When Do We Start the Clock on Goodrow?

[Valriera]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Teams game planned for that Isles line.  Teams game planned for platlyers lije Jordan Staal.

 

Teams game plan for nasty forwards that play physical. That's supposed to be Goodrow. It isn't.

 

Goodrows line is supposed to be a defensive checking line. It isn't. 

 

I can keep going. The line doesn't live up to the hype. What's its point? 

You are making the wrong argument. Goodrow is a very effective third line center playing on an effective third line that plays a defensive game while chipping in a goal or two here and there. He’s done it all year. You’re making up invalid statements like “bonino can replace him” which he obviously can’t, and “the line doesn’t live up to the hype” and “he’s minus 4”. None of these statements matter because even though they’re wrong, it’s not even the point of the thread here.
 

The argument to make is we don’t need to pay 3.65M for that. That’s a valid argument. You can make that argument by providing examples of other players in similar roles for less money about as effective. We don’t have any of those players but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

Let’s ask a different question. What would you pay 3.65M for? Bleuger, the canucks third line center hasn’t played more than 65 games in four years. No more than 28pts. That guy killed us last night. He makes 2M. Would you pay him 2.5 for the whole season? 
 

This is the conversation to have, not “Goodrow isn’t effective” and “we could replace him with someone on the team” Because he is effective and we have no replacement at center right now, he’s just very expensive.

[BrooksBurner]

31 minutes ago, Valriera said:

You are making the wrong argument. Goodrow is a very effective third line center playing on an effective third line that plays a defensive game while chipping in a goal or two here and there. He’s done it all year. You’re making up invalid statements like “bonino can replace him” which he obviously can’t, and “the line doesn’t live up to the hype” and “he’s minus 4”. None of these statements matter because even though they’re wrong, it’s not even the point of the thread here.
 

The argument to make is we don’t need to pay 3.65M for that. That’s a valid argument. You can make that argument by providing examples of other players in similar roles for less money about as effective. We don’t have any of those players but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

Let’s ask a different question. What would you pay 3.65M for? Bleuger, the canucks third line center hasn’t played more than 65 games in four years. No more than 28pts. That guy killed us last night. He makes 2M. Would you pay him 2.5 for the whole season? 
 

This is the conversation to have, not “Goodrow isn’t effective” and “we could replace him with someone on the team” Because he is effective and we have no replacement at center right now, he’s just very expensive.

 

If they clear out Goodrow's cap hit (via buy out), I would surely hope it isn't to take a big chunk of his cap and use it to find a slightly cheaper Goodrow who might be a little better. I think it's that you can take $800k of it and find a 4th line replacement who gives you about the same role, and the other $2.5M can be used to upgrade a more important spot. $2.5M could be the difference between affording a top 6 RW or not.

[Valriera]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

If they clear out Goodrow's cap hit (via buy out), I would surely hope it isn't to take a big chunk of his cap and use it to find a slightly cheaper Goodrow who might be a little better. I think it's that you can take $800k of it and find a 4th line replacement who gives you about the same role, and the other $2.5M can be used to upgrade a more important spot. $2.5M could be the difference between affording a top 6 RW or not.

 

I do too, but I don't know that this is so easy to find and pay for. Tampa tries to stockpile these types of players (Jeannot most recent example) and even though they struck gold on Goodrow and Coleman most recently, it's not working that much better than Goodrow is with Jeannot and Nick Paul. Nicolas Roy on VGK is at 3M for five years with similar or slightly better stats. Jordan Staal is on 2.9M with better contribution. These are a couple comparables. I think there are upgrades to be had but I don't think we should be thinking that this is going to be some massive cap savings or something. 

 

There are a lot of things that need to go right for us to find that replacement for significantly cheaper, and I think it's worth exploring, but asserting that we magically have a replacement is what I take contention with. We don't and our center depth is currently already terrible. 

