Probably costs more for CHI to take that deal, the term on that contract is not ideal for a team looking to pay rookies in 2-3 years.

I think retention would be required for such a long term dump, near the amount they would save from hypothetically burying him. In any case I hope Chicago stays away.

If Drury were to buy Goodrow out, they get his entire cap hit plus $200k this year and entire cap hit plus $100k in year two, so why on earth would they give up assets to trade him?

Run Goodrow through buyout calculator and then you realise you do not need to pay to move him. If teams won't pay to get him a buyout is very valid option.

Yeah I don't understand why people keep thinking its going to take an arm/leg to move him. I wouldn't give up anything to move him. I do think a team may pay like a 6th or something for him as he is a good player, despite the contract.

It’s a hard market for me to gauge as I don’t have anything comparable. I read speculation about it costing a 2nd or 3rd round pick alone which I thought was too light.


Chicago was reported to be in the hunt for contract dumps though. They are a legitimate possibility.

It ****ing baffles me how buyout trigger-happy this website is. But be my guest and bury an extra $1.25 million for an additional FOUR years after the cumbersome contract expires.

They didn’t even buyout Patrik Nemeth last offseason. It’s not going to happen, especially when the penalty doesn’t end until 2031. I might not even be alive by the time we get to that point.

1) Because of the term length. It’s another four years. See @NickC1988 ‘s comment.
2) Because everyone knows that the Rangers need to shed cap and everyone knows that Goodrow is the least important player out of himself, Lafreniere, Miller, and Lindgren. New York has no leverage.

IMO, Drury will be able to trade Goodrow without adding anything, so who is trigger happy? My point is it is much better option to buy him out based on the structure of the buyout than to lose assets trading him.

You are. It is absolutely not the better option to waste that money for four straight seasons (especially if you think the Rangers would not need to add a sweetener, but that’s another debate for later).

It’s creating a backlog of unnecessary cap crunch just to satisfy one season’s worth of cap crunch.

I disagree. The real cap crunch for the Rangers is NOW, the next two years, which also are the 2 years Igor is signed at a team friendly cap hit, so they need to really try to win NOW. A Goodrow buyout gives them more than his cap hit for these two years and then costs for the remainder of the buy out, but the cap will also have risen substantially by then according to the latest projections, so his buy out will be very manageable then. It helps sign our RFA's today, which is huge and then is mitigated by the cap increases. Of course, the best case is trade him with no retention, but if teams demand sweeteners then a buy out is the way to go IMO.

The cap spike after next season will only get canceled out after Igor and the rest of the kids see their bridge contracts expire. Moreover, the increased salary cap also increases the cost of the free agents as it balances out supply and demand.

It’s going to be just as tight in 2026 as it is in 2023.

I don't think that can be determined yet as its 3 years out and a lot can happen between now and then. The more certain time frame is the next two seasons where they are definitely in win now mode and need every penny of cap space they can find to sign the RFA's to 2 year bridge deals.