpectedly flat salary cap.

It's just supply and demand. When the cap barely moves for years there's less cap space to go around across the league which allows the teams with space to squeeze the teams desperate to shed salary.

Every single team in the league is under the 2024-25 salary cap right now without even factoring in LTIR. Only an idiot would look at that landscape and try to compare it to the leaguewide situation in say 2021 when the Coyotes were getting 2nd round picks for taking on Ladd and Gostisbehere.

And once again, I am saying that even with excess cap space, Goodrow's contract is still not a positive value asset. The degree to which it is negative is debatable though. The fact that it is negative is not debatable. That is all I am saying.

I don't hate the move just like I don't think it's a slam dunk awesome move either. I see both sides of the argument and happen to land on the side of necessary versus unnecessary because I don't think a future 3rd rounder is going to materially effect the future of the organization and because I think what Goodrow can bring off the ice has value above and beyond what his very replaceable on-ice production would say.

Both sides have some points and it's a weighting exercise to see what you value more rather than the doomers that think Goodrow serves no value to this group or yourself that thinks there is no value being left on the table.

 

[LadyStanley]

Check out this Podcast: Trades Galore | The Chris Johnston Show Trades Galore | The Chris Johnston Show

Talk about Goody starting about 37:00 in.

 

[Star Platinum]

And once again, I am saying that even with excess cap space, Goodrow's contract is still not a positive value asset. The degree to which it is negative is debatable though. The fact that it is negative is not debatable. That is all I am saying.

I don't hate the move just like I don't think it's a slam dunk awesome move either. I see both sides of the argument and happen to land on the side of necessary versus unnecessary because I don't think a future 3rd rounder is going to materially effect the future of the organization and because I think what Goodrow can bring off the ice has value above and beyond what his very replaceable on-ice production would say.

Both sides have some points and it's a weighting exercise to see what you value more rather than the doomers that think Goodrow serves no value to this group or yourself that thinks there is no value being left on the table.

The reason it's not a great move is that we'll never be able to trade the contract ourselves. If he was moveable, even with a larger cap figure, the Rangers would have made that deal themselves. His value around the league is obviously super low. So we'll be eating the rest of that deal for a guy that most teams wouldn't even roster because they have better guys to play that role. And even when there are less years left on the deal, it's not like he's going to get any better than he is now.

What I question is what the Rangers could possibly offer us to make this deal more of a win. I think what the team would need is a move for an actual player that could fill a role on the big squad, but Grier is able to send out less in return for that player than he otherwise would have because he did Drury this favor.

3rd round or worse pick from a team that's going to have winning records for some time doesn't move the needle for me.

 

[GRANdSharks]

I imagine goodrow could have been ticketed for a buyout vs cap dumps with asset, in which case he most likely was not coming here via free agency. How much would we have had to pay to convince a goodrow like player to come here via free agency probably less but certainly not to much different. He has a bad contact sure but it's nothing significant. As much as it would have been nice to get an extra pick it was likely never an option if we wanted the player.

 

[Alaskanice]

The reason it's not a great move is that we'll never be able to trade the contract ourselves. If he was moveable, even with a larger cap figure, the Rangers would have made that deal themselves. His value around the league is obviously super low. So we'll be eating the rest of that deal for a guy that most teams wouldn't even roster because they have better guys to play that role. And even when there are less years left on the deal, it's not like he's going to get any better than he is now.

What I question is what the Rangers could possibly offer us to make this deal more of a win. I think what the team would need is a move for an actual player that could fill a role on the big squad, but Grier is able to send out less in return for that player than he otherwise would have because he did Drury this favor.

3rd round or worse pick from a team that's going to have winning records for some time doesn't move the needle for me.

Anything pertaining Goodrow would end up being looked into. If we make a different trade that works in our favor, that would be the outcome.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I personally think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, it seems like a bit too much of a "help out your old roommate" move, as of right now, and it has seemingly more downsides than upsides. But "huge red flag" feels way overstated. "Grier is on thin ice" feels way overstated.

Not every move is going to be positive, and the moves that matter the most are the big ones. If he had made continually bad small moves, I would be more worried. He's batting about 0.500 on these smaller moves, and the big moves are more positive than negative. This isn't positive, it's probably negative, but it's not that big a deal.

I'd like to preface this with saying that I believe compensation for this is coming down the road. It may be the draft or it may not. It may be later in the offseason. I'm willing to wait that out but if it doesn't materialize, Grier got played into taking a bad contract off someone else's hands for free. Yeah, that's got huge red flags written all over it and for someone with a limited track record and experience, he's not owed nor deserving of slack on a move like this. I've already stated multiple times bad moves Grier has made in my eyes even though I think he's on the right track for the team. That doesn't mean a critical error of this nature can't or shouldn't put him on thin ice. It's a bad mistake that can never be replicated if that's how it plays out.

Thinking these sorts of moves aren't that big of a deal is a matter of context and perspective. I think letting shit like this slide sends the wrong message to everyone and the probable results from ignoring it is being accepting of these sorts of mistakes to continue.