Because they clearly value what he brings on and off the ice lol

I just don't get it. Is that literally the only reason? Brodzinski is way better than him and is doing way more than him and so is Jimmy Vesey and both of them are working for peanuts compared to Goodrow.

I mean I’m sure Drury is starting to realize it was a mistake and I can see a buy-out coming in the off-season. Lavi doesn’t move goodrow up the lineup like Gallant (thank god)

the short answer is its just not that simple. if they buy him out in June, they actually get a cap credit next year, which I didn't think was a thing, but CF is telling me it is. Then its $1m for a year, then there's one year where its $3m, then $1m for the next couple. I'm guessing drury has a much better idea of what their long term cap structure will look like, and which option is better.

Also, in terms of waiving him this year, saving a little over $1m or whatever, what do they do with that space? Is what they can do with that space worth more than what he brings to their team? far too often with stuff like this, fans fall into the trap of thinking GMs are stupid. they aren't. Sometimes they have lapses in judgement, but they rarely do things for no reason.

The chain of thought in trading Buchnevich and acquiring Blais and Goodrow was very stupid. GMs take illogical risks all the time. Just because they can claim a justification for an action doesn't make it smart.

you act like this comment refutes what i said.

Is everything solved with waiving? Not in the least.

I would think deeper in what waiving can do for the team, assuming Goodrow is a leader and will take one for the team for a month. The Rangers would save 1.2m against the cap which would help them get a depth player or 2. Does it tip the scale over what Goodrow does, Id say it depends on who they bring in. First off they need a RW. That will take up a good chunk of cap space. Then... I, for example, would love to get Sissons (who we can afford regardless) for 3C and Trenin (this is the tricky part), Id ask for retention on Trenin. I think he brings some solid value to the lineup. On top of that, maybe some depth at defense, a veteran like Bogosian. Going into the playoffs, where there is no salary cap, Goodrow would get called back up.

The problem is that if we waive Goodrow we would have 2.6M of cap still going towards him

If someone claimed him... yes

Then it's a good thing they chose to waive Pitlick. Anyway, it doesn't solve anything with Goodrow. Putting a dead $1.525M on your payroll for the better part of 6-8 seasons, puts the Rangers back in exactly the same boat they were in with Girardi..no thanks.

You're gonna gamble at times..big whoop. A fourth line center with a 50.5% faceoff percentage, a PK specialist and physical player.. Drury decided to pay for intangibles, similar to what Bonino was getting previously elsewhere; Dowd..

The era has gone by to reward players who you didn't want top players to assume those roles. In a world gone by, the Rangers will be one of the last to remove such a person of their payroll. 💩 Happens.

You missed the best option! After this season, where he is very needed, we simply retain 1m and get a 6th for him or ret 1.8m for a 3rd easy.
Everybody is panicking for Zero reason, for this year anyway. TMZers don't like his stats, even most of my fellow nyr fans don't see it, but Goody & Vesey we're very important last night, like most nights, at the end of the game or his heavy play.

It completely refutes it because GMs act "stupid" in that they are worse than random ALL THE TIME. So to suggest they don't act stupid is self evidently not true.

smart people are capable of a stupid action - especially if the stupidity is hindsight.

Lets take for example what I think most consider to be the worst decision a GM has made in recent memory - Hall for Larsson. We all agreed it was terrible in the moment, but the Oilers were over a barrel. They desperately needed a top pair d man, and I'm sure they placed more than one phone call. Clearly that was the best they felt they can do, and there was certainly an avenue towards it working out. There are a lot of "dumb," decisions that work out great. I'm a bruins fan and was livid when they drafted McAvoy, as I favored some players still on the board. Now he's their best player, and I would argue the best player they've had since Bourque. I thought it was so stupid at the time. Now i'm the stupid one.

While individual decisions can look stupid, I doubt any of these guys are handed the keys to billion dollar franchises with a stupid process.

Chiarelli didn't HAVE to make that deal. And I said at the time he should have gotten Larsson AND Severson for Hall which was fair value at the time and would have solidified the RD position for EDM. Sure, but some decisions are outlandish given the data available at the time and predictably fail. Forcing Seguin out on a trade was stupid by Benning. Sweeney taking reaches in the 1st round of 2015 draft with quite a few very good players rated higher in consensus still available. My own Penguins with Rutherford signing Jack Johnson that 99+% of the fan base hated immediately turned into a very predictable massive loss for the franchise. These decisions would get a normal employee fired and GMs do this ALL THE TIME. Which is why I think most of them deserve to be fired early and often.

Benning and seguin? what?

Surprised you never saw this. Benning was the one that encouraged Chiarelli to move Seguin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRyIgatcTAs

oh cmon pal. you know what happened with seguin right? it wasn't a decision to move him, it was an absolute necessity. Moving him was absolutely the right decision - the problem was mostly that John Scott scrambled Eriksson's skull, and Joe Morrow hated hockey. At the time, Eriksson was the best player in the trade, and he fit boston's culture and style of play. Smith was a really good player, i take much more issue with moving him for Jimmy Hayes, and subsequently buying out Jimmy Hayes. Fraser was an absolute bust, but I could understand what Boston saw in him. would have much rather gotten a draft pick instead.

I'd argue you have a flawed perception that GMs must make these type of player transactions. There was no rational justification for Chiarelli to make either of the two mentioned deals and both hurt the franchise.

okay so you don't know what happened off-ice. Let's just say that it isn't a coincidence that both Bergeron and Rask signed long-term within days of Seguin being moved. Seguin did something to a teammate that kind of made him a must move, and there were players that wouldn't sign a long-term deal with him on the roster. There was more to it than that too. There was a DUI that got swept under the rug and covered up, and there was an incident during a playoff series where he was woken up by BPD passed out in public at 5AM the morning of a playoff game. In the toronto series when they were playing on the road the team had to go to ridiculous lengths to stop him from going out.

That move can definitely be thrown in the hindsight move.
In hindsight, John Scott threw a cheap shot that altered Loui Eriksson's career, but he was a better player for Boston than Seguin would have been.
In hindsight, Joe Morrow should not have been the key future assigned to the deal.
In hindsight, Rielly Smith was a real good piece, and should have been kept.
in hindsight, matt fraser sucked.

moving him was the absolute right decision, and the process certainly had boatloads of logic put into it.