anezthes
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2014
- 4,764
- 3,145
He’s an addition by subtraction...
I wholeheartedly disagree.
He’s an addition by subtraction...
So, you think the pieces returning in a trade will be better than him? Because if not, it’s at best a lateral move, and at worse just makes the team worse. I see zero circumstances where a trade of Gibson returns pieces that improve the team, unless the bad piece you take back rediscovers their game.I wholeheartedly disagree.
So, you think the pieces returning in a trade will be better than him? Because if not, it’s at best a lateral move, and at worse just makes the team worse. I see zero circumstances where a trade of Gibson returns pieces that improve the team, unless the bad piece you take back rediscovers their game.
The Ducks are very bad at taking players on bad contracts from elsewhere and having them rediscover their aim.
It means that best case scenario is that there is a team benefit to not having him on the roster, or that you’re taking another contract back. You won’t get back something that makes the team better.If Gibson is considered an 'addition by subtraction,' doesn't that mean the team is better off without him?
It means that best case scenario is that there is a team benefit to not having him on the roster, or that you’re taking another contract back. You won’t get back something that makes the team better.
“So, do you really want to trade him, unless you think those two circumstances are better outcomes that him being on the team” was heavily implied in my original post.
If you see Gibson as a team cancer, getting rid of him improves team chemistry/morale, even if the return is underwhelming is the argument. You get back arguably to inarguably worse talent in order to get rid of a talent that creates more problems than it solves. That’s the definition of “addition by subtraction”.So, getting rid of Gibson would be a plus, but the "price" of doing so would (most likely be) a negative?
That should be a doable deal, and one I would seriously consider. They need a goalie, we need a scoring RW. Money's close, and both players have issues. Tha's pretty much a hockey trade. But would BGibby waive for Columbus?I think it's already been thrown out there but with Waddell saying he only wants a hockey trade to move Laine I wonder if Gibson straight up could be an option?
Yeah, I doubt he would waive but we don’t really know who’s on his list. Maybe his list filled up before he got to add Columbus. lolThat should be a doable deal, and one I would seriously consider. They need a goalie, we need a scoring RW. Money's close, and both players have issues. Tha's pretty much a hockey trade. But would BGibby waive for Columbus?
If you see Gibson as a team cancer, getting rid of him improves team chemistry/morale, even if the return is underwhelming is the argument. You get back arguably to inarguably worse talent in order to get rid of a talent that creates more problems than it solves. That’s the definition of “addition by subtraction”.
Columbus might actually be a team he'd be willing to waive for (that's also relatively bad and not a contender). He's from Pittsburgh (about 2.5-3 hour drive) so it would make things easy/easier for family/friends to come see him (if that's even a consideration for him).That should be a doable deal, and one I would seriously consider. They need a goalie, we need a scoring RW. Money's close, and both players have issues. Tha's pretty much a hockey trade. But would BGibby waive for Columbus?
Can’t say I remember ever hearing this players name before.
Can’t say I remember ever hearing this players name before.
He’s still a prospect. Think he was the captain of the US WJC team this year.Can’t say I remember ever hearing this players name before.
He's a Verbeek typeof a player. Would absolutely love him, but I bet the competition would be big and he's another leftie
Loaded and all sorts of style players, might be the most balanced skilled forward line up we’ve ever seen at jrsMcGroarty played LW beside Cutter for the US at the WJC
McGroarty - Gauthier - Moore
Howard - Nazar - Brindley
Perreault - Smith - Leonard
Finley - Nelson - Snuggerud
Hayes
Such a loaded F group they iced this year
I think it depends on the amount of teams mcgroaty will sign with…. If it’s like 3-4 teams…. Then I think the jets are kinda screwed in what they can ask forI would guess that like Gauthier, his value has roughly held up to his draft position from a couple years ago - meaning you are likely looking at a mid first or equivalent package. I can pretty easily picture a team in the 12-20 range, moving their pick for McGroarty if the opportunity arises.
I wonder if something like Lacombe + Oilers 1st gets you on the dance floor?
That would be amazing. Especially if we drafted a d at 3oa.I think it depends on the amount of teams mcgroaty will sign with…. If it’s like 3-4 teams…. Then I think the jets are kinda screwed in what they can ask for
Teams might be willing to pay more…. But if he only wants to play for a team or 2, won’t matter.
Mcgroaty and gauthier are best friends…. So there def is appeal for him to sign in Anaheim
I mean I’d give oiler 1st + lacombe/Vaaks pretty easily…. Prob fine with adding 1 of our 3rds to the deal
I think you mean Zegras++?Cue up the Zegras for Mcgroaty+ trade rumors...