confirmed: Rangers Acquire Rights to Barclay Goodrow from TBL for a 2022 7th

I get that, but again, Goodrow was reportedly nterested in signing here. Pickng up Gourde would have meant needing to trade someone like Chytil to Tampa in the deal, which they may not have wanted to do, for whatever the reason.

Gourde means goodbye to strome +. In a vacuum that's fine because I'd rather have a cost controlled Gourde but it's the + they would want. I dont even think they would want Strome but cap wise he would have to go in a separate deal just to be under with our other necessary signings/moves this offseason. Plus we could lose him anyway as well no? Didn't he waive his ntc?

I get that, but again, Goodrow was reportedly nterested in signing here. Pickng up Gourde would have meant needing to trade someone like Chytil to Tampa in the deal, which they may not have wanted to do, for whatever the reason.

Gourde is under contract and exposed in the expansion draft. He's almost certainly being selected by Seattle. Gourde at $5million is a better deal and a way better player. He also is an actual center and produces average 20 goals 50plus points

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/yanni-gourde-8476826

It's most likely just a matter of hindsight.

 

Rangers didn't know Gourde was available at the same time Tampa didn't know that the Rangers were about to spend 4 million on Goodrow.

 

It really is a no-brainer to have Gourde at $5M instead.

 

Excuse me, I need to go punch myself in the face again.

Where was it mentioned he was interested in signing here?

 

Not that I don’t believe it. I’ve just seen it mentioned before and not seen it any articles or anything.

 

I think Goodrow will be good here.

It's most likely just a matter of hindsight.

 

Rangers didn't know Gourde was available at the same time Tampa didn't know that the Rangers were about to spend 4 million on Goodrow.

 

It really is a no-brainer to have Gourde at $5M instead.

 

Excuse me, I need to go punch myself in the face again.

Need help? lol

Surely TB would’ve not said no to 1st rd pick for Gourde instead of losing him for nothing.

I’d love to find out if Drury dropped the ball on this

I was going to ask the same question the first time he said it.. lol

Kept my hands in the pockets.

Need help? lol

Surely TB would’ve not said no to 1st rd pick for Gourde instead of losing him for nothing

They wouldn't have said no to whatever we gave them for Goodrow. They knew they were losing both players and not getting anything in return...why not flip both?

 

Because of Gourde's cap hit, not many teams could have afforded him without giving money back...But now the Rangers giving Goodrow 4 when they could have had Gourde for 5 makes little sense to me.

They wouldn't have said no to whatever we gave them for Goodrow. They knew they were losing both players and not getting anything in return...why not flip both?

 

Because of Gourde's cap hit, not many teams could have afforded him without giving money back...But now the Rangers giving Goodrow 4 when they could have had Gourde for 5 makes little sense to me.

 

Trading for Gourde and exposing Strome. I’d hate to find out that the Eagle nose fucked up on this

 

Sorry Peetie

It's most likely just a matter of hindsight.

 

Rangers didn't know Gourde was available at the same time Tampa didn't know that the Rangers were about to spend 4 million on Goodrow.

 

It really is a no-brainer to have Gourde at $5M instead.

 

Excuse me, I need to go punch myself in the face again.

 

Well, there's also expansion to worry about there. They knew Goodrow was UFA so the cost for the negotiations window was paltry compared to what the cost for Gourde may have been and whether or not it may have blown up their protection plans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well, there's also expansion to worry about there. They knew Goodrow was UFA so the cost for the negotiations window was paltry compared to what the cost for Gourde may have been and whether or not it may have blown up their protection plans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Could be yeah, they would have to protect Gourde and don't have to protect Goodrow.

Well, there's also expansion to worry about there. They knew Goodrow was UFA so the cost for the negotiations window was paltry compared to what the cost for Gourde may have been and whether or not it may have blown up their protection plans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

That's my understanding of it. If you trade for Gourde but have to expose him then what's the sense of trading for him? In other news, there is no reason the rangers couldn't call up Seattle right after and say Strome + for Gourde and tell me what the + is....or hell, move Strome to Rw whi h he's played before and offer Buch +

Where was it mentioned he was interested in signing here?

 

Not that I don’t believe it. I’ve just seen it mentioned before and not seen it any articles or anything.

