Barlclay Is Good-Row

[Keirik]

35 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said:

I've really grown to love Goodrow as he's gotten more comfortable throughout the season. He knows how to bring the right energy to the game and his defensive contributions often cover for his teammates. He's a more expensive Jesper Fast which kind of sucks, but I'm glad he's here because you need a player like him. I just wish the Rangers never lost Fast to begin with. Would be nice to have both or just Fast for nearly 1/3 less.

He also has a tad bit more swagger and presence of a Fast in my eyes. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Drew a Penalty said:

I've really grown to love Goodrow as he's gotten more comfortable throughout the season. He knows how to bring the right energy to the game and his defensive contributions often cover for his teammates. He's a more expensive Jesper Fast which kind of sucks, but I'm glad he's here because you need a player like him. I just wish the Rangers never lost Fast to begin with. Would be nice to have both or just Fast for nearly 1/3 less.

I'd rather pay the extra money for a durable player. He's not really a "use my body as a missile" kind of guy, so his style is going to grate the other team but not wear himself down. Fast is always going to have durability issues.

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'd rather pay the extra money for a durable player. He's not really a "use my body as a missile" kind of guy, so his style is going to grate the other team but not wear himself down. Fast is always going to have durability issues.

 

I would too, but there's a breaking point, and Goodrow, for my money, is right at it. For that, he's always going to be in the cross hairs, especially when a "more talented" player is jettisoned, rather than given an extension. Chytil, for example.

[Kevin]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I would too, but there's a breaking point, and Goodrow, for my money, is right at it. For that, he's always going to be in the cross hairs, especially when a "more talented" player is jettisoned, rather than given an extension. Chytil, for example.

Bad example lol.  You can jettison him in favor of keeping Goodrow all day, every day.  

[Phil]

Just now, Kevin said:

Bad example lol.  You can jettison him in favor of keeping Goodrow all day, every day.  

 

That's why I used quotes. I would do exactly that. Frankly, they're not even in the same stratosphere. With or without Goodrow on the roster, I'm in favor of a massive upgrade on Chytil. But my point is, arguments will be made, especially by dishonest actors, to paint Drury in a bad light when he deals a "talented" player but keeps the overpaid (insert pejorative here) in Goodrow.

[Kevin]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

That's why I used quotes. I would do exactly that. Frankly, they're not even in the same stratosphere. With or without Goodrow on the roster, I'm in favor of a massive upgrade on Chytil. But my point is, arguments will be made, especially by dishonest actors, to paint Drury in a bad light when he deals a "talented" player but keeps the overpaid (insert pejorative here) in Goodrow.

I get it but it's hard at the moment to envision that player on the current roster.  Especially when we're talking possibly 2026 and beyond.  Chytil has been so bad that I've actually mentioned Barron as an upgrade on him.  

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Kevin said:

I get it but it's hard at the moment to envision that player on the current roster.  Especially when we're talking possibly 2026 and beyond.  Chytil has been so bad that I've actually mentioned Barron as an upgrade on him.  

 

Barron is unequivocally an upgrade, or, at worst, a lateral move, which is still a positive return, because he makes basically league minimum whereas Chytil is due a new deal at more than twice the cost.

[Pete]

Yea Goodrow is providing more offense and Chytil is injured basically every year, even being a perimeter player.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yea Goodrow is providing more offense and Chytil is injured basically every year, even being a perimeter player.

 

At an inflated shooting percentage that's nearly double his career average, but even if you account for this, he's simply offering more on the ice by way of playing a role. When he's not scoring, he's still doing something. He's a PK staple, for example. When he's not scoring, Chytil provides nothing.

[Drew a Penalty]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

He also has a tad bit more swagger and presence of a Fast in my eyes. 

 

Swagger, sure. Presence, I don't think so. I think the swagger probably gives off the impression that he has more of a presence. Goodrow's position on the team is magnified because of his resume and the deal he signed. Fast fulfilled all of the same duties to a similar effect but was largely unsung by most except his teammates. Fast won the Players Player Award for five straight years because of how much the team valued his presence.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

At an inflated shooting percentage that's nearly double his career average, but even if you account for this, he's simply offering more on the ice by way of playing a role. When he's not scoring, he's still doing something. He's a PK staple, for example. When he's not scoring, Chytil provides nothing.

IDGAF about S%, people said the same about Strome and now he's a perfectly serviceable 2nd line center even without shooting 22%.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

IDGAF about S%, people said the same about Strome and now he's a perfectly serviceable 2nd line center even without shooting 22%.

 

Well, sure, but it's still rare that players sustain high values, which is the only reason I raise the point.

 

The wider point is that Goodrow offers way more when he's not scoring. Chytil doesn't. But I can see the argument coming a mile away, especially from the Chart Boys on Twitter. Chytil will be measured in potentiality, with carefully measured underlying arguments, where Goodrow is measured in actuality against what is likely a drop in production (due to shooting percentage inflation). And it'll be dishonest, because the fact remains that only one of the two gives you anything when they're not scoring.

[Ozzy]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Well, sure, but it's still rare that players sustain high values, which is the only reason I raise the point.

 

The wider point is that Goodrow offers way more when he's not scoring. Chytil doesn't. But I can see the argument coming a mile away, especially from the Chart Boys on Twitter. Chytil will be measured in potentiality, with carefully measured underlying arguments, where Goodrow is measured in actuality against what is likely a drop in production (due to shooting percentage inflation). And it'll be dishonest, because the fact remains that only one of the two gives you anything when they're not scoring.

 

I'd measure it better when we have a Cup and Chytil is playing in the KHL.