When Do We Start the Clock on Goodrow?

[Phil]

Let me preface this by saying I completely understood why Drury traded for his rights and re-signed him when and how he did. At $3.6 million, he was always at the ceiling of his value, but the team was desperate for the kind of physical foot soldiers with leadership qualities he brought. It's no coincidence he's wearing an A for the team, for example, and that every report on him signals how well-liked and respected he is in the room. He also made right by his cap hit in both of his first two years here (33 and 31 points respectively).

 

Problem is, the slide has begun earlier than they probably anticipated (4 points in 36 games, on pace for 9 with a career-worst 0.11 P/GP). Under most circumstances, a bad year is a bad year, but with how pressed the club is for cap room, this feels like a wallet versus heart battle the player is destined to lose. On top of this, the writing feels like it's been on the wall here for a while now:

 

• The team already "gauged interest" (AKA tried to trade him) this past summer.
• His TOI/G has been slowly but steadily declining year-over-year. He's gone from 16:43 (year one) to 14:10 last season to just 12:34 this year.
• His role on the team has also reduced over the same time frame. Just three years in, he's now exclusively a fourth-line staple. When Chytil went down this year, for example, it wasn't Goodrow, but career AHLer Jonny Brodzinski who the team looked to to back fill a third-line center role that, on paper, Goodrow should have been penciled in for. Not great for a guy billed as a player you can play anywhere in a pinch.
• His deal was always structured in a way designed to give the team an out in either year five or six when his salary drops relative to his cap hit.

 

None of this is to shit on the player but to illustrate that for what he actually brings, it just doesn't feel comfortable continuing to pay a fourth-liner 4x what other guys around him are getting to give you basically the same thing. Nick Bonino is on pace for 11 points, for example, and does all the things Goodrow does (except skate) for a fraction of the cost.

 

Goodrow is set to make $5 million in actual salary next year, which tells me that this is maybe a year ahead of schedule, but it definitely feels like the clock is ticking here.

[Cash or Czech]

The clock probably runs out next year based on how this post-season goes. Another factor will be what the cap looks like and what holes we need to fill/what options to fill those wholes are. He'll certainly be the first cap casualty when we need space. At least we won't need to clear space for Kakko at this point.

[Ozzy]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

Let me preface this by saying I completely understood why Drury traded for his rights and re-signed him when and how he did. At $3.6 million, he was always at the ceiling of his value, but the team was desperate for the kind of physical foot soldiers with leadership qualities he brought. It's no coincidence he's wearing an A for the team, for example, and that every report on him signals how well-liked and respected he is in the room. He also made right by his cap hit in both of his first two years here (33 and 31 points respectively).

 

Problem is, the slide has begun earlier than they probably anticipated (4 points in 36 games, on pace for 9 with a career-worst 0.11 P/GP). Under most circumstances, a bad year is a bad year, but with how pressed the club is for cap room, this feels like a wallet versus heart battle the player is destined to lose. On top of this, the writing feels like it's been on the wall here for a while now:

 

• The team already "gauged interest" (AKA tried to trade him) this past summer.
• His TOI/G has been slowly but steadily declining year-over-year. He's gone from 16:43 (year one) to 14:10 last season to just 12:34 this year.
• His role on the team has also reduced over the same time frame. Just three years in, he's now exclusively a fourth-line staple. When Chytil went down this year, for example, it wasn't Goodrow, but career AHLer Jonny Brodzinski who the team looked to to back fill a third-line center role that, on paper, Goodrow should have been penciled in for. Not great for a guy billed as a player you can play anywhere in a pinch.
• His deal was always structured in a way designed to give the team an out in either year five or six when his salary drops relative to his cap hit.

 

None of this is to shit on the player but to illustrate that for what he actually brings, it just doesn't feel comfortable continuing to pay a fourth-liner 4x what other guys around him are getting to give you basically the same thing. Nick Bonino is on pace for 11 points, for example, and does all the things Goodrow does (except skate) for a fraction of the cost.

 

Goodrow is set to make $5 million in actual salary next year, which tells me that this is maybe a year ahead of schedule, but it definitely feels like the clock is ticking here.

