Toggle sidebar

Friedman: Gibson is interested in Carolina, or Edmonton

tomd said:
I think the point that is being missed by everyone north and east of Anaheim is that the Ducks are under absolutely zero pressure to trade Gibson. Verbeek has to be thrilled that the team is at .500 and slowing moving up the standing towards a playoff spot. They are getting playoff caliber goaltending every single night now. Meaningful games in March is what Verbeek said he wanted and it looks like he'll get them. If a team like Carolina desperately wants Gibson then they'll have to pay Verbeek's price. I personally don't think they will pay that price and so Gibson will remain a Duck. Regarding Edmonton...they just don't have the assets to acquire Gibson IMO.
Click to expand...
The Ducks are playing better for sure but they're 9 points out of a playoff spot with less than 30 games left with other teams outside the playoff picture ahead of them so it's not all that realistic.
The point of moving him now is to maximize value for a 31 year old goalie who likely isn't a part of Anaheim's future. If they wait until next year to trade him he's only a rental and the value will lower.

Furthermore, what do you mean Edmonton doesn't have the assets, How much do you think he's worth?
Nobody is giving a top prospect for him or a good roster player so what's the expectation? A 1st+minor stuff perhaps.
Ultimately I think you're right that Gibson likely doesn't get traded if Verbeek values him too highly. He has a big contract and just had 4 poor seasons leading to this one so I can't imagine that teams, in what is a goalie market with few buyers, is willing to get into a bidding war for a goalie with big question marks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zegs2sendhelp
WhatTheDuck said:
If anything, they should be looking at how they can afford a Gibson/Skinner tandem. With the latter only making 2.6M next year and the cap rising, they don't need to pay for a ton of retention in order to have both for next year.

Gibson/Skinner as 1A/B at a combined cost of around 7.5-8M sounds pretty good IMO
Click to expand...
I think the real thing we have to discuss is that cap hit. If the Ducks aren't willing to eat some salary, the Oilers can't really consider Gibson at all in my opinion. So we aren't really talking about the value of Gibson, we are talking about the value of Gibson with some retention on him. I wouldn't pay much for him at full hit, but at 50%, the Oilers should be incredibly interested. If Anaheim has no interest in retaining, then this probably isn't a good fit.
 
CupofOil said:
The Ducks are playing better for sure but they're 9 points out of a playoff spot with less than 30 games left with other teams outside the playoff picture ahead of them so it's not all that realistic.
The point of moving him now is to maximize value for a 31 year old goalie who likely isn't a part of Anaheim's future. If they wait until next year to trade him he's only a rental and the value will lower.

Furthermore, what do you mean Edmonton doesn't have the assets, How much do you think he's worth?
Nobody is giving a top prospect for him or a good roster player so what's the expectation? A 1st+minor stuff perhaps.
Ultimately I think you're right that Gibson likely doesn't get traded if Verbeek values him too highly. He has a big contract and just had 4 poor seasons leading to this one so I can't imagine that teams, in what is a goalie market with few buyers, is willing to get into a bidding war for a goalie with big question marks.
Click to expand...
So the Ducks need to maximize his value by trading him for a small return? Nope. Please understand that they don't need to trade him. His salary is irrelevant. The Ducks are not likely to make the playoffs but giving their young players a chance to play meaningful games is hugely important to their progression as NHL players. That is very important to Verbeek.

Finally, from an acquiring team's POV if Gibson isn't worth a big return then why are they acquiring him? If he isn't the "missing piece" for Edmonton or Carolina then they shouldn't be interested. If he is the missing piece then they should be VERY interested and willing to pay. We'll see what happens. I'm betting he stays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM, lwvs84 and Three On Zero
tomd said:
So the Ducks need to maximize his value by trading him for a small return? Nope. Please understand that they don't need to trade him. His salary is irrelevant. The Ducks are not likely to make the playoffs but giving their young players a chance to play meaningful games is hugely important to their progression as NHL players. That is very important to Verbeek.

Finally, from an acquiring team's POV if Gibson isn't worth a big return then why are they acquiring him? If he isn't the "missing piece" for Edmonton or Carolina then they shouldn't be interested. If he is the missing piece then they should be VERY interested and willing to pay. We'll see what happens. I'm betting he stays.
Click to expand...
Well spoken.
 