 

The buyout option is one I also don't subscribe to. Nobody is going to trade for Goodrow so the option of Buyout + Cost of Acquisition for a 2C and bump Trochek down is less attractive to me than just keeping Goodrow. Unless we're going to make a play for a center in the 6M  range. Then OK. That's Brock Nelson/Adam Henrique/Cirelli territory. I think you could argue that this would make the team better if that level of player is available. But again, there's a lot of stuff that needs to go right. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Would they actually free up that much?

Id imagine it’s a real possibility that if they did move him, they’d have to retain salary to do it.

 

All depends on how he's moved. They wouldn't get the full amount if it's in-season, it would be prorated, and any retention or salary taken back would also eat into the room. The point I'm making isn't to nail down an exact figure but to illustrate that it's wild they're paying this much to a fourth-line staple on pace for like ten points on the year.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Valriera said:

You are making the wrong argument. Goodrow is a very effective third line center playing on an effective third line that plays a defensive game while chipping in a goal or two here and there. He’s done it all year. You’re making up invalid statements like “bonino can replace him” which he obviously can’t, and “the line doesn’t live up to the hype” and “he’s minus 4”. None of these statements matter because even though they’re wrong, it’s not even the point of the thread here.
 

The argument to make is we don’t need to pay 3.65M for that. That’s a valid argument. You can make that argument by providing examples of other players in similar roles for less money about as effective. We don’t have any of those players but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

Let’s ask a different question. What would you pay 3.65M for? Bleuger, the canucks third line center hasn’t played more than 65 games in four years. No more than 28pts. That guy killed us last night. He makes 2M. Would you pay him 2.5 for the whole season? 
 

This is the conversation to have, not “Goodrow isn’t effective” and “we could replace him with someone on the team” Because he is effective and we have no replacement at center right now, he’s just very expensive.

 

Except that Goodrow, this year, isn't effective. He wasn't even tapped to fill the third-line center you're labeling him as when Chytil went down. Instead, the team tapped a journeyman and career AHLer in Jonny Brodzinski while Goodrow remained on the fourth line averaging a career-low in ice time.

 

Bonino is literally outpacing him by a point or so, too, so if this is the version of Goodrow we're taking into account, then yes, Bonino can replace him.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Except that Goodrow, this year, isn't effective. He wasn't even tapped to fill the third-line center you're labeling him as when Chytil went down. Instead, the team tapped a journeyman and career AHLer in Jonny Brodzinski while Goodrow remained on the fourth line averaging a career-low in ice time.

 

Bonino is literally outpacing him by a point or so, too, so if this is the version of Goodrow we're taking into account, then yes, Bonino can replace him.

I have a different POV. I think he's been quite effective in the way he's been utilized. 70% plus D zone starts?

 

You can also argue that his line is the third line and that Bonino line is the fourth line. 

 

What keeps coming back to me is Goodrow starting the first game back with a shield on the opening face off and matched up against the other team's top line and Lavvy saying he wanted to show Goodrow how important he was to the team with that gesture. 

 

He's not a guy who gets you there, but he's a guy who gets you through. 

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

I have a different POV. I think he's been quite effective in the way he's been utilized. 70% plus D zone starts?

 

You can also argue that his line is the third line and that Bonino line is the fourth line. 

 

What keeps coming back to me is Goodrow starting the first game back with a shield on the opening face off and matched up against the other team's top line and Lavvy saying he wanted to show Goodrow how important he was to the team with that gesture. 

 

He's not a guy who gets you there, but he's a guy who gets you through. 

 

That's fair. I should revise and say that he's effective, he's just inefficient relative to the cap hit. It's financial, not physical.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's fair. I should revise and say that he's effective, he's just inefficient relative to the cap hit. It's financial, not physical.

I totally agree that he's overpaid for the way he's being used. But that's kind of on Lavvy as well.

 

You also have to remember his minutes are going to go down because Trocheck's are going up. He's somewhere around 16 minutes at even strength, 2 more minutes then Zib. That's a lot. That's also the coach's choice. 