 

As a guy who's bought into Goodrow, I have to say that some of the arguments listed are valid.  I like his toughness and his experience, but seeing the last few weeks how much we've needed to have guys step up, we didn't lead with him, as stated above.

 

If we are going to indeed trade him, we could at least get something back that would be in the form of something we need, like a true 3rd line Center or hopefully a RW that skates hard with some speed and some balls.

 

I'll be all in if we can make the team better with that type of deal.

[Sod16]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

it just doesn't feel comfortable continuing to pay a fourth-liner 4x what other guys around him are getting to give you basically the same thing.

Well, exactly, but no one else is going to feel comfortable paying what he makes or swallowing his cap hit either.  A fourth line player in decline, with a $3.6m cap hit and a 15 team no trade list can't be moved without retaining half his cap hit, and maybe not even then.  If you are retaining half his cap hit, that plus the cap hit of his replacement on the roster would probably be close to your cap hit if you keep him.  It's just a bad situation and there's no easy way out.  It may be similar to the Brendan Smith situation, where they ended up keeping him for the duration of his contract and taking a $4.2m cap hit for what became a 4th line forward.

[Albatrosss]

i'd see how he does in the playoffs.  If this team is to go all the way, he has to step up and contribute when Panarin's line gets shut down and Zib/CK become invisible again.  

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

Well, exactly, but no one else is going to feel comfortable paying what he makes or swallowing his cap hit either.  A fourth line player in decline, with a $3.6m cap hit and a 15 team no trade list can't be moved without retaining half his cap hit, and maybe not even then.  If you are retaining half his cap hit, that plus the cap hit of his replacement on the roster would probably be close to your cap hit if you keep him.  It's just a bad situation and there's no easy way out.  It may be similar to the Brendan Smith situation, where they ended up keeping him for the duration of his contract and taking a $4.2m cap hit for what became a 4th line forward.

 

If this is the case, there's another path: buyout.

 

A buyout this summer would run for six years (twice the remaining years) but would leave the team with a cap credit for 2024-25 (-$247,222) and just one season (2026-27) with an ugly penalty ($3,502,778).

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Sod16 said:

Well, exactly, but no one else is going to feel comfortable paying what he makes or swallowing his cap hit either.  A fourth line player in decline, with a $3.6m cap hit and a 15 team no trade list can't be moved without retaining half his cap hit, and maybe not even then.  If you are retaining half his cap hit, that plus the cap hit of his replacement on the roster would probably be close to your cap hit if you keep him.  It's just a bad situation and there's no easy way out.  It may be similar to the Brendan Smith situation, where they ended up keeping him for the duration of his contract and taking a $4.2m cap hit for what became a 4th line forward.

It's this.

 

Contract is a poison pill. Can't trade him without retention, which makes trading him pointless. Buyout is ugly too. 

 

There's also no evidence that the team wants to get rid of him. Vince debunked the idea that they explored trading him this summer. He repeatedly said it wasn't going to happen. 

[Long live the King]

I'd think a team like Chicago that's gonna need vets leaders and help getting to the cap floor would be interested this summer.

[The Dude]

Only way to move him is if they take a disappointment back in return. 

 

 

They tried to shop him before this season as per Vince and his comments that the league had chatter about them looking to move him or buy him out. I guess Laviolette didn't buy in on the Goodrow hype from the get go. Just odd they kept him as one if the 15 Alternate captains.  

[The Dude]

2 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

I'd think a team like Chicago that's gonna need vets leaders and help getting to the cap floor would be interested this summer.

Probably on his no trade list though. 

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

I'd think a team like Chicago that's gonna need vets leaders and help getting to the cap floor would be interested this summer.

They're probably on his NT list and I have no interest in adding a pot sweetener. 

[BrooksBurner]

If you asked me 3 years ago who would have given him 6 years at his cap hit, I'd have said probably nobody. But good ol' Drury did, didn't he? Some GMs do dumb stuff. So maybe 3 years at the same hit can find a taker for a young/middling team that is starving for veteran presence with a winning background.

 

I frequently see suggestions of a Goodrow buyout. I'm not a fan of that route. In my view, it's either find someone to take him for free, or at low cost (4th-5th round pick?), or he's an expensive bottom 6 player for a couple more years before he's easier to cap dump via trade. I don't think the Rangers have an issue or cap problem here, because the guys who are up for contracts are not making it a problem. Kakko, Lindgren, and Schneider are not tracking to be expensive right now. There is going to be plenty of cap to carry a player overpaid by a couple million.

