Confirmed with Link: TRADE: Sharks trade G Mackenzie Blackwood, F Givani Smith, 2027 5th to COL for G Alexandar Georgiev, F Nikolai Kovalenko, '26 2nd, Cond'l '25 5th

[spintops]

Goodrow was a terrible move, Most of the other deals were low risk - possible reward. I guess Goodrow isn't that much risk but either but it stands out as the worst deal Grier has done.

 

[Alaskanice]

Strongly disagree with this take.

Sure, $10s of millions is technically accurate, but 12 replacement level players is $9.3M in minimum cap space of their own. For all players (even though they weren’t all here at the same time), quick mental math says we’re at about $24M. Accounting for minimum contracts, we’re talking about a little more than $1M incremental per player above replacement. In theory, you could have 8 guys at $1M and 3 and $4M and spend the same cap space that way, but also need a few that can pk, a few with some toughness (so your teens don’t get bullied) and a few centers. Unless that’s your incremental $12M spend that $1M is now like $2M for 4 of them.

Also, any acquisitions need to be willing to come to a league worst team (in a high tax/HCOL area) and for many of them, there was no Celebrini yet. That alone may require a 25-50% premium on that $1M (or whatever is paid). It’s also worth noting that Sturm, Benning, Kunin, Goodrow, and Dellandrea are noted for their leadership, and that’s pretty important when you’re going to lose a lot of games.

Critically, none of these contracts carryover to a time when Celebrini, Smith, and Askarov will be up for new contracts. This was on a team that was designed to tank during the Bedard/Carlsson/Fantilli, Celebrini, Hagens, and if needed, McKenna years.

Hoffman was shit, but he- and Rutta-was the fee to get Dickinson. Lindbolm was an upside play but with his injuries, it didn’t work out. If he got back to his peak he’d have been worth a 2nd or 3rd at the deadline. Grier picked the wrong reclamation project with him, but it was the right strategy for a tank team. Kunin, as much as everyone shits on him, is on pace for 20 goals/30 points and is a solid gritty forward. He’s a great fourth liner or a league average third liner. I’d argue every one of those guys excluding Hoffman and Goodrow is worth their contract, and the only two we paid for, cost a 3rd (Kunin) and a 4th (Dellandrea) which could be recouped by trading them when their contracts are up.

Rather than wishing Grier acquired fictional free agents, who do you Grier could have and should have signed, and how much of a premium in dollars or years would those players require once you account for taxes, HCOL, the potential downside in future earnings given

If I recall, you really didn’t like Wennberg to start the year, and he’s been about as good of a free agent signing as we could have asked for, and the term is ideal. Should we move on, I imagine he’ll get back a 2nd at the next deadline.

Each of Grier’s below average moves- Burns, Essimont, Benning/Boroughs term, Lindbolm, and Goodrow- are explainable and none negatively impact the team in the compete window (Celebrini/Smith/Askarov’s second contract).

I wish this was what I posted. But I didn’t. Props to you.

 

[Saskatoon]

Being angry about Benning is such a waste of brain space - his contract was almost entirely able to be buried in the minors if the Sharks had anyone better at the time.

 

[CHALUPA]

Goodrow was a terrible move, Most of the other deals were low risk - possible reward. I guess Goodrow isn't that much risk but either but it stands out as the worst deal Grier has done.

If Goodrow is the worst deal he’s done, we shouldn’t complain about anything.

 

[Hodge]

Goodrow was a terrible move, Most of the other deals were low risk - possible reward. I guess Goodrow isn't that much risk but either but it stands out as the worst deal Grier has done.

It's just so terrible to overpay a veteran PKer/F1 who can play any forward position, was recently a key piece of two Stanley Cup champions and is by all accounts a respected leader to help insulate your young future core. I know the Sharks aren't using $25 million in cap space but can you imagine the possibilities that would open up if they weren't using $28 million instead?

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Goodrow was a terrible move, Most of the other deals were low risk - possible reward. I guess Goodrow isn't that much risk but either but it stands out as the worst deal Grier has done.

Goodrow is a terrible move for a cap strapped contending team that needs to squeeze maximum ROI out of bottom of the lineup spending. The Sharks… checks notes… are literally none of those things. For these Sharks, what Goodrow is paid is nearly inconsequential and his value as a veteran leader, and on the PK, is a worthwhile addition to the team, all at no cost to acquire.

