Seravalli Sharks Claim Barclay Goodrow on Waivers

[siddious]

4C SHOULD be an easy fix.

 

you need someone defensively responsible and good on the pk. Whether that’s an add from Hartford or free agency I dunno but I’m sure they’ll find someone at a better price point. 

 

sucks to lose leadership but this is the right move.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

I think waiving him is saying two things:

 

1) No teams left off Goodrow's NTC list wanted him, or they would have required salary retention or assets to take him, and Drury didn't want to do that.

2) Drury is waiving the white flag and Goodrow is getting bought out, barring a surprising claim.

 

There was talk about buying him out and re-signing him, but waiving him I think poo poos on that whole idea. Drury is basically saying he'd rather just lose him for free. There's no coming back from that.

[Sharpshooter]

Yeah, it should be an easy fix, but hopefully it's a good one. lol

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I think waiving him is saying two things:

 

1) No teams left off Goodrow's NTC list wanted him, or they would have required salary retention or assets to take him, and Drury didn't want to do that.

2) Drury is waiving the white flag and Goodrow is getting bought out, barring a surprising claim.

 

There was talk about buying him out and re-signing him, but waiving him I think poo poos on that whole idea. Drury is basically saying he'd rather just lose him for free. There's no coming back from that.

 

Your second point seems very likely. Your first, less so.

 

I think this is purely pragmatic. He has a limited no-trade but can't control waivers. If there are teams on the periphery of his list, this allows them to claim him at full freight if they really like him. If they don't, your first point kicks in.

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Your second point seems very likely. Your first, less so.

 

I think this is purely pragmatic. He has a limited no-trade but can't control waivers. If there are teams on the periphery of his list, this allows them to claim him at full freight if they really like him. If they don't, your first point kicks in.

 

But if he were worth something to teams on the periphery, he'd just be traded without the charade here. I have to think those teams wanted retention or to ship an unsavory contract back, and Drury is saying losing him for nothing is a better option.

 

I agree that it could go back to point 1 if he clears though. Maybe there were a few teams who were interested in taking him in a deal, and whatever deal is on the table is still optimal to a buyout in Drury's eyes.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

But if he were worth something to teams on the periphery, he'd just be traded without the charade here. I have to think those teams wanted retention or to ship an unsavory contract back, and Drury is saying losing him for nothing is a better option.

 

I agree that it could go back to point 1 if he clears though. Maybe there were a few teams who were interested in taking him in a deal, and whatever deal is on the table is still optimal to a buyout in Drury's eyes.

 

When I say periphery, I'm talking about teams potentially on his list. Tampa got rid of McDonagh under similar circumstances, but it was the threat of waivers (and the likelihood that Columbus would take him) that got him to accept a trade to Nashville.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

When I say periphery, I'm talking about teams potentially on his list. Tampa got rid of McDonagh under similar circumstances, but it was the threat of waivers (and the likelihood that Columbus would take him) that got him to accept a trade to Nashville.

 

Man there's so many angles lol

 

Drury actually waived him though, so if he threatened Goodrow to accept a trade to a particular spot or get waived, Goodrow would have had to tell him to go pound sand. Yikes.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Man there's so many angles lol

 

Drury actually waived him though, so if he threatened Goodrow to accept a trade to a particular spot or get waived, Goodrow would have had to tell him to go pound sand. Yikes.

 

I mean, shit happens. I don't think that's what happened, but no matter what way you cut this, the writing is on the wall. He gone.

[BrooksBurner]

Drury is a dummy if he buys him out just to chase a Toffoli or Kane.

 

I'll reserve judgement until I see what shakes out of this.

[Phil]

16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Drury is a dummy if he buys him out just to chase a Toffoli or Kane.

 

I'll reserve judgement until I see what shakes out of this.

 

I'm not big on either player, but I don't follow your logic at all. Goodrow is a fantastic postseason warrior with a ton of leadership qualities, but his on-ice impacts are net negative. He's great to have if you love getting pinned in your end and basically breaking even offensively. There's no reason to pay this much for that kind of player. You can get a replacement to do the same thing — likely better — for basically league minimum.

 

Toffoli or Kane don't move my needle, but at least they affect (on paper) what ails the team most, which is 5v5 scoring.

[Pete]

Pretty sure you have to waive a player before you buy him out and give other teams a chance to take on the full contract so the player doesn't lose money, so that's all part of the process. 

 

Not that I think they will resign him, but they could and it might have nothing to do with waivers. 

