Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Is Today the Day the Rangers Trade Barclay Goodrow?


Phil

Is Today the Day the Rangers Trade Barclay Goodrow?  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Well?

    • Yep — bye, Barky!
    • Nah — grit forever


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I think it leaves about 2M to sign Kane.  Doubt he's giving anyone that kind of discount

They could potentially sign him for 4mil and place him on IR and activate him when his cap hit would be 2mil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Valriera said:

They're just going to run it back, which they should, bc this team is good enough to win the cup with a new coach. If they're not there yet, it's not because of Barclay Goodrow, it's because the core of Panarin, Zibanejad, Kreider, and Trochek, are not good enough. 

 

marvel-is-it-though.gif

  • Bullseye 1
  • Applause 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Lafreniere ($2.7) and Miller ($4.5) signed to realistic bridge numbers, there’s barely enough space for a 21 man roster filled out with multiple ELC value contracts. I would think that Laviolette does not want to have a short handed roster out of the gate, which means cap needs to be freed up one way or another. If it’s not Goodrow, then who?

 

I really doubt Lafreniere and Miller are going to get hard balled that much to the point of freeing up enough space for another roster player. Something has to give. The math dictates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm earmarking $2.5 for Laugh and $4.5 for Miller, too, but it's still the same scenario. I just don't understand how the hell they can field a 21-man roster for October, even if you fill out the remaining roster spots at league minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Yes

 

It is.

 

But hey.., thanks for being an actual fan. Who adds something positive.

 

Positivity ≠ fandom.

 

But you're right. Maybe I should stop paying for this stupid site, eh, since I'm not vomiting up rainbows and unicorns?

  • The Chyt! 1
  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing Donut Hole to 2.5M and Miller to 4.5M  and having the left wings as Kreider, Panarin, Donut Hole & Cuylle.   Right Wings as Kakko, Vesey & Goodrow.  Centers as Zibanejad, Chytil, Trochek & Brodzinski.  Defenseman as Lindgren, Fox, Miller, Trouba, Jones, Schneider and Harpur. Goalies as Shesterkin and Spicy Pork leaves 1.58M for a 4th RW and a 13th forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got to be Goodrow.  After that it is possible we're talking Lindgren also.  Probably not Chytil but things are very tight.

 

The problem with Ranger's cap situation is that $40M is tied up in 5 players with hard NMC's.  Then you have another $28M tied up in 6 more core players, including Fox, Shesterkin, Lindgren, Chytil, Goodrow and Kakko.  Then you have to feed the 2 young guys who are going to make $7M easy between them.  That leaves maybe $8M for everybody else who will flesh out the roster + whatever flails the Rangers make at the deadline this year.

 

In other situations, sans letter pressure, the Rangers might decide to get the best deal they could for Fox or Shesterkin this season to make some space to build around.  It sounds crazy but the NMC's are exerting a lot of pressure on the cap right now.

 

That crazy situation we had near the deadline where the Rangers were playing with a short roster for a week or more trying to get to Kane is something we may see more of in forced situations this year, particularly if Drury is going to try another year of add-ons at the deadline.  We're not likely to be in as good a situation as we were last year a month or two out from the deadline.

 

 

Edited by Br4d
Addendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is starting to do what many posters and threads have avoided, which is to look at the real implications and severity of the cap crunch and why it is going to necessitate some moves no one will like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sod16 said:

This thread is starting to do what many posters and threads have avoided, which is to look at the real implications and severity of the cap crunch and why it is going to necessitate some moves no one will like.

 

Yup. Goodrow is only the first. Lindgren isn't very far behind in terms of being potentially on the chopping block (even though no one wants this to happen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fox, Zib and Kreider contracts and NMCs were justified and necessary.  The players were already on the team, and the players have performed.  The Panarin contract was obviously very large, but justified insofar as they got him without giving up anything (but cap).  The real problem is the Trouba and Trocheck contracts.  The former was way too large, especially given that they had to trade value for him.  The latter came at a time when a cap crisis was becoming inevitable.  Teams do things like biting the bullet and making a Chytil their second center all the time when the cap demands it.  The Rangers did not, and now will pay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Talking about trading Lindgren and his 3m cap hit while also signing Miller to 4.5m sounds crazy to me. We're trading the best player on the lowest cap hit who would arguably get a lesser return because everyone loves a D-man who puts up some points.

 

We're going to have to pay Lindgren again after next season and there's going to be almost as much of a cap crunch then as there is now.  The potential sacrificial group next year will be basically half the roster and some of the guys will require retention to get it done.

 

At a certain point you look at the most logical sacrifices and then you make your necessary moves as early as you can to get maximum value.

Edited by Br4d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Only kidding Phil 


Oh really? Then explain the PM you sent me saying, and I quote, “I hate Phil and think he’s just a pessimistic douchebag and he should jump off the George Washington bridge with 100 lb dumbbells attached to his ankles and nobody would miss him except for his main lover Pete and his side piece G”.

 

It was a little over the top IMO.

  • LMFAO 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:


Oh really? Then explain the PM you sent me saying, and I quote, “I hate Phil and think he’s just a pessimistic douchebag and he should jump off the George Washington bridge with 100 lb dumbbells attached to his ankles and nobody would miss him except for his main lover Pete and his side piece G”.

 

It was a little over the top IMO.

 

I thought it was "poopy head"??  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...