 

[weastern bias]

 

[Shark Finn]

Being angry about Benning is such a waste of brain space - his contract was almost entirely able to be buried in the minors if the Sharks had anyone better at the time.

Not this topic again.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

@TheBeard now that we’ve had a chance to watch Kovalenko play for the Sharks*, has your opinion on the trade changed at all?

*obviously he’s not gonna put up three points every game. Maybe just two on his off nights…

 

[Lebanezer]

He is doing a good job. The stakes are low right now, the true test comes in the next few seasons. Hoping he continues to do well.

 

[TheBeard]

@TheBeard now that we’ve had a chance to watch Kovalenko play for the Sharks*, has your opinion on the trade changed at all?

*obviously he’s not gonna put up three points every game. Maybe just two on his off nights…

I never hated the trade just thought we could have waited. Kneejerk reactions off a good start rarely works out. Last year Addison looked like the answer to our offensive defenseman prayers with 3 points in his first 6 games. He ended up with 8 more in the remaining 54.

Not this topic again.

It’s wild how polarizing a guy making 1.25 a year can be.

 

[Sharkz4Fun]

The most important thing about MG is that he isn't doing a shitty job.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Goodrow is a terrible move for a cap strapped contending team that needs to squeeze maximum ROI out of bottom of the lineup spending. The Sharks… checks notes… are literally none of those things. For these Sharks, what Goodrow is paid is nearly inconsequential and his value as a veteran leader, and on the PK, is a worthwhile addition to the team, all at no cost to acquire.

I don’t think those qualities make for a worthwhile addition unless they’re a break even sort of player at evens. Goodrow is bad at evens. We have plenty of vets and plenty of PK’ers. We still need forwards that can hold their own at evens not get caved. If we had gotten paid to take that contract on then I wouldn’t care but they should’ve let someone else claim him off waivers.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Goodrow is a terrible move for a cap strapped contending team that needs to squeeze maximum ROI out of bottom of the lineup spending. The Sharks… checks notes… are literally none of those things. For these Sharks, what Goodrow is paid is nearly inconsequential and his value as a veteran leader, and on the PK, is a worthwhile addition to the team, all at no cost to acquire.

Goodrow is a terrible move purely because we've stapled him to Will Smith and he has not once left the top-9. If Goodrow were solely on the fourth line, I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Goodrow is a terrible move for a cap strapped contending team that needs to squeeze maximum ROI out of bottom of the lineup spending. The Sharks… checks notes… are literally none of those things. For these Sharks, what Goodrow is paid is nearly inconsequential and his value as a veteran leader, and on the PK, is a worthwhile addition to the team, all at no cost to acquire.

Sure if he stayed a 4th liner. He's playing with Smith again. We had two lines that worked very well and the priority should be development. What are we doing with Smith if we are playing him with Goodrow again? I thought we are well past that. Kostin-Granlund-Smith worked and there was no reason to break it up to slap Goodrow there. Kovalenko would fill in the Kostin spot just as easily

 

[Star Platinum]

Goodrow is a terrible move purely because we've stapled him to Will Smith and he has not once left the top-9. If Goodrow were solely on the fourth line, I wouldn't have a problem.

That's a Warsofsky problem, not a Goodrow problem.

Sure if he stayed a 4th liner. He's playing with Smith again. We had two lines that worked very well and the priority should be development. What are we doing with Smith if we are playing him with Goodrow again? I thought we are well past that. Kostin-Granlund-Smith worked and there was no reason to break it up to slap Goodrow there. Kovalenko would fill in the Kostin spot just as easily

Kostin is on injured reserve and Kovalenko is paired with Celebrini today. Lund line broken up.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Sure if he stayed a 4th liner. He's playing with Smith again. We had two lines that worked very well and the priority should be development. What are we doing with Smith if we are playing him with Goodrow again? I thought we are well past that. Kostin-Granlund-Smith worked and there was no reason to break it up to slap Goodrow there. Kovalenko would fill in the Kostin spot just as easily

Lots of development can be had by Smith playing with Goodrow. There’s more to being a forward that goals and points. If anything, Goodrow might have more to teach Smith than Granlund, and definitely more than Kostin.