Value of: Would anyone take Barclay Goodrow?

[TGWL]

The Canucks have the cap space here, so what would be included to get us interested?

Goodrow.

 

[bernmeister]

Reunanen was a never-was, who mostly only NYR fans were aware of
Robertson will be long-time D-man in NHL, following his strong WHL career
IMHO, people exaggerating the significance, of his sophomore season struggles, are missing the forest for the trees

and I've written this a lot lately, but
NYR recent string of seasons, with relatively few 'man games lost to injury', and without major injuries to core players,
have led may posters to undervalue the critical need for organizational depth
that can change in an eyeblink

look at Caps this season, very long stretches without Oshie, Backstrom, Carlson, Wilson
Avs missing Landeskog, Nicshsushkin, Manson, ...

yes, but we should have grabbed a 4th or 5th for him earlier on
dat's all im sayin

 

[Cogburn]

Goodrow.

Well enjoy his cap hit then, all the best.

 

[TGWL]

Well enjoy his cap hit then, all the best.

The cap hit isn't the problem. He's not really over paid, and if he is, it's by 500k, maybe? The problem is building a future team. Maybe his term isn't the best, but that's not a problem right now.

 

[egelband]

Leafs are interested on paper, but the fact he is the odd man out for the Rangers who lack quality depth is a red flag

His play isn’t a problem at all. If we go with the premise that the Rangers have to open up cap, and I am not convinced that’s even the case, that’s the only reason he would be on the block.

 

[egelband]

We have, as of now, $16m to sign Miller, Chytil, Lafreniere, Gauthier and Kravtsov.

That seems very achievable. Dont see the issue here.

Same. Worst case they have to go very short term with Miller or Chytil and kick that can down the road.

 

[Cogburn]

The cap hit isn't the problem. He's not really over paid, and if he is, it's by 500k, maybe? The problem is building a future team. Maybe his term isn't the best, but that's not a problem right now.

There are a number of wingers available for less cap hit or term that would provide as much. I am not saying he's not a useful player, but 3.6 for a middle six winger isn't going to be a something a lot of teams will be able to take on. Goodrow has also capped out at 33 points in his best season, and New York is well known to be subject to a cap crunch coming up. I just don't feel there is a lot incentive to take his contract without a sweetener.

 

[bernmeister]

There are a number of wingers available for less cap hit or term that would provide as much. I am not saying he's not a useful player, but 3.6 for a middle six winger isn't going to be a something a lot of teams will be able to take on. Goodrow has also capped out at 33 points in his best season, and New York is well known to be subject to a cap crunch coming up. I just don't feel there is a lot incentive to take his contract without a sweetener.

all of this is mostly accurate and fair
howev, pts are not everything, intangibles are real,
and the level of overpay, to extent applicable is min.

There IS a market for BG w'o pick added.
Not a large one b'c cap is tight almost across the board,
but only need one and could be a handful.

Remember, NY can take back expiring contracts.

howev, at this point, does NOT look like nec to go there and deal him

 

[Cogburn]

all of this is mostly accurate and fair
howev, pts are not everything, intangibles are real,
and the level of overpay, to extent applicable is min.

There IS a market for BG w'o pick added.
Not a large one b'c cap is tight almost across the board,
but only need one and could be a handful.

Remember, NY can take back expiring contracts.

howev, at this point, does NOT look like nec to go there and deal him

I agree points aren't everything, but potential role on a team means a lot. For 3.6 million a season, I would expect some kind of better statistical improvement on how he's played across his career.

Cap is the main killer for his value right now. I again don't want to rag on the player, but taking that cap hit, for multiple years, narrows the field pretty badly. Presently there are 6 teams that can commit to his present cap hit, Minnesota, Buffalo, Detroit, Anaheim, Chicago and Arizona, and two of those teams are really looking to compete. Of those two teams, Minnesota cannot add cap for next year due to the fluxuating buyouts from Parise and Suter, and Buffalo has a number of UFAs and RFAs that need raises or replacements, and while I'm not super familiar with their situation, I do know that Goodrow would be their 5th highest paid forward next season.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to move him, or there isn't a team willing to take him, but for a multiyear, multimillion dollar contract with a bottle necked cap situation, most teams would need a sweetener of some kind, or to have to have him as part of a bigger deal.