Edited January 8 by BrooksBurner

[Valriera]

You need generals at every rank of the army and Goodrow is the general of the bottom six. The only reason this looks like it sucks this year is because we also have Bonino and Wheeler, who could fill that role in a worse way, but fill it.

 

Goodrow is not producing but he can still skate. I think despite the lack of production, that line he centers has been excellent all year and a very consistent checking line, which we'll need to win in both the regular season and the playoffs. Sure, he hasn't put up the points, but Vesey has in that line, and a large part of that is because of the play of the whole line. It's not like Vesey is a superstar in the making here carrying play. 

 

Goodrow is also 55.6% in the dot this season, . 

 

But yeah, he's overpaid by a bit. 

 

I think if I'm looking to dump cap, it's actually Kreider before this guy, with the team as-is. The reason why is mainly if you lose Goodrow we have literal AHL options for our bottom two center lines. Goodrow may not be producing but he's an NHL quality bottom 9 center. The options beyond that are really rough. Who are we replacing him with at his cap? I think there is not a great option. Kreider's money, on the other hand, could be used to replace Chytil, sliding Trochek down, and then you begin to have room to move on from Goodrow, but not before. I'd much rather do nothing and keep him here then try to replace him for the same amount of money with someone equally good or better. Slim chance. I think any move with Goodrow has to be predicated on Trochek sliding back down to 3c. It's a tough market. 

 

If I'm pressed for Cap room, it's probably Kreider who I play with moving before Goodrow just because the market for him is going to be way better and the team as-currently constructed can backfill LW, where we cannot backfill center with...checks notes... Bonino and Brodzinski? No thank you 

 

Edited January 8 by Valriera

[siddious]

… I have to be honest i almost completely forgot he was on this team. 

[Phil]

42 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's this.

 

Contract is a poison pill. Can't trade him without retention, which makes trading him pointless. Buyout is ugly too. 

 

There's also no evidence that the team wants to get rid of him. Vince debunked the idea that they explored trading him this summer. He repeatedly said it wasn't going to happen. 

 

Only for a year. Depends on when you buy him out, too.

 

If they do it this summer, it's a cap credit this summer, and really only one ugly year at like $3.5 million penalty. Everything else is like $1M and change.

[RichieNextel305]

For a while, I didn’t see this being realistic. I’m a Goodrow fan. I like what he brings while acknowledging he is making more than he should be making at this stage. However, with the emergence of Cuylle at this stage, and with Vesey being as effective as he has been at his price tag and having guys here in the moment like Bonino and Pitlick making what they’re making, and factoring in Kakko likely being in the Bottom-6, there are a lot of factors where you can see Goodrow being an expensive asset for a position of strength of ours.

 

I do think this team needs help for a winger for the Mika/Kreider line. I just don’t think Wheeler is it (sorry Dude). Maybe Othmann gets a look there? Who knows? I think another avenue, a potential extremely attractive avenue, could exist near the deadline in the person of Elias Lindholm. Getting him would make the Rangers extremely deep going down the middle into the playoffs. But to do something like that, you may need to see the viability of shedding Goodrow not just financially but because of space in the Bottom-6. With Kakko coming back soon, the idea of having a 3rd line of Lindholm centering Kakko and Cuylle is dynamite. And scary. And then a 4th line where you still have talent and experience in Bonino centering Pitlick and Vesey? I know I’m getting ahead of myself, but to me, that is a scary big move the Rangers can do to really lengthen out the lineup. And as much as I like Goodrow, I do think there close to the point where his help with this team may be nearing the end, simply due to the fact we have other cheaper options.

 

I’m typically the person that doesn’t want to shake the boat when it comes to a locker room. And Goodrow is no doubt a leader. And he’s won a Cup and he’s been there and that matters, whether we think it does or not. To me, that makes it a tricky spot. But one that, should it ever come to fruition, I think we would be okay because we still have solid veterans in the room with plenty of experience.