[Albatrosss]

he's not going anywhere.  He's not here for the regular season, he's here for the playoffs.  

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

All depends on how he's moved. They wouldn't get the full amount if it's in-season, it would be prorated, and any retention or salary taken back would also eat into the room. The point I'm making isn't to nail down an exact figure but to illustrate that it's wild they're paying this much to a fourth-line staple on pace for like ten points on the year.

I’m thinking in order to get full salary going the other way, you’d need to sweeten the pot quite a bit.

 

While there’s no shortage of bad GM’s, the whole league knows he’s overpaid. 
 

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I’m thinking in order to get full salary going the other way, you’d need to sweeten the pot quite a bit.

 

While there’s no shortage of bad GM’s, the whole league knows he’s overpaid.

 

I get why you think that, but I'll just say that none of us actually know how much he's valued or not. Players are dealt in deals that leave us "shocked" in this manner all the time. The Oilers literally dumped both Kailer Yamamoto (3.1x2) and Klim Kostin (2x2) on Detroit for future considerations just this past summer.

 

Sometimes crazy things happen.

[Valriera]

46 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I get why you think that, but I'll just say that none of us actually know how much he's valued or not. Players are dealt in deals that leave us "shocked" in this manner all the time. The Oilers literally dumped both Kailer Yamamoto (3.1x2) and Klim Kostin (2x2) on Detroit for future considerations just this past summer.

 

Sometimes crazy things happen.

I do think that if it will ever happen, it is a deal like that.

[RangersIn7]

48 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I get why you think that, but I'll just say that none of us actually know how much he's valued or not. Players are dealt in deals that leave us "shocked" in this manner all the time. The Oilers literally dumped both Kailer Yamamoto (3.1x2) and Klim Kostin (2x2) on Detroit for future considerations just this past summer.

 

Sometimes crazy things happen.

Oh that’s fair and possible.

 I just don’t think we can hope for that. 

[Br4d]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

I totally agree that he's overpaid for the way he's being used. But that's kind of on Lavvy as well.

 

You also have to remember his minutes are going to go down because Trocheck's are going up. He's somewhere around 16 minutes at even strength, 2 more minutes then Zib. That's a lot. That's also the coach's choice. 

 

Trocheck is as good or better than Zibanejad at this point.  The linemates then should dictate 5v5 opportunity.

[Pete]

Just now, Br4d said:

 

Trocheck is as good or better than Zibanejad at this point.  The linemates then should dictate 5v5 opportunity.

I mean maybe? But Zib has more to give and Trocheck doesn't.

[Br4d]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I mean maybe? But Zib has more to give and Trocheck doesn't.

 

Then Zib maybe should start giving if he wants the minutes over Trocheck.

 

At some point Laviolette has to slap the entitled vet mentality down and you can't do that on lines 3 and 4.  That has to happen in the top 6.

[Pete]

Just now, Br4d said:

 

Then Zib maybe should start giving if he wants the minutes over Trocheck.

 

At some point Laviolette has to slap the entitled vet mentality down and you can't do that on lines 3 and 4.  That has to happen in the top 6.

I don't buy this nonsense one bit.

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, JHS said:

How then did the Rangers believe he was worth multiple million dollars?  You talk of this guy like he's the modern day version of the beeper...  I just think Barclay plays the type of game that sets a tone for the team, has the respect of his teammates and has good insight/perspective on what it take to win.  Is that worth his contract- yes if it brings a cup.- no it is not if it does not.

 

It's that simple.  If he helps bring a cup he is worth it.

The Rangers gave him that contract because they were desperate for a grit player that was deemed a part of Tampas cup win. They overpaid and they overpaid the wrong guy. Blake Coleman was the guy you overpay for. Not Goodrow. But Rangers gonna Rangers. 

 

I think the guy is vastly over rated by many fans here. People list these characteristics that they claim he has, yet can never cite examples of said characteristics in games.

