When Do We Start the Clock on Goodrow?

[Br4d]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

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.

 

Laviolette is using that line in the defensive zone mostly.  Goodrow has 26% offensive zone starts.  Not an excuse but a reality of where play is most of the time for Goodrow.

 

 

[Pete]

24 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Watch the Bruins play.  Then watch the Rangers.

That has nothing to do with what you said about entitled mentality. I don't buy it. 

[Br4d]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

That has nothing to do with what you said about entitled mentality. I don't buy it. 

 

Watch the 'Canes play then watch the Rangers.

[Pete]

Just now, Br4d said:

 

Watch the 'Canes play then watch the Rangers.

You can list whatever team you want, I don't care. I don't think the veterans on this team are entitled at all.

 

The one who would be closest would be Kreider. Not Zib. Zib gives effort. He gives a shit. Kreider not so much. I've never seen a guy give so little effort during the game and then treat the press like a bunch of jerk offs afterwards. It's maybe Kevin Hayes level.  

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

You can list whatever team you want, I don't care. I don't think the veterans on this team are entitled at all.

 

The one who would be closest would be Kreider. Not Zib. Zib gives effort. He gives a shit. Kreider not so much. I've never seen a guy give so little effort during the game and then treat the press like a bunch of jerk offs afterwards. It's maybe Kevin Hayes level.  

 

I didn't name names.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I didn't name names.

Do me a favor and reread the first sentence for me?

 

 

 

[JHS]

14 hours ago, The Dude said:

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. 

 

 

The reason people can't site specific examples like " oh what a great pass he made" is he's not that kind of player.  His contributions to a game are less obvious but when they are combined together he makes meaningful contributions often.  Like small things like having his stick in a good place, taking good angels to a puck, finishing checks, knowing how to backcheck effectively-- none of those things are elements 99% of the viewing audience is going to pick up on but 100% of hockey coaches and certainly NHL people know are incredibly valuable.  

 

It's not easy to evaluate guys like Barclay.  Your assumption of why they signed him is flawed-- they needed veteran leadership who had been through playoff runs--which he had.  They were not "desperate" for anything-- they already had grit players but they did not have a bunch of guys who had been through long playoff runs.  They 100% overpaid him and there is no way to deny that but the fact that he got a lot of money is not his fault and it's entirely unfair to say that he has not lived up to his contract-- one that the Rangers felt he earned.  

 

He's done exactly what they wanted him to do and been a piece to this team's rise.  If you can't see that or appreciate his contributions than I'm afraid there is not much anyone can do to help you there.  Just try and see Barclay for what he is and stop trying to evaluate him based on what he's getting paid.

[fletch]

19 hours 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'd argue that for roster construction production in the top 6 forwards (goals, assists) is higher priority than third and fourth lines, who get less ice time and expected to play more of a role in negating opponent scoring threats, contributing to penalty kill, and in specialized situations (winning a faceoff in the defensive zone with less than a minute and ahead by one).  The Panarin-Trocheck-Laf line has been the most consistent line in scoring with the Kreider-Zib line having a rotating wing, mostly Wheeler (and being stronger in a two-way role shutting down opposition in defensive zone).  Maybe you slot Kakko in that role, maybe you can find a solution other than Wheeler on the roster, in the minors, or by freeing up space via moving Goodrow.  I'm also assuming Chytil is done for at least the year, and hoping that he can make it back.  There are more NHL players that are plus players in third and fourth line roles that come cheaper than Goodrow.  Given what we've seen, it's reasonable to consider whether moving Goodrow can benefit roster construction.

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, JHS said:

The reason people can't site specific examples like " oh what a great pass he made" is he's not that kind of player.  His contributions to a game are less obvious but when they are combined together he makes meaningful contributions often.  Like small things like having his stick in a good place, taking good angels to a puck, finishing checks, knowing how to backcheck effectively-- none of those things are elements 99% of the viewing audience is going to pick up on but 100% of hockey coaches and certainly NHL people know are incredibly valuable.  