Edited January 8 by RichieNextel305

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

I'd think a team like Chicago that's gonna need vets leaders and help getting to the cap floor would be interested this summer.

 

Yeah, I mentioned the same in a group chat I'm in. I get the default position of "veteran player isn't saying yes to rebuilding team," but Chicago aren't quite the same as every other rebuilding team. It's also a huge market, original six franchise with deep history, and is a mega metropolis people want to live in.

 

Goodrow, in theory, is what they want/need to surround Bedard (and potentially Macklin Celebrini) with. They tried (and mostly failed) this summer with Hall, Johnson, and Foligno. Of that list, Foligno is probably the only one coming back.

 

Compare this to, say, San Jose, and you can see a stark difference in why someone like him might be OK with the Hawks but not be OK with the Sharks.

 

This is all just guessing, obviously, but it does feel like there's a stronger argument for Chicago than any other rebuilding market at the moment.

[Phil]

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

If you asked me 3 years ago who would have given him 6 years at his cap hit, I'd have said probably nobody. But good ol' Drury did, didn't he? Some GMs do dumb stuff. So maybe 3 years at the same hit can find a taker for a young/middling team that is starving for veteran presence with a winning background.

 

I frequently see suggestions of a Goodrow buyout. I'm not a fan of that route. In my view, it's either find someone to take him for free, or at low cost (4th-5th round pick?), or he's an expensive bottom 6 player for a couple more years before he's easier to cap dump via trade. I don't think the Rangers have an issue or cap problem here, because the guys who are up for contracts are not making it a problem. Kakko, Lindgren, and Schneider are not tracking to be expensive right now. There is going to be plenty of cap to carry a player overpaid by a couple million.

 

Not to hijack the thread, but one of these things is not like the other. Lindgren may not put up heavy points, but he's an undeniable first-pairing defenseman with a warrior's mentality. He's also a year away from UFA with a couple of clear comparables in Pelech (5.75x8 signed at 26), Cernak (5.2x8 signed at 26), and Pulock (6.15x8 signed at 27).

 

In other words, he's probably getting $5.5x8.

 

But I do agree overall that this might be more of a next year problem than it is a this year one. Especially because Goodrow's deal drops in actual dollars after next season.

[Phil]

22 minutes ago, Valriera said:

You need generals at every rank of the army and Goodrow is the general of the bottom six. The only reason this looks like it sucks this year is because we also have Bonino and Wheeler, who could fill that role in a worse way, but fill it.

 

Goodrow is not producing but he can still skate. I think despite the lack of production, that line he centers has been excellent all year and a very consistent checking line, which we'll need to win in both the regular season and the playoffs. Sure, he hasn't put up the points, but Vesey has in that line, and a large part of that is because of the play of the whole line. It's not like Vesey is a superstar in the making here carrying play. 

 

Goodrow is also 55.6% in the dot this season, . 

 

But yeah, he's overpaid by a bit. 

 

I think if I'm looking to dump cap, it's actually Kreider before this guy, with the team as-is. The reason why is mainly if you lose Goodrow we have literal AHL options for our bottom two center lines. Goodrow may not be producing but he's an NHL quality bottom 9 center. The options beyond that are really rough. Who are we replacing him with at his cap? I think there is not a great option. Kreider's money, on the other hand, could be used to replace Chytil, sliding Trochek down, and then you begin to have room to move on from Goodrow, but not before. I'd much rather do nothing and keep him here then try to replace him for the same amount of money with someone equally good or better. Slim chance. I think any move with Goodrow has to be predicated on Trochek sliding back down to 3c. It's a tough market. 

 

If I'm pressed for Cap room, it's probably Kreider who I play with moving before Goodrow just because the market for him is going to be way better and the team as-currently constructed can backfill LW, where we cannot backfill center with...checks notes... Bonino and Brodzinski? No thank you 

 

 

The team can back fill LW, but sure as hell won't back fill those goals you're about to push out the door. Also, get ready to precipitously lose the best power play in the league.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but the idea of keeping a fourth-liner at 4x his market value over a top-line winger, guaranteed 30-goal scorer, and the best net-front presence in the league at probably under his market value is... crazy.

