Confirmed with Link: Sharks claim Goodrow from NYR

[Pavelski2112]

It’s the world today. Way back when, it was that guy at the end of the bar, spouting off and cursing everyone.

People have complained about things since the beginning of time, this is nothing new

 

[landshark]

I’m sure Goodrow is pretty pumped about 5 million this season instead of 1.1 + vet min if he got bought out and re signed somewhere

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.

We haven't even heard a direct quote from him. Before anyone decides that he should be booed by Sharks fans, wait until he actually comments.

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]

Seriously.

Sharks fans: “we should continue t drafting top 5 for another couple years. It’s best for the team.”

Same Sharks fans: “Why the hell did we pick up Goodrow???? He doesn’t make us better!!”

i went on a week long rant about him after the Hertl trade and I’m one of his biggest apologists here.

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]

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]

Enjoy your weekend.

I mean it supposed be In the upper 80’s with a slight breeze this weekend in Waikiki I’ll do my best

 

[Pavelski2112]

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.

Only if you don't know how to put together a competent defense, scout for goaltending, or hire good coaches

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Nobody is saying Goody is going to turn this team around, and unless he has a rebound he's probably a negative player on our fourth line (honestly just like any of our fourth line is going to be, so I don't care much).

But it's wild to me that someone would think 18-20 year old kids can't learn something from guys who have won cups and navigated life as a pro in the top league in the world for 10 years. Especially when young players talk all the time about looking up to players like Sturm (or Goodrow) re: how to be a professional. The quotes from the young pros themselves are public for all to see - from Marleau living with Kelley Hrudey through last year's team and I'm sure there will be more.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

I’m sure Goodrow is pretty pumped about 5 million this season instead of 1.1 + vet min if he got bought out and re signed somewhere

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…

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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?

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.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[spintops]

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.

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.

 

[coooldude]

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.

 

[Hodge]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[gaucholoco3]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Cas]

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.

Goodrow's advanced stats look worse than Ryan Carpenter, as an example. He's really bad.

 

[Hangemhigh]

Picking up Goodrow is only good if the Sharks got something extra. Even if he wanted to be here he is not worth the $. It's like the Sharks picked up a Vlasic for the forward group.