 

It's not easy to evaluate guys like Barclay.  Your assumption of why they signed him is flawed-- they needed veteran leadership who had been through playoff runs--which he had.  They were not "desperate" for anything-- they already had grit players but they did not have a bunch of guys who had been through long playoff runs.  They 100% overpaid him and there is no way to deny that but the fact that he got a lot of money is not his fault and it's entirely unfair to say that he has not lived up to his contract-- one that the Rangers felt he earned.  

 

He's done exactly what they wanted him to do and been a piece to this team's rise.  If you can't see that or appreciate his contributions than I'm afraid there is not much anyone can do to help you there.  Just try and see Barclay for what he is and stop trying to evaluate him based on what he's getting paid.

As I said. Please point out- in game threads moving forward-... the list of things you say he does.  The grit, the toughness,  the defensive plays. Don't get all "only a hockey coach knows what I'm talking about " stuff. 

It's very easy to see that these great intangibles that you staple to this guy. 

 

They weren't desperate? They got him and signed old man Reaves right after. They were totally desperate for grit after the Tom Wilson fiasco. They had no grit. None. Do you remember who fought for the Rangers on that line brawl in the next match up against Washington? Ryan Strome, Blackwell, Rooney and i don't remember the D men.

 

So, come off it. They didn't have any toughness.  Its probably a big reason why JD and Gorton were fired. They didn't want to pay these tyoe of guys at that time because of their price tags. Turns out they were right. They traded or waived Reaves and now they are hoping to get out of Goodrows bad deal. And for what? To replace Buchnevich.  They guy they dumped to sign Goodrow and Nemeth. 

 

I'm not blaming Goodrow for getting big bucks. Not sure why youre harping on this part of it. I'm blaming Goodrow for not being very effective. This year especially. It's not like I'm the only one saying so. Nor is this limited to Ranger fans. There's a reason why there's talk about him. 

 

 

[Pete]

They're called "intangibles" for a reason. 

[The Dude]

28 minutes ago, Pete said:

They're called "intangibles" for a reason. 

You don't pay for them for a reason. 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You don't pay for them for a reason. 

You actually do pay for them lol. That's the point. 

[JHS]

44 minutes ago, The Dude said:

As I said. Please point out- in game threads moving forward-... the list of things you say he does.  The grit, the toughness,  the defensive plays. Don't get all "only a hockey coach knows what I'm talking about " stuff. 

It's very easy to see that these great intangibles that you staple to this guy. 

 

They weren't desperate? They got him and signed old man Reaves right after. They were totally desperate for grit after the Tom Wilson fiasco. They had no grit. None. Do you remember who fought for the Rangers on that line brawl in the next match up against Washington? Ryan Strome, Blackwell, Rooney and i don't remember the D men.

 

So, come off it. They didn't have any toughness.  Its probably a big reason why JD and Gorton were fired. They didn't want to pay these tyoe of guys at that time because of their price tags. Turns out they were right. They traded or waived Reaves and now they are hoping to get out of Goodrows bad deal. And for what? To replace Buchnevich.  They guy they dumped to sign Goodrow and Nemeth. 

 

I'm not blaming Goodrow for getting big bucks. Not sure why youre harping on this part of it. I'm blaming Goodrow for not being very effective. This year especially. It's not like I'm the only one saying so. Nor is this limited to Ranger fans. There's a reason why there's talk about him. 

 

 

 

Wait- you say he's not tough( one of the intangibles) but then say he added to the toughness of the collective team after the Wilson incident.  I'm confused by your circular logic.  

