Friedman: Avalanche are looking at Blackwood and Gibson

[DavidBL]

Possibly. Gibson has put up 900 SP for about 5 seasons now. Is that the team? Is that just him regressing?
Are we just supposed to assume he will play better?

Either way. You’re comparing a 1M backup to a 3.2M backup. How much better does Gibson need to be AT MINIMUM just to make the difference in cap worth it?

You would want to look at goalies making around 3 mill and see what you get from them.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Is the 1 mill back up as good as Gibson? No if they were the teams rumored to be after him would have done it.

You mean like how the Avs claimed Kahkonen off waivers?

 

[DavidBL]

You mean like how the Avs claimed Kahkonen off waivers?

And yet they still seem to be interested in Gibby. I'm not saying they should trade for him. Just that it doesn't make sense to trade him for a second with 50% retained, especially if we're taking g a dump as well.

 

[EdAVSfan]

You would want to look at goalies making around 3 mill and see what you get from them.

Wait? Why can I o my compare 3M goalies?

Why shouldn’t I be comparing it to all goalies, including the ones making under 3M?

Shouldn’t I being looking at quality of play vs salary? You seemingly are implying that the avs are required to choose from the 3+M backups only.

 

[DavidBL]

Wait? Why can I o my compare 3M goalies?

Why shouldn’t I be comparing it to all goalies, including the ones making under 3M?

Shouldn’t I being looking at quality of play vs salary? You seemingly are implying that the avs are required to choose from the 3+M backups only.

Sorry you can compare him to anyone. Total salary is of course a component when determining value. I just meant generally in terms of value of actual goalie skill if you're looking at Gibby at 3.2 mil you'd want to compare to other goalies you can get for that. Basic premise being that you get a better goalie for 3 mill than you would for 1 mil. If you think you can kind a 1 mill goalie to be your starter then there is no point to the conversation continuing.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

And yet they still seem to be interested in Gibby. I'm not saying they should trade for him. Just that it doesn't make sense to trade him for a second with 50% retained, especially if we're taking g a dump as well.

No. Friedman brought up Gibson as a name that he thinks might make sense for the Avs. There is zero reason to think the Avs are actually interested in him.

And I don't disagree that it doesn't make sense to give him away for nothing, unless of course ownership wants to save money while they aren't contending. But the bigger issue seems to be actually finding a team willing to gamble $3.2m on him for the next 2+ seasons in the first place, when there's guys available for free who are just as good for $1m with no commitment.

 

[DavidBL]

No. Friedman brought up Gibson as a name that he thinks might make sense for the Avs. There is zero reason to think the Avs are actually interested in him.

And I don't disagree that it doesn't make sense to give him away for nothing, unless of course ownership wants to save money while they aren't contending. But the bigger issue seems to be actually finding a team willing to gamble $3.2m on him for the next 2+ seasons in the first place, when there's guys available for free who are just as good for $1m with no commitment.

Fair enough and I don't disagree, except I think Gibsons numbers are more a result of his team than him and don't think a 1 mill goalie will be just as good. But we're free to disagree on that.

 

[duckpuck]

Possibly. Gibson has put up 900 SP for about 5 seasons now. Is that the team? Is that just him regressing?
Are we just supposed to assume he will play better?

Either way. You’re comparing a 1M backup to a 3.2M backup. How much better does Gibson need to be AT MINIMUM just to make the difference in cap worth it?

Yes - it is/was mostly the team. Again, as posted above, the ducks we're bit just bad. They were HISTORICALLY bad. They gave up a record number of shots. They had awful puck possession metrics.

And it wasn't just the volume. It was the quality. Lots of shots from high danger areas with the ducks defense no where in sight.

Gibson may never regain his elite form. We don't know. But I can say with confidence he's still been a good goalie even behind a bad team. I see only upside for him if he played behind a better team.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Fair enough and I don't disagree, except I think Gibsons numbers are more a result of his team than him and don't think a 1 mill goalie will be just as good. But we're free to disagree on that.

So you're saying it's the team's fault that Gibson lost the starting job to Dostal, the $840k goalie who put up much more respectable numbers while playing a similar number of games behind the same Ducks team last year?

