One of the most surprising developments this season was the lack of a deal to scrap some of the salary, specifically with Barclay Goodrow. Why didn’t the Rangers trade? Goodrow seems pretty clear when we look a little deeper at how inappropriate events can play out. Even though Chris Drury has done a good job within his limitations, many fans still feel like it wasn’t enough. Of all the ways to get rid of the paycheck, trading Goodrow was the only realistic path, and it never happened.
To be clear, there haven’t been any solid rumors that Goodrow will be traded. The guess was mostly that the Rangers would need to a) get rid of the salary, and b) Goudreau was the only player who didn’t blow the heart of the team. In understanding this good-natured tip, we’re operating under an educated guess that the Rangers have at least discovered Goodrow’s trading capabilities. But there have been two reasons why the Rangers haven’t traded Goodrow in the draft or during free agency (so far).
Other payroll dump deals require picks to be attached
Trading salary does not always require a draft pick to be attached. See Gomez, Scott. The way the offset unfolded, however, most, if not all, payroll dumping trades require you to attach a pick or get nothing at all in return. Goodrow would never be a pure salary dump for the Rangers, so that path wasn’t really on the table.
Obviously, the Rangers are like Goudreau. The contract is a bit annoying, but Goodrow is a valuable player to a lot of NHL teams. Like it or not, teams value players like Goodrow because he’s versatile, has a reputation for good play in the final game, and is seen as one of those key players who play offensively. These types of players are, for many NHL front office workers, essential to playoff teams.
So in trading Goodrow, the Rangers were looking for a hockey trade. There was no one at the table, which is a big reason the Rangers didn’t trade Goodrow. Again, at least not yet.
Goodrow will not be a payroll dump business.
Goodrow’s trading was on Drury’s terms
Knowing that Goodrow would not be a payroll dumping trade, we can infer that Drury was waiting for a deal on his terms. This required a playoff team with cap space that Goodrow felt would be a missing link. At first I had pegged Calgary as an option, but a forced rebuild changed things. There were not many teams that met Goodrow’s trading criteria:
- comma team
- cover space
- Bottom Six need help
- It was not on Goodrow’s no-trade list
The first three are the real reasons Goodrow was not traded by the Rangers. Again not yet, at least. There were simply none of the suitors who met these criteria, and thus met Drury’s conditions for trading. There was more value to Drury in retaining Godreau than trading him from a position of weakness.
Considering how Rangers free agency looks, that’s fine. Goodrow again represents a versatile player who can (hopefully) stay on as a winger in the bottom six. Overpaid, but there is value on the menu and in the locker room.
That’s not to say the Goodrow deal won’t happen. But now it is the only way to get rid of the paycheck Because acquisition is no longer an option. All signs point to Rangers keeping Goudreau for another season, even if it comes at the expense of a potential Tarasenko return. That’s fine, assuming he’s still in the right role this season, something Gerard Gallant has struggled with.