 

As far as an example of his toughness- the guy is currently wearing a face shield to protect a broken face basically and has done so for weeks.  Is it possible that a broken face has impacted his abilities to do things like, I don't know, sleep, eat, relax comfortably after games....????? You expect him to be an automaton and be immune to being injured but he's very much a human who probably is impacted by the injury-- and yet HE STILL PLAYS EVERY NIGHT!  Playing every game is, by definition a trait of an effective player. His faceoff winning percentage-- another example of an effective player, the amount of times he has defensive zone starts indicates how much he is trusted by the coach, the amount of blocked shots, the amount of time he penalty kills...I'm not going to post in game day threads every time he has a faceoff win or is used in key spots but you should hopefully realize these are meaningful factors into why the Rangers are having success.

 

His contract is an issue because he's paid like a top 6 player and he does not produce like one.  If you compare him to bottom 6 players in the league he is certainly in the top 10% maybe even top 5%.

 

 

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, JHS said:

 

Wait- you say he's not tough( one of the intangibles) but then say he added to the toughness of the collective team after the Wilson incident.  I'm confused by your circular logic.  

 

As far as an example of his toughness- the guy is currently wearing a face shield to protect a broken face basically and has done so for weeks.  Is it possible that a broken face has impacted his abilities to do things like, I don't know, sleep, eat, relax comfortably after games....????? You expect him to be an automaton and be immune to being injured but he's very much a human who probably is impacted by the injury-- and yet HE STILL PLAYS EVERY NIGHT!  Playing every game is, by definition a trait of an effective player. His faceoff winning percentage-- another example of an effective player, the amount of times he has defensive zone starts indicates how much he is trusted by the coach, the amount of blocked shots, the amount of time he penalty kills...I'm not going to post in game day threads every time he has a faceoff win or is used in key spots but you should hopefully realize these are meaningful factors into why the Rangers are having success.

 

His contract is an issue because he's paid like a top 6 player and he does not produce like one.  If you compare him to bottom 6 players in the league he is certainly in the top 10% maybe even top 5%.

 

 

You're playing games now. 

 

Goodrow isn't tough for the Rangers. I don't get how you continually miss the point. He's not an edgy player HERE. He was with Tampa. You're really just going to skip over the lack of Ranger grit and toughness from my point to try and go here? 

 

Stop with the face shield. Literally ever face injury requires a player to wear a face shield.  He messed up his mouth by taking a puck to the face. Was Derek Stepan "tough" when he broke his jaw back in the day?  That's what hockey players do. Almost every hockey player is tough in that sense. Him wearing a full face shield doesn't make him any tougher than anyone else in this league.  

 

I'm asking for examples of this toughness and great defensive ability that you keep bringing up.  A fight, a huge backcheck, a big defensive play, a net crash, a face wash. Anything like that, because this is the things you claim he brings nightly. 

 

You're going to bring up his shot blocking, but you'll be sad to know Goodrow only has 9 more blocked shots than Blake Wheeler,  whom everyone can't stop dumping on. The guy who gets all the OZ starts has 9 less blocks than the defensive wizard . Bonino, a guy you say can't replicate Goodrow has 28 more blocked shots. 

 

He's extremely replaceable. He's nothing special. 

 

You can keep defending his right to make the money he got from the Rangers. Nobody gets bent at the players for making more than they're worth. Good for them. The furthest thing on anyone's mind is if Goodrow is in the wrong for taking the money.  

 

[JHS]

44 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You're playing games now. 

 

Goodrow isn't tough for the Rangers. I don't get how you continually miss the point. He's not an edgy player HERE. He was with Tampa. You're really just going to skip over the lack of Ranger grit and toughness from my point to try and go here? 

 

Stop with the face shield. Literally ever face injury requires a player to wear a face shield.  He messed up his mouth by taking a puck to the face. Was Derek Stepan "tough" when he broke his jaw back in the day?  That's what hockey players do. Almost every hockey player is tough in that sense. Him wearing a full face shield doesn't make him any tougher than anyone else in this league.  

 

I'm asking for examples of this toughness and great defensive ability that you keep bringing up.  A fight, a huge backcheck, a big defensive play, a net crash, a face wash. Anything like that, because this is the things you claim he brings nightly. 