ManofSteel55 said:
I think the real thing we have to discuss is that cap hit. If the Ducks aren't willing to eat some salary, the Oilers can't really consider Gibson at all in my opinion. So we aren't really talking about the value of Gibson, we are talking about the value of Gibson with some retention on him. I wouldn't pay much for him at full hit, but at 50%, the Oilers should be incredibly interested. If Anaheim has no interest in retaining, then this probably isn't a good fit.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an issue of ability to retain, but rather desire to. I can't see the Ducks eating over 3M x 2 (plus the prorated amount this year) to get rid of a player who isn't hurting their cap situation or hurting them in any way for that matter - unless there's enough value coming back where they feel they are getting good return on Gibson and being compensated for eating that much money for Edmonton's benefit.

There has to be a balance struck there, and honestly I just don't see it happening at full retention. The Ducks will and should stay dug in and not eat that much money unless the offer is tremendous, I don't think anyone will bite and pay that much for Gibson. Something in the 1-1.5 range gets his cap hit down to the 4.9-5.4 range, and that's where I can maybe see the balance being struck. Right in that range where a lot of teams seem to like to pay their non elite #1(A) goalies. With the rising cap, that's equivalent to paying him around or below 4M.
 
WhatTheDuck said:
I don't think it's an issue of ability to retain, but rather desire to. I can't see the Ducks eating over 3M x 2 (plus the prorated amount this year) to get rid of a player who isn't hurting their cap situation or hurting them in any way for that matter - unless there's enough value coming back where they feel they are getting good return on Gibson and being compensated for eating that much money for Edmonton's benefit.

There has to be a balance struck there, and honestly I just don't see it happening at full retention. The Ducks will and should stay dug in and not eat that much money unless the offer is tremendous, I don't think anyone will bite and pay that much for Gibson. Something in the 1-1.5 range gets his cap hit down to the 4.9-5.4 range, and that's where I can maybe see the balance being struck. Right in that range where a lot of teams seem to like to pay their non elite #1(A) goalies. With the rising cap, that's equivalent to paying him around or below 4M.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I posed that statement as the willingness for the Ducks to retain, not the ability to do so. I'm not sure if Gibson at full cap hit has any value at all - he's been to inconsistent over the past few years for most teams to want him at his $6M cap hit. So I agree, there needs to be a balance. If the Ducks are going to eat1.5M to get him down to the 4.9M you quoted, I think teams might start to have interest in him, but I'm not sure if they would give up much for him. I think it would be more likely for other teams to jump on a reasonable deal for Gibson if the Ducks were to retain on him to get him down to a $3.5 - 4M hit, but that's getting pretty close to retaining 50% on him, and I'm not sure if Verbeek would want that. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, in fact.

Now, if the Ducks had interest in someone like Arvidsson, who isn't scoring at the rate we want him to, that might make it easier.

To Edmonton - John Gibson (2.4M retention, for a $4M cap hit)

To Anaheim - Victor Arvidsson ($4M cap hit)

The real issue, is figuring out what the value difference is here. Arvidsson isn't performing in Edmonton, but he is being paid fairly for what his production has been traditionally, so its a matter of whether Verbeek likes him as a player or not. I wouldn't say there is negative value in Arvidsson, but I also wouldn't suggest that a straight across deal does anything for Anaheim. Edmonton has a thin prospect pool, as has been mentioned in nearly every Oilers discussion, ha ha. I can't see them dealing Savoie or Sam O'Reilly in a deal like this, but we do have a few OHL guys (Dalyn Wakely, William Nicholl, Connor Clattenburg) who are good prospects - just not blue chippers. We also have a couple of decent NCAA guys in Luca Munzenberger, who projects as a shut down defenseman, and Shane Lachance, who is 6"5, 220 lbs, and scoring just under a point per game pace for Boston U. So there could be some interesting guys there, even if we only have 1 or 2 that could make an impact in the next season or two. And we do have picks, but I wouldn't include a 1st.

It's an intriguing possibility, but I suspect the two teams would be too far apart on the retention aspect.
 
^^^^^^^
The Ducks are rebuilding. Why on earth would they want an ageing Victor Arvidsson who can't perform any more? I doubt Anaheim has any desire to take Edmonton's signing mistakes off their hands.
I'll also be very surprised if they accept B level prospects for Gibson either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM

ManofSteel55 said:
Yes, I agree. I posed that statement as the willingness for the Ducks to retain, not the ability to do so. I'm not sure if Gibson at full cap hit has any value at all - he's been to inconsistent over the past few years for most teams to want him at his $6M cap hit. So I agree, there needs to be a balance. If the Ducks are going to eat1.5M to get him down to the 4.9M you quoted, I think teams might start to have interest in him, but I'm not sure if they would give up much for him. I think it would be more likely for other teams to jump on a reasonable deal for Gibson if the Ducks were to retain on him to get him down to a $3.5 - 4M hit, but that's getting pretty close to retaining 50% on him, and I'm not sure if Verbeek would want that. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, in fact.

