When the Sharks claimed Barclay Goodrow off waivers from the Rangers last offseason, it was seen as a mistake by Grier and the Sharks. Given Goodrow’s production and the historical rate for the price to get off a contract like his with 3 years around 3.6 million AAV remaining, coming off a horrid campaign with just 12 points in 80 games. Now we know that Goodrow likely wouldn’t have waived for a trade to the Sharks, which likely led to the Sharks accepting him off waivers. Still, it’s a move that has not aged well for Grier and the Sharks.
Goodrow is technically the longest tenured Shark, having played in 7 seasons in teal, with 6 of those coming from 2014-2020 before he was traded to Tampa Bay for a 2020 first-round pick, which the Sharks subsequently used on Ozzy Wiesblatt. Goodrow is a beloved figure in San Jose Hockey, scoring the OT game-winner against Vegas in game 7 of the first round in 2019, being one of the biggest goals in franchise history. With that said, his decline is hard to ignore, and he is no longer the player from his final years with San Jose, Tampa Bay, and his early years with the Rangers.
To give some credit to Grier, there were signs that Goodrow could improve from his down year with the Rangers. His ice time was its lowest since 2019, and his 80% Defensive zone start was absurdly lopsided usage; it's hard to score when you're not getting time in the offensive zone, especially for a player like Goodrow who has never driven play in his career. The Sharks did give Goodrow better usage. He played just over a minute more ice time, and his defensive zone start usage was at 62% much more in line with his career for the defensive forward. Despite this, Goodrow’s stats continued to drop from 12 points to 8 in just three fewer games. This is not a good sign for Goodrow going forward.
Goodrow’s contract won’t be a significant issue for the Sharks; the team is flush with cap space, so while the move hasn’t worked out for Grier it’s unlikely to hurt the Sharks, but it is a rare misstep from Grier, who has excelled at leveraging value for negative assets, with examples like Walman and Granlund. The Goodrow move is in direct contrast to this philosophy, as they got no value for taking him on. While Goodrow is familiar with the team and known for his leadership, which was undoubtedly a factor, the outcome of the move left Goodrow unhappy with the process. Intangibles aside, the Sharks were likely better off to pivot in another direction, by either trading for another bad contract or overpaying for a veteran free agent. Players like Goodrow are a dime a dozen.
Teams are going to make mistakes, it's inevitable, and the Sharks are no exception, claiming Goodrow isn’t the first and won’t be the last. It will be interesting to see how long Goodrow remains in the lineup for the Sharks next season. The Sharks have a lot of players, young and old, competing for spots in the lineup. Goodrow likely gets by on the experience and leadership he brings to the room, but if he continues to decline, it may be hard to justify his spot in the lineup.