 

The dream and idea of what he is supposed to represent is great. I wish he WAS all these great and needed things that people say he is. He just isn't showing it. 

 

He hasn’t been in your face. He hasn't been a pest. He hasn't agitated. He doesn't fight. He doesn't take retribution out on other teams. He doesn’t crash the net. He doesn't slide up the lineup when they need a wing or center.  

 

These are the things people say does. Please, in the next gamethread. Please someone point out something of these characteristics that Goodrow does. It's so few and far between now, that it just doesn't happen. Any of it. 

 

It was a bad signing for many many reasons. 

 

 

[Br4d]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't buy this nonsense one bit.

 

Watch the Bruins play.  Then watch the Rangers.

[Sharpshooter]

Goodrow disaster and the Buchnevich trade are Drury's worst moves.

[Br4d]

6 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Goodrow disaster and the Buchnevich trade are Drury's worst moves.

 

Agree on Buchnevich. 

 

The problem with calling out the Goodrow move is that it is one of the things that has allowed the Rangers to be competitive with a soft top 6.  Not the only thing by a large margin (Trouba/Lindgren) but one of the things.  You need a critical mass of players who are willing to get bloody if necessary or you get escorted off the ice by teams that are.

Edited January 9 by Br4d

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, Valriera said:

You are making the wrong argument. Goodrow is a very effective third line center playing on an effective third line that plays a defensive game while chipping in a goal or two here and there. He’s done it all year. You’re making up invalid statements like “bonino can replace him” which he obviously can’t, and “the line doesn’t live up to the hype” and “he’s minus 4”. None of these statements matter because even though they’re wrong, it’s not even the point of the thread here.
 

The argument to make is we don’t need to pay 3.65M for that. That’s a valid argument. You can make that argument by providing examples of other players in similar roles for less money about as effective. We don’t have any of those players but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

Let’s ask a different question. What would you pay 3.65M for? Bleuger, the canucks third line center hasn’t played more than 65 games in four years. No more than 28pts. That guy killed us last night. He makes 2M. Would you pay him 2.5 for the whole season? 
 

This is the conversation to have, not “Goodrow isn’t effective” and “we could replace him with someone on the team” Because he is effective and we have no replacement at center right now, he’s just very expensive.

I'm making the wrong argument? I'm making the argument that you don't want to hear. I can take this thread wherever I want as long as it is about Goodrow. 

 

There are guys here on this team that do what Goodrow does. Bonino has made a career of being a better Goodrow. He's better on draws, he blocks more shots and he has more points.  Goodrow has more hits. 

 

There's plenty of better ways to spend 3.6 million. 

 

Monahan- 1.5

Max Domi-  3 mill

Kerfoot- 3.5

Ryan Hartman- 1.7

Tatar- 1.5

 

There's better out there for less. You can't be serious. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sharpshooter]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Agree on Buchnevich. 

 

The problem with calling out the Goodrow move is that it is one of the things that has allowed the Rangers to be competitive with a soft top 6.  Not the only thing by a large margin (Trouba/Lindgren) but one of the things.  You need a critical mass of players who are willing to get bloody if necessary or you get escorted off the ice by teams that are.

Definitely true the first couple of years here, but the contract looks even worse now because of the complete non factor he's become. Is he just not a fit anymore with Laviolette and some of the roster? I don't know what else to attribute his ineffectiveness to.

[Br4d]

3 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Definitely true the first couple of years here, but the contract looks even worse now because of the complete non factor he's become. Is he just not a fit anymore with Laviolette and some of the roster? I don't know what else to attribute his ineffectiveness to.

 

His line has been good for most of the season.  The lack of scoring is a problem, like it was with Kakko.

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, Br4d said:

 

His line has been good for most of the season.  The lack of scoring is a problem, like it was with Kakko.

He was never really an offensive guy, but yeah, it's really dropped off. He only has one goal and maybe 4 or 5 points? His previous two seasons here he set careers highs in goals and points.