 

[DavidBL]

So you're saying it's the team's fault that Gibson lost the starting job to Dostal, the $840k goalie who put up much more respectable numbers while playing a similar number of games behind the same Ducks team last year?

Dostal is not a typical 1 mill goalie that a team can just add. Gibby has lost the starting role to a young emerging prospect that the Ducks developed. And they BOTH had rough numbers last year and Gibbys been dealing with it for literal years now. That is going to take a mental toll.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Dostal is not a typical 1 mill goalie that a team can just add. Gibby has lost the starting role to a young emerging prospect that the Ducks developed. And they BOTH had rough numbers last year and Gibbys been dealing with it for literal years now. That is going to take a mental toll.

Yes, they did both have rough numbers last year, but Dostal's GSAA was a -2.4, compared to a -21.2 for Gibson. 0.902 SV% vs 0.888. If an emerging prospect can put up those kinds of numbers on a bad team, why couldn't Gibson? If it's the mental toll from being on a bad team for so long, what's to suggest that he's not mentally broken at this point and can actually recover enough to be worth $3.2m until his contract expires after 2 more seasons?

 

[DavidBL]

Yes, they did both have rough numbers last year, but Dostal's GSAA was a -2.4, compared to a -21.2 for Gibson. 0.902 SV% vs 0.888. If an emerging prospect can put up those kinds of numbers on a bad team, why couldn't Gibson? If it's the mental toll from being on a bad team for so long, what's to suggest that he's not mentally broken at this point and can actually recover enough to be worth $3.2m until his contract expires after 2 more seasons?

Gibson still had good games last year. What do you want me to say? That there is risk in trading for Gibson. Sure there's risk. Won't deny that. But he's also shown he's still capable of being a good goalie and a history if being a good goalie. Dostal overtaking him doesn't change that.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Gibson still had good games last year. What do you want me to say? That there is risk in trading for Gibson. Sure there's risk. Won't deny that. But he's also shown he's still capable of being a good goalie and a history if being a good goalie. Dostal overtaking him doesn't change that.

To be fair, so did Georgiev. And he's also shown he's capable of being a good goalie and has a history of being better than he currently is. Just two years ago, he led the NHL in wins, put up a .918 SV% and even got a GM to vote for him for the Vezina (probably MacFarland, but still...). But, he's been pretty inconsistent for the last year+ and pretty bad for the first 5 games this season, so his history and capabilities don't really matter at this point.

And that's true for Gibson, too. Over the last 5 years, he's definitely played some really good games, but there have been more games that were below average or worse. That inconsistency is what opened the door for Dostal to take the starting job. And that inconsistency is also what makes him such a big risk with that contract. Teams have to gamble that he figures it out again and plays more average or better games for the next ~3 seasons for him to be worth $3.2m per year. Or, they can roll the dice on a couple of $1m lottery tickets from the waiver wire every year with no commitment until they find someone that can consistently perform at a good enough level.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

To be fair, so did Georgiev. And he's also shown he's capable of being a good goalie and has a history of being better than he currently is. Just two years ago, he led the NHL in wins, put up a .918 SV% and even got a GM to vote for him for the Vezina (probably MacFarland, but still...). But, he's been pretty inconsistent for the last year+ and pretty bad for the first 5 games this season, so his history and capabilities don't really matter at this point.

And that's true for Gibson, too. Over the last 5 years, he's definitely played some really good games, but there have been more games that were below average or worse. That inconsistency is what opened the door for Dostal to take the starting job. And that inconsistency is also what makes him such a big risk with that contract. Teams have to gamble that he figures it out again and plays more average or better games for the next ~3 seasons for him to be worth $3.2m per year. Or, they can roll the dice on a couple of $1m lottery tickets from the waiver wire every year with no commitment until they find someone that can consistently perform at a good enough level.

I'll say this of Gibson, and it's something none of the stats will account for - no goalie in the league has come remotely close to spending as many complete futile/garbage time minutes in any crease over the last few years. I really just care about a goalie's ability to keep us in a game when there's a game to be kept in. I'm not saying Gibson never has a bad start or let's a weak one in early because that happens with the best of goalies on occasion but generally speaking he is very rarely cost the Ducks a chance at winning a game they had any business winning and has stolen them more points than he's lost them.

I'd love to see some of these stats adjusted for only including goals that occurred when the score is say within two goals - because other than being slightly deflating, a weak goal allowed when a bad team is already done for the night, really doesn't matter to me remotely as much as one allowed with a game on the line. Strongly believe his stats are hugely dragged down by goals that would essentially have made zero difference, no other goalie has been in such a position to have that occurring at such a high rate for such a long period of time.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I'll say this of Gibson, and it's something none of the stats will account for - no goalie in the league has come remotely close to spending as many complete futile/garbage time minutes in any crease over the last few years. I really just care about a goalie's ability to keep us in a game when there's a game to be kept in. I'm not saying Gibson never has a bad start or let's a weak one in early because that happens with the best of goalies on occasion but generally speaking he is very rarely cost the Ducks a chance at winning a game they had any business winning and has stolen them more points than he's lost them.

I'd love to see some of these stats adjusted for only including goals that occurred when the score is say within two goals - because other than being slightly deflating, a weak goal allowed when a bad team is already done for the night, really doesn't matter to me remotely as much as one allowed with a game on the line. Strongly believe his stats are hugely dragged down by goals that would essentially have made zero difference, no other goalie has been in such a position to have that occurring at such a high rate for such a long period of time.

This sounds exactly like what Habs fans used to say when they were pushing Price as a great option for teams with goalie problems. All the bad games weren't his fault, so we should just focus on the handful of good games that he plays every year, and his great season from 5+ years ago, because he'll definitely be consistently good for a different team. Trust me.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

This sounds exactly like what Habs fans used to say when they were pushing Price as a great option for teams with goalie problems. All the bad games weren't his fault, so we should just focus on the handful of good games that he plays every year, and his great season from 5+ years ago, because he'll definitely be consistently good for a different team. Trust me.

I made sure to not speak in such general terms, nor am I one of those delusional fans who thinks spinning anything here will somehow assist his real life value. Gibson is not perfect but there really isn't a stat that properly accounts for how futile his situation has been. All I know is that we really don't have a sample where he was on a good team and wasn't up to the task. It very much remains to be seen whether a fresh start would bring back his best but personally I would put my money on it.

It's not a situation where I hope we dupe you into a trade to take him off our hands, would genuinely want to see him help win you a Cup and prove people wrong.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I made sure to not speak in such general terms, nor am I one of those delusional fans who thinks spinning anything here will somehow assist his real life value. Gibson is not perfect but there really isn't a stat that properly accounts for how futile his situation has been. All I know is that we really don't have a sample where he was on a good team and wasn't up to the task. It very much remains to be seen whether a fresh start would bring back his best but personally I would put my money on it.

It's not a situation where I hope we dupe you into a trade to take him off our hands, would genuinely want to see him help win you a Cup and prove people wrong.

And I'm not saying he can't possibly return to form and be a solid starter somewhere. I'm just saying he's an expensive risk right now with an unknown chance of improvement, so I'm not expecting anyone to be willing to gamble on him anytime soon even at 50% retention. If he comes back and plays decently well for most of this year as Dostal's backup, maybe that changes.

And until he shows he's worth the risk at all, the potential return he might get probably isn't worth discussing.

 

[OversKy]

This sounds exactly like what Habs fans used to say when they were pushing Price as a great option for teams with goalie problems. All the bad games weren't his fault, so we should just focus on the handful of good games that he plays every year, and his great season from 5+ years ago, because he'll definitely be consistently good for a different team. Trust me.

Price was pretty amazing until he was broken, not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Price was pretty amazing until he was broken, not sure what you're getting at here.

If you weren't here 3 or 4 years ago, when Habs fans were incessantly offering Price to the Avs for insane valuations, consider yourself lucky. I wish I could forget some of the stupid things I read in those threads.

 

[Foppberg]

I'd love to run with a Gibson/Juice tandem.

 

[lindholmie]

Wait Gibson lost his starting job to dostal? I thought he was just injured