 

[bernmeister]

I agree points aren't everything, but potential role on a team means a lot. For 3.6 million a season, I would expect some kind of better statistical improvement on how he's played across his career.

Cap is the main killer for his value right now. I again don't want to rag on the player, but taking that cap hit, for multiple years, narrows the field pretty badly. Presently there are 6 teams that can commit to his present cap hit, Minnesota, Buffalo, Detroit, Anaheim, Chicago and Arizona, and two of those teams are really looking to compete. Of those two teams, Minnesota cannot add cap for next year due to the fluxuating buyouts from Parise and Suter, and Buffalo has a number of UFAs and RFAs that need raises or replacements, and while I'm not super familiar with their situation, I do know that Goodrow would be their 5th highest paid forward next season.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to move him, or there isn't a team willing to take him, but for a multiyear, multimillion dollar contract with a bottle necked cap situation, most teams would need a sweetener of some kind, or to have to have him as part of a bigger deal.

Look at it this way.
BG has positive value, but does not command a big return.
He is multiyear.
If Rangers take only comparable value expiring crap back, and I think they get something, but arguendo,
if they just get 4.0 back deadwood, but all of it is expiring, it is a win win.

BG quality will move the needle to include a decent pick + some level of cap coming back

Again, at THIS pt, he does NOT have to be moved.

 

[Canuck86]

Is Goodrow playing C or wing?

 

[Mrfenn92]

We have, as of now, $16m to sign Miller, Chytil, Lafreniere, Gauthier and Kravtsov.

That seems very achievable. Dont see the issue here.

Should be easy to do.
$4million aav for Miller (just using the Dobson bridge)
$3.5-$4 to chytil ?
Laf signs for around the same amount as kakko and the last two will be around a million plus or take a few hundred thousand

 

[M2Beezy]

he's the perfect guy for a rebuilding team to put around their youngsters and ultimately deal him to a contender by retaining salary at the deadline

I feel like Jim Benning got part of this theory down correctly.

The correct part:

-Have a grinder vet to put around the youngsters

The incorrect part:

-Overpay the vet
-Target the wrong vet
-Get three more vets because 4 is better than 1
-Run out of time at TDL regardless

 

[bernmeister]

Is Goodrow playing C or wing?

can do either

 

[Gliff]

The cap hit isn't the problem. He's not really over paid, and if he is, it's by 500k, maybe? The problem is building a future team. Maybe his term isn't the best, but that's not a problem right now.

No contender wants a 3rd liner signed for 4 more years until age 34 at 3.6 mil (none can afford him even if they did want to).
No rebuilding team wants to pay a 3rd liner 4 mil+ in cash for the next 4 years.
Not to mention a 15 team NTC.

Good player but the reality of his contract makes him hard to trade without a sweetener or taking cap back.

 

[Barnaby]

You specifically listed "buy him out" as one of the three things you would do while completely discounting retention. How does your post above (re: having a million and change on the books) NOT apply even worse to the idea of a buyout, when you would have SIX years of dead cap at around the same level (aside from year 3 where it would be far more)? Whether you buy him out or trade with retention, you STILL have to replace him, so I have no idea what you are trying to get to on that point.

I agree that you keep him if you can. That's option 1. I agree you trade him for basically nothing if you can as option 2, to lose the full hit. But if option 1 and 2 fail? It's mathematically and team-buildingly obvious that a retention trade (of ~30%) is the best option 3. It results in a shorter, smaller dead cap hit plus a solid asset.