Now, if the Ducks had interest in someone like Arvidsson, who isn't scoring at the rate we want him to, that might make it easier.

To Edmonton - John Gibson (2.4M retention, for a $4M cap hit)

To Anaheim - Victor Arvidsson ($4M cap hit)

The real issue, is figuring out what the value difference is here. Arvidsson isn't performing in Edmonton, but he is being paid fairly for what his production has been traditionally, so its a matter of whether Verbeek likes him as a player or not. I wouldn't say there is negative value in Arvidsson, but I also wouldn't suggest that a straight across deal does anything for Anaheim. Edmonton has a thin prospect pool, as has been mentioned in nearly every Oilers discussion, ha ha. I can't see them dealing Savoie or Sam O'Reilly in a deal like this, but we do have a few OHL guys (Dalyn Wakely, William Nicholl, Connor Clattenburg) who are good prospects - just not blue chippers. We also have a couple of decent NCAA guys in Luca Munzenberger, who projects as a shut down defenseman, and Shane Lachance, who is 6"5, 220 lbs, and scoring just under a point per game pace for Boston U. So there could be some interesting guys there, even if we only have 1 or 2 that could make an impact in the next season or two. And we do have picks, but I wouldn't include a 1st.

It's an intriguing possibility, but I suspect the two teams would be too far apart on the retention aspect.
Click to expand...

I think if he could be had with that much retention, with a cap dump and for essentially spare parts, he would have been long sold. That honestly just does nothing to help Anaheim improve their hockey club in the grand scheme and seems like a no brainer from Edmonton's perspective. The Ducks can just hold on until someone caves to paying something worth more than just keeping their strong tandem who give them a chance every night
 
Rubi said:
^^^^^^^
The Ducks are rebuilding. Why on earth would they want an ageing Victor Arvidson who can't perform any more? I doubt Anaheim has any desire to take Edmonton's signing mistakes off their hands.
Click to expand...
Let's not act like Arvidsson is ready for the old timer's games here. He's 31, and has a career low shooting percentage. In every other way, he's looking like the same player he has been for years. Any suggestion that he's washed up is silly. The only reason I've included him, is because we would need to move salary out (as would any team wanting Gibson) and it balances perfectly with what I anticipate an acceptable amount of retention on Gibson would be. $4M for $4M, plus some futures as incentive pieces to make it worthwhile for the Ducks.

WhatTheDuck said:
I think if he could be had with that much retention, with a cap dump and for essentially spare parts, he would have been long sold. That honestly just does nothing to help Anaheim improve their hockey club in the grand scheme and seems like a no brainer from Edmonton's perspective. The Ducks can just hold on until someone caves to paying something worth more than just keeping their strong tandem who give them a chance every night
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that Verbeek wants a first to retain on him, if he has any interest in retaining at all. If that's the case, Gibson will remain a Duck, and the rumours will continue to swirl. It comes down to whether waiting "until someone caves" will result in them not trading him at all. Sure, the Ducks CAN keep the current pair they have, but it would probably be smarter in both the short and long term to move on from Gibson, fill his spot with a cheaper veteran backup for Dostal, and get some futures to help the team 2 or 3 years from now. The holdup will always be finding a team that wants him badly enough to pay Verbeeks overprice price tag.
 
ManofSteel55 said:
Let's not act like Arvidsson is ready for the old timer's games here. He's 31, and has a career low shooting percentage. In every other way, he's looking like the same player he has been for years. Any suggestion that he's washed up is silly. The only reason I've included him, is because we would need to move salary out (as would any team wanting Gibson) and it balances perfectly with what I anticipate an acceptable amount of retention on Gibson would be. $4M for $4M, plus some futures as incentive pieces to make it worthwhile for the Ducks.
Click to expand...
Let's not pretend that Arvidson is a valued piece by Edmonton. He was a mistake. This is a common belief in Edmonton.
Also why on earth would a team in the early stages of a rebuild trade a .915 Sv% goalie for a 31 year old player who has 18 pts? You don't think Anaheim will get much better offers than that at the TDL or over the summer?
Again, let's not be delusional. It's a great deal for Edmonton but for Anaheim it sucks.
 