 

You're going to bring up his shot blocking, but you'll be sad to know Goodrow only has 9 more blocked shots than Blake Wheeler,  whom everyone can't stop dumping on. The guy who gets all the OZ starts has 9 less blocks than the defensive wizard . Bonino, a guy you say can't replicate Goodrow has 28 more blocked shots. 

 

He's extremely replaceable. He's nothing special. 

 

You can keep defending his right to make the money he got from the Rangers. Nobody gets bent at the players for making more than they're worth. Good for them. The furthest thing on anyone's mind is if Goodrow is in the wrong for taking the money.  

 

He penalty kill- that indicates he’s a great defensive player.  He gets a lot of defensive zone starts- indicates he’s a great defensive player. I mean you just ignore this stuff and want me to highlight a play over the overwhelming evidence that he’s trusted defensively.  We clearly don’t agree- that’s fine.  I’m ready to move on because I doubt he’s going anywhere.  The reason I’ve even gone this far with you is because it seems you can’t see the use of anyone that is not an offensive producer.  If you had 12 guys playing forward who all played the game like Panarian, I have news for you— it would not be a very good team.  Guys like Barclay have a great role for contending teams.

[torontonyr]

Goodrow is Callahan flavored LaCroix.

 

I'll take it if it's on hand but I wouldn't go out of my way to get it.

 

 

[RichieNextel305]

The main issue with Goodrow as it relates to the Rangers right now is that there are a handful of guys all doing his job at likely an equal level right now who collectively take up the same amount of space on the cap as he does alone. But that’s not so much a him problem as it is a Drury problem. 

[Albatrosss]

4 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

The main issue with Goodrow as it relates to the Rangers right now is that there are a handful of guys all doing his job at likely an equal level right now who collectively take up the same amount of space on the cap as he does alone. But that’s not so much a him problem as it is a Drury problem. 

Like who?

[RichieNextel305]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:52 AM, Albatrosss said:

Like who?

We’re at the half way mark. He has 1 goal. One.

[jsm7302]

21 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

We’re at the half way mark. He has 1 goal. One.

Sell this man at the deadline please.

[Pete]

37 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

Sell this man at the deadline please.

To who? I'm getting fed up with this guy myself, but he's he's got a trade clause and there's a very good chance that most of the non playoff teams are on it.

 

He's here until the summer. 

 

He also hasn't been able to eat solid food for a month.

[jsm7302]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

To who? I'm getting fed up with this guy myself, but he's he's got a trade clause and there's a very good chance that most of the non playoff teams are on it.

 

He's here until the summer. 

 

He also hasn't been able to eat solid food for a month.

I wish no trade lists were public so we could sit and make fake trade proposals with actual options however apparently they arent even public enough for trade recipients.....(Looking at you Ottawa).

 

I think his deal has a 15 team no trade list which leaves another 17 options. The fact that it has to wait till off season could be the difference between another round of playoffs, essentially burning another window year. Ill just hope the right deal comes at the deadline.

[Phil]

On 1/13/2024 at 7:07 PM, Pete said:

To who? I'm getting fed up with this guy myself, but he's he's got a trade clause and there's a very good chance that most of the non playoff teams are on it.

 

He's here until the summer. 

 

He also hasn't been able to eat solid food for a month.

 

Plus, Vince has been on record a few times now saying he's under the impression the team has no intentions of subtracting from the roster in-season. Maybe they move him this summer, but any in-season deal with Goodrow feels like an absolute long shot.

[Sharpshooter]

Whether it's a trade or buy-out, I really think he's gone in the offseason. Just like Wheeler, we're going to have to deal with him until the season is over.

[Phil]

A buyout feels more likely, honestly. The penalty really isn't bad at all. If they did it this summer, they get a cap credit this coming season, then have basically $1M and change penalties in four of the remaining five years left. The only hurdle is a $3.5M~ penalty in 2026-27, but the cap could be upward of $100 million by then. Might be a non-issue.