 

I think Goodrow will be good here.

 

Link:

That's my understanding of it. If you tease for Gourde but have to expose him then what's thr sense of trading for him? In other news, there is no reason the rangers couldn't call up Seattle right after and say Strome + for Gourde and tell me what the + is....

Why would we need to add anything to that?

This maybe for another thread, but i think we have a lot more work to do even know we got 1 of many pc to go.

Kreider on a third line with 6.5 cap, he maybe what we need, but with that cap it wont work.

Trouba 8 mill, even know he brings toughness. With that Cap we can get all around player.

Buch with a raise coming up…

 

Drury has his work cut out for him self.

The team needs complete physical and financial restructure.

Could be yeah, they would have to protect Gourde and don't have to protect Goodrow.

 

Right, and that's accounting for Howden still gone. I'm not sure it's as straight ahead as we think. Not to mention, whatever going to Tampa would have needed to be exposed for them, unless the Rangers were trading exempt players and/or picks. But that would only have meant the Rangers needing another trade to move a body they'd lose for nothing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Why would we need to add anything to that?

 

There is something very valuable to teams line us for cap controlled players moreso than a team starting from scratch with a boat load of players to chose from. I'm not suggesting an A prospect or anything. Just might be a future

Right, and that's accounting for Howden still gone. I'm not sure it's as straight ahead as we think. Not to mention, whatever going to Tampa would have needed to be exposed for them, unless the Rangers were trading exempt players and/or picks. But that would only have meant the Rangers needing another trade to move a body they'd lose for nothing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Or exposing Rooney in favor or Gourde after trading for him. Surely Tampa would have taken a pick or a mid tier prospect for him. So yeah adding Gourde would have meant Rooney being exposed. I don't think losing Rooney over Blackwell or Gauthier really matters, do you? You can only lose one.

 

Drury should have went after Gourde, he's the perfect third line center they are looking for and it would have cost very little. Yes Chytil would eventually be moved. Probably could move him for better picks and prospects you traded for Gourde. In reality the Rangers would not be rushed into moving anyone other than ice time.

Gourde is one of those opportunities that Eagle Nose might’ve missed. Rangers would’ve jumped a few notches with Goodrow and Gourde on the roster

They wouldn't have said no to whatever we gave them for Goodrow. They knew they were losing both players and not getting anything in return...why not flip both?

 

Because of Gourde's cap hit, not many teams could have afforded him without giving money back...But now the Rangers giving Goodrow 4 when they could have had Gourde for 5 makes little sense to me.

 

The answer is 30 pounds and 5 inches for 1.5M less.

I think adding what Goodrow brings is THE priority of the off-season.

 

No sense complaining after they moved a 7th for him.

The answer is 30 pounds and 5 inches for 1.5M less.

 

Thats what she said?

Or exposing Rooney in favor or Gourde after trading for him. Surely Tampa would have taken a pick or a mid tier prospect for him. So yeah adding Gourde would have meant Rooney being exposed. I don't think losing Rooney over Blackwell or Gauthier really matters, do you? You can only lose one.

 

Drury should have went after Gourde, he's the perfect third line center they are looking for and it would have cost very little. Yes Chytil would eventually be moved. Probably could move him for better picks and prospects you traded for Gourde. In reality the Rangers would not be rushed into moving anyone other than ice time.

 

No, probably not, but we don't really know what was truly available here. In a vacuum, yes, I'd rather have Gourde, but he also was likely expressly more expensive to get. Goodrow they knew they were losing in free agency, regardless. Gourde, there's a chance, however small, they won't actually lose after all. They could be working a side deal as we speak to ensure it.

 

Goodrow was available and showed interest in signing here. Gourde is a complete unknown.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that Tampa will lose Gourde in the expansion draft.

 

I'd guess they have a side-deal in place to move Seattle toward Killorn or Johnson, which probably means Gourde's value isn't "well, fuck, we're losing him for nothing anyway" levels.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that Tampa will lose Gourde in the expansion draft.

 

I'd guess they have a side-deal in place to move Seattle toward Killorn or Johnson, which probably means Gourde's value isn't "well, fuck, we're losing him for nothing anyway" levels.

 

Johnson, specifically. I agree.