 

Has anyone confirmed if this is traditional or buyout waivers?

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Pretty sure you have to waive a player before you buy him out and give other teams a chance to take on the full contract so the player doesn't lose money, so that's all part of the process. 

 

Not that I think they will resign him, but they could and it might have nothing to do with waivers. 

 

Has anyone confirmed if this is traditional or buyout waivers?

 

I don't think there's a difference?

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I don't think there's a difference?

Gemini says:

 

 

Is there a difference between traditional waivers and unconditional waivers in the NHL?

 

Absolutely, there's a big difference between traditional waivers and unconditional waivers in the NHL:

 

Traditional Waivers:

• Used to send a player down to the minor leagues (AHL) from the NHL roster.
• Other teams have 24 hours to claim the player.
• If claimed, the claiming team takes on the player's full salary and keeps him on their NHL roster.
• Used throughout the season, not restricted by a specific window.

 

Unconditional Waivers:

• Used specifically for buying out a player's contract, essentially making them a free agent.
• No team has ever claimed a player on unconditional waivers [2].
• Only available during a short window in June (usually between June 15th and 30th) [3].
• If no team claims the player, the buyout is finalized and the original team spreads the remaining financial obligation over several years.

[Phil]

Oh, unconditional. Yeah. I don't think that's for buyouts, I think that's for contract termination, but I could be wrong.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Oh, unconditional. Yeah. I don't think that's for buyouts, I think that's for contract termination, but I could be wrong.

It's for both. So if this is unconditional waivers its just part of the buyout process. No need to read more into it. 

[BrooksBurner]

45 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I'm not big on either player, but I don't follow your logic at all. Goodrow is a fantastic postseason warrior with a ton of leadership qualities, but his on-ice impacts are net negative. He's great to have if you love getting pinned in your end and basically breaking even offensively. There's no reason to pay this much for that kind of player. You can get a replacement to do the same thing — likely better — for basically league minimum.

 

Toffoli or Kane don't move my needle, but at least they affect (on paper) what ails the team most, which is 5v5 scoring.

The only probable and logical rationale for handicapping the team’s future cap until 2030 via buyout is if the savings can help buy a player who can realistically put the team over the edge for a Cup.

 

The Rangers are not a “minus Goodrow, add Toffoli or Kane” away from being a good 5v5 team. It’s a fool’s errand that weakens the strength of the next window.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

The only probable and logical rationale for handicapping the team’s future cap until 2030 via buyout is if the savings can help buy a player who can realistically put the team over the edge for a Cup.

 

The Rangers are not a “minus Goodrow, add Toffoli or Kane” away from being a good 5v5 team. It’s a fool’s errand that weakens the strength of the next window.

 

Maybe not, but subtracting Goodrow and adding a better 5v5 player who plays higher in the lineup is a good strategy.

[BrooksBurner]

14 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Maybe not, but subtracting Goodrow and adding a better 5v5 player who plays higher in the lineup is a good strategy.

If you believe in win now, sure.

 

Drury should be fired if this is what he chooses and he’s wrong.

[BrooksBurner]

On the plus side, if Drury has the balls to unceremoniously kick Goodrow to the curb, then he’s got the balls to ask NMC players about being traded.

[siddious]

 

There’s been a mistake. Drury spelled Jacob Trouba’s name wrong. 

[BrooksBurner]

Quote

By placing Goodrow on waivers, the Rangers allow themselves some cap flexibility no matter what happens.

 

Though there is belief there is a pre-arranged deal for the Sharks to claim Goodrow, who spent the first six seasons of his NHL career in San Jose. 

 

Possible bomb drop by Moll

 

https://nypost.com/2024/06/18/sports/rangers-waive-barclay-goodrow-in-first-huge-offseason-shakeup/

 

[BrooksBurner]

If true, that’s a cutthroat move by Drury to force Goodrow to go somewhere he put on his NTC list. Nobody is safe

[Albatrosss]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

If true, that’s a cutthroat move by Drury to force Goodrow to go somewhere he put on his NTC list. Nobody is safe

Goodrow is a bottom feeder. Doesnt take balls to trade/waive him. I dont think Drury has that long of a leash to trade a bigger name

[Abe Froman]

Didn't know he played for San Jose.

[phillyb]

9 hours ago, Abe Froman said:

Didn't know he played for San Jose.

I feel like his stint in SJ is the biggest reason he was brought to NY - playoff performer and he at least he lived up to that. He didn’t score an OT winner, but he scored more goals in 16 post season games than he did in 80 regular season games.