ManofSteel55 said:
Let's not act like Arvidsson is ready for the old timer's games here. He's 31, and has a career low shooting percentage. In every other way, he's looking like the same player he has been for years. Any suggestion that he's washed up is silly. The only reason I've included him, is because we would need to move salary out (as would any team wanting Gibson) and it balances perfectly with what I anticipate an acceptable amount of retention on Gibson would be. $4M for $4M, plus some futures as incentive pieces to make it worthwhile for the Ducks.


I think the issue is that Verbeek wants a first to retain on him, if he has any interest in retaining at all. If that's the case, Gibson will remain a Duck, and the rumours will continue to swirl. It comes down to whether waiting "until someone caves" will result in them not trading him at all. Sure, the Ducks CAN keep the current pair they have, but it would probably be smarter in both the short and long term to move on from Gibson, fill his spot with a cheaper veteran backup for Dostal, and get some futures to help the team 2 or 3 years from now. The holdup will always be finding a team that wants him badly enough to pay Verbeeks overprice price tag.
Click to expand...
We have differing opinions but I really don't see a late first in this reported weak draft as a big overpay if you are getting 2+ years of any significant retention. 3 playoff runs with one of the current top performing goalies in the league vs a late first in a weak draft that has maybe a 20% chance of hitting an NHLer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM
Rubi said:
Let's not pretend that Arvidson is a valued piece by Edmonton. He was a mistake. This is a common belief in Edmonton.
Also why on earth would a team in the early stages of a rebuild trade a .915 Sv% goalie for a 31 year old player who has 18 pts? You don't think Anaheim will get much better offers than that at the TDL or over the summer?
Again, let's not be delusional. It's a great deal for Edmonton but for Anaheim it sucks.
Click to expand...
Arvidsson has looked pretty bad compared to his years prior, he’s fast approaching as a cap dump player, not one that holds value. He’s also not a good fit for the Ducks current group of forwards. The basis of Gibson for Arvidsson is likely easily beat by Carolina.

Gibson ultimately can steer the ship to where he prefers to get traded, but let’s not act like he’s a complete cap dump. He had some terrible numbers on a bottom feeding team but he’s showing this year that he can still play at an above average level with a decent team and the highest profile goalie potentially available.
 
Last edited:
Unless Gibson wants out, a team has to make it worth it for the Ducks to move him. With the amount of shots they give up, it's going to be worth having 2 goalies that can split the load. Anaheim is closer to the cap floor than the ceiling, so the money isn't an issue (might even have to spend to get above the floor). Verbeek has a price he's set, hopefully he won't move off it. Realistically, there is nothing Gibson can return that will make a big impact in the rebuild. Having Gibson and Dostal, on the other hand, could help make a playoff push next year. Ducks are also "only" 9 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand. It is possible to be within single digits of the final spot by the end of the season (note, I'm not saying they will make it or even that they have better than a very slim/outside chance). Being 6-9 points out (meaning not mathematically eliminated until the last week or two of the season) is better experience than getting a redundant prospect and a late 2nd in a weak draft.

IF the offer is a 1st round pick, then evaluate what the scouts think. This year sounds like a really week draft in the 28-32 range, next year might be better but picks that late are usually less than 50/50 to be meaningful players. Most of the high end kids are already on the team, but there is plenty of depth players still left in the system, some of which are probably at or close to the level of player a late first would get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducks DVM
lwvs84 said:
Unless Gibson wants out, a team has to make it worth it for the Ducks to move him. With the amount of shots they give up, it's going to be worth having 2 goalies that can split the load. Anaheim is closer to the cap floor than the ceiling, so the money isn't an issue (might even have to spend to get above the floor). Verbeek has a price he's set, hopefully he won't move off it. Realistically, there is nothing Gibson can return that will make a big impact in the rebuild. Having Gibson and Dostal, on the other hand, could help make a playoff push next year. Ducks are also "only" 9 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand. It is possible to be within single digits of the final spot by the end of the season (note, I'm not saying they will make it or even that they have better than a very slim/outside chance). Being 6-9 points out (meaning not mathematically eliminated until the last week or two of the season) is better experience than getting a redundant prospect and a late 2nd in a weak draft.

IF the offer is a 1st round pick, then evaluate what the scouts think. This year sounds like a really week draft in the 28-32 range, next year might be better but picks that late are usually less than 50/50 to be meaningful players. Most of the high end kids are already on the team, but there is plenty of depth players still left in the system, some of which are probably at or close to the level of player a late first would get.
Click to expand...
My guess is that Verbeek probably has zero interest in a late #1 pick that won't see NHL ice until 2030 (if ever). I think his price is a top prospect or a young NHL roster player. Either way, someone who can be on the team within 1-2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
Wait, did someone offer up a 31 year old wing, who is being outscored by Jesperi Kotkaniemi this season, for Gibson?