[Valriera]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The team can back fill LW, but sure as hell won't back fill those goals you're about to push out the door. Also, get ready to precipitously lose the best power play in the league.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but the idea of keeping a fourth-liner at 4x his market value over a top-line winger, guaranteed 30-goal scorer, and the best net-front presence in the league at probably under his market value is... crazy.

No it’s not. Kreider is a 20g forward on any other team without Fox and panarin on the powerplay. He doesn’t drive play, possession, or anything. He’s not any sort of net front presence not on the powerplay. We all know this from watching his ass every game. He actively is a weight 5v5. Yes, our powerplay gets worse. That’s about it. Hardly crazy when you weigh that someone will buy his goals whereas nobody is buying goodrow. When you’re weighing buyout vs productive trade I don’t think it’s crazy at all. 
 

You’re right, we’re going to lose some powerplay goals if make that move. Maybe we’re down ten powerplay goals that another player wouldn’t get. That’s a lot. I think you could probably make better use of those ten missing goals elsewhere on the team than the buyout that would be required from goodrow.

 

Anyway kreider is obviously not getting traded so it’s moot 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Valriera said:

No it’s not. Kreider is a 20g forward on any other team without Fox and panarin on the powerplay. He doesn’t drive play, possession, or anything. He’s not any sort of net front presence not on the powerplay. We all know this from watching his ass every game. He actively is a weight 5v5. Yes, our powerplay gets worse. That’s about it. Hardly crazy when you weigh that someone will buy his goals whereas nobody is buying goodrow. When you’re weighing buyout vs productive trade I don’t think it’s crazy at all. 
 

You’re right, we’re going to lose some powerplay goals if make that move. Maybe we’re down ten powerplay goals that another player wouldn’t get. That’s a lot. I think you could probably make better use of those ten missing goals elsewhere on the team than the buyout that would be required from goodrow.

 

Anyway kreider is obviously not getting traded so it’s moot 

 

...none of this matters. On any team trading for him, guess why they're doing it and where they're gonna play him? What team is trading for him to play him on their third line with no PP time? This is a pointless hypothetical/scenario.

 

As to Goodrow, I already posted it twice now: if no one is buying, which I don't buy the premise of, but will accept for the sake of argument, then buy him out. IMO there are realistic exit strategies on his deal that don't rob Peter to pay Paul (like trading Kreider).

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Not to hijack the thread, but one of these things is not like the other. Lindgren may not put up heavy points, but he's an undeniable first-pairing defenseman with a warrior's mentality. He's also a year away from UFA with a couple of clear comparables in Pelech (5.75x8 signed at 26), Cernak (5.2x8 signed at 26), and Pulock (6.15x8 signed at 27).

 

In other words, he's probably getting $5.5x8.

 

But I do agree overall that this might be more of a next year problem than it is a this year one. Especially because Goodrow's deal drops in actual dollars after next season.

You might be right, but I think Lindgren has regressed some this season. He’s first pairing because he is Fox’s pal, not because he’s a first pairing quality defenseman. It’s going to be a tough negotiation because I’m sure the franchise respects the hell out of this guy, and they should, but he’s closer to a $4M guy than a $6M guy. Either way, whether he’s 4.5 or 5.5 doesn’t really change the optics for next season. They have a load of cap. 2025 summer might get dicey, but I haven’t looked that far out.

[RJWantsTheCup]

He’s here for the playoffs 

[Phil]

39 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You might be right, but I think Lindgren has regressed some this season. He’s first pairing because he is Fox’s pal, not because he’s a first pairing quality defenseman. It’s going to be a tough negotiation because I’m sure the franchise respects the hell out of this guy, and they should, but he’s closer to a $4M guy than a $6M guy. Either way, whether he’s 4.5 or 5.5 doesn’t really change the optics for next season. They have a load of cap. 2025 summer might get dicey, but I haven’t looked that far out.

 

Agreed, but I still think the market is mostly set. He's not cheap after this.

[LindG1000]

I think he's bought out after this season if they can't trade him. There's absolutely nothing onerous about that buyout, the credit helps a little, and by the time that one big year comes, the cap will be ~100m. 

 

They'll be able to build a far better team with 18m in cap space and just two contracts of note to renew - neither of which will be very big - than with Goodrow on board. 

 

Clocks already ticking, and I'd bet on him not being on the roster come October.