And for the record, I HOPE the team can keep him. He's a phenomenal player to have in so many ways, and if they can just get to 2024, I think the cap issues will resolve themselves.

So we agree? Last thing i do is retrain. To me he’s an asset.

 

[Barnaby]

No contender wants a 3rd liner signed for 4 more years until age 34 at 3.6 mil (none can afford him even if they did want to).
No rebuilding team wants to pay a 3rd liner 4 mil+ in cash for the next 4 years.
Not to mention a 15 team NTC.

Good player but the reality of his contract makes him hard to trade without a sweetener or taking cap back.

You are right and wrong. Would i sign him him at that? No. Would i dump him? Nope.

 

[Gliff]

You are right and wrong. Would i sign him him at that? No. Would i dump him? Nope.

I’m not saying they should pay to dump him, but if you want to move him then that’s probably the only option. Better off keeping him.

 

[Barnaby]

Despite the fact that I literally showed you the numbers where a buyout ends up putting MORE dead money on the cap for twice as long without returning an asset? That would be the dumbest asset management this team has done since the Buchnevich trade.

Your idea is idiotic. The only scenario you burn that bridge is last resort.

I’m not saying they should pay to dump him, but if you want to move him then that’s probably the only option. Better off keeping him.

Agreed. Hang onto him for now… maybe move him later

 

[smoneil]

So we agree? Last thing i do is retrain. To me he’s an asset.

We agree he's an asset. We agree that he should be kept unless it is absolutely necessary to move his cap hit to re-sign the RFAs. Where we disagree is in your notion that he should be bought out before being traded with retention. Buying him out results in 6 years of dead cap hits, ALL of which would be larger than 30% of his current hit. Retaining 30% would bring back a solid asset, and result in 4 years of dead cap, all at a lower number than the buyout dead cap rate.

So yeah, we should keep him. But IF we can't, Option A (smaller, shorter dead cap hit and a nice asset) is obviously the better route than Option B (longer, larger dead cap hit and nothing received in return).

I legit can't figure out why you've chosen this as your hill to die on, as there is no real logical argument for your position.

 

[Barnaby]

We agree he's an asset. We agree that he should be kept unless it is absolutely necessary to move his cap hit to re-sign the RFAs. Where we disagree is in your notion that he should be bought out before being traded with retention. Buying him out results in 6 years of dead cap hits, ALL of which would be larger than 30% of his current hit. Retaining 30% would bring back a solid asset, and result in 4 years of dead cap, all at a lower number than the buyout dead cap rate.

So yeah, we should keep him. But IF we can't, Option A (smaller, shorter dead cap hit and a nice asset) is obviously the better route than Option B (longer, larger dead cap hit and nothing received in return).

I legit can't figure out why you've chosen this as your hill to die on, as there is no real logical argument for your position.

Hahaha, the only point i had was that id buy him out before id retain and i was thinking two years ahead and that would be draft capital vs cost to retain. I apologize for not framing my argument better.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I feel like Jim Benning got part of this theory down correctly.

The correct part:

-Have a grinder vet to put around the youngsters

The incorrect part:

-Overpay the vet
-Target the wrong vet
-Get three more vets because 4 is better than 1
-Run out of time at TDL regardless

homie was allergic to 2nd round picks

 

[HuGort]

As some have already mentioned here, the Rangers should be able to fit everyone w/ RFA bridge deals. However, if we instead decide we want to give Miller and Chytil LT deals, then that might be worth parting w/ Goodrow for, as those are contracts that could be absolute steals in a few years. Chytil alone is in the top 25 in ES/60 this yr and is likely on a 75-80p pace if given top PP time.

Miller going to hit jackpot this summer. Moving Goodrow not near enough.

 

[GAGLine]

Miller going to hit jackpot this summer. Moving Goodrow not near enough.

What do you think Miller will get?

 

[Mrfenn92]

Miller going to hit jackpot this summer. Moving Goodrow not near enough.

Bridge contract