I know Carolina would beat that come summer.
 
tomd said:
My guess is that Verbeek probably has zero interest in a late #1 pick that won't see NHL ice until 2030 (if ever). I think his price is a top prospect or a young NHL roster player. Either way, someone who can be on the team within 1-2 years.
Click to expand...
Meh i think most duck fans can admit were not getting help from free agency... draft capita does help us in the trade front in the offseason.

But obviously we can move Gibson at the draft too, so no rush to move him at deadline if the value isnt there. I do think PV and Gibson have an agreement that we will try to move him tho.


I do think guys like Sam o rielly and Beau akey would be interesting guys to look at ... hell i imagine our scouts had Sam o rielly pretty high on their board.
 
He’s not going anywhere in season, the market isn’t there and clearly not at Verbeeks ask.

I bet he’ll soften on the ask once he’s got an owner up his ass about a 10-11M a year goalie tandem and another year of not being close to making the playoffs.

Goalie controversy waiting to happen, especially if Gibson keeps it up and doesn’t get traded, because guaranteed Verbeek has told him he needs to be better if he wants out because nobody is trading for that contract as is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gilfaizon
23 GP and has only won 9. Yeahhh, I'd keep Skinner. If you're spending the kind of assets that Anaheim would want for him, I'd get another legit top Dman or a finisher that can help McDavid over a netminder.
 
Rubi said:
Let's not pretend that Arvidson is a valued piece by Edmonton. He was a mistake. This is a common belief in Edmonton.
Also why on earth would a team in the early stages of a rebuild trade a .915 Sv% goalie for a 31 year old player who has 18 pts? You don't think Anaheim will get much better offers than that at the TDL or over the summer?
Again, let's not be delusional. It's a great deal for Edmonton but for Anaheim it sucks.
Click to expand...
He hasn't turned out. We needed a player that brings what Arvidsson has brought throughout most of his career. He isn't scoring, and that is the only issue with him. If a scorer isn't scoring here and needs a change of scenery, he can be moved to fill another hole. It doesn't make him worthless given the rest of his history. Never in NHL history has a player had no value after a bad scoring rate on a new team.

Anaheim should trade Gibson now because he is aging, overpaid, they have a younger, better goalie ready to take over, and let's be honest here, this is the first time in 4 years that Gibson has been playing well enough for another team to have interest in him. Plus, Dostal is due a significant raise, and I can't see Anaheim's ownership being overly happy with having $10 - 13M dedicated to their goalies next year. They should trade him now, if there is a suitor interested, so they don't get stuck with him later. That NTC isn't going to help them get a better deal for Gibson either. If the Ducks wait until the summer, they have no leverage of playoff teams being desperate for a goalie. Their bargaining power goes away, and they likely end up with a far worse pick than we have been talking about here.

Chrispy said:
Wait, did someone offer up a 31 year old wing, who is being outscored by Jesperi Kotkaniemi this season, for Gibson?

I know Carolina would beat that come summer.
Click to expand...
Not one for one. The value going back is in futures, as it should be for Anaheim.
 
Last edited:
WhatTheDuck said:
We have differing opinions but I really don't see a late first in this reported weak draft as a big overpay if you are getting 2+ years of any significant retention. 3 playoff runs with one of the current top performing goalies in the league vs a late first in a weak draft that has maybe a 20% chance of hitting an NHLer.
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about one of the current top goalies in the league though. We are talking about John Gibson, who is having a good year, but has been awful for a number of years now. He had incredibly poor value in the past few years. At full cap hit, he is still likely seen as a negative value asset. If Anheim isn't interested in retaining, there is really nothing here that is realistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueSeal
ManofSteel55 said:
We aren't talking about one of the current top goalies in the league though. We are talking about John Gibson, who is having a good year, but has been awful for a number of years now. He had incredibly poor value in the past few years. At full cap hit, he is still likely seen as a negative value asset. If Anheim isn't interested in retaining, there is really nothing here that is realistic.
Click to expand...

Yeah see we just will have to agree to disagree. Gibson had one terrible season (last year) and otherwise has pretty much always been the same goalie, with his numbers being aligned with what's in front him. Putting up a .900 SV% in 50+ games behind the worst team of the modern era, was an accomplishment. There are goalies who struggle to put up those numbers on good teams. No one around the game has ever been as down on him as people who just glance at stats and don't apply context. NHL execs still voted him a top 15 goalie just a year ago. You saying he's had poor value for years is just an opinion and I don't believe it's actually shared around the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom