Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | Where's The Beef?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
If we're talking Gibson from 7 or 8 years ago, then him. Gibson's last five years though are alarmingly bad. A small sample size this year doesn't erase what he's been the previous five.

The solution is extremely simple and doesn't cost the Oilers any assets: Can Schwartz, bring in a real goalie coach.
So Gibson? Got it. And you didn't even mention Stuart
 
So Gibson? Got it. And you didn't even mention Stuart
Gibson costs us assets to get. If we're spending assets on a goalie then get one that hasn't been dogshit. I prefer not to get bent over for someone who probably won't be an upgrade.

People don't realize it takes years to remove the Dallas Eakins stink off you
Well in that case, wouldn't the stink of Eakins still be on Gibson? It's only been a year and a half since he was canned.
 
Gibson costs us assets to get. If we're spending assets on a goalie then get one that hasn't been dogshit. I prefer not to get bent over for someone who probably won't be an upgrade.


Well in that case, wouldn't the stink of Eakins still be on Gibson? It's only been a year and a half since he was canned.
Maybe Gibson value isn't as high. Look at what Cam Fowler went for.

Well he did have a subpar season last year. That was the Dallas Eakin stink. He's recovered now. Great players recover faster
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmi McJenkins
Maybe Gibson value isn't as high. Look at what Cam Fowler went for.

Well he did have a subpar season last year. That was Dallas Eakin stink. He's recovered now.
If he's as good as you say then why would his value be low? You can't have it both ways.

Again, the solution is simple and costs the Oilers nothing.
 
If he's as good as you say then why would his value be low? You can't have it both ways.

Again, the solution is simple and costs the Oilers nothing.
Because he's not young, coming off bad years and has a not insignificant cap hit. I see what you're saying, but it is worth exploring to see what may come. Either way, upgrading Pickard is still more important that Skinner, and Gibson could be that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K1984
My reasoning is that he's been bad for the past 5 years, and that's more likely to be the outcome here and that spending assets on a "maybe" in a year where we want to win the Cup is a bad idea.
And everyone else' reasoning is Stuart isn't good enough for 2-3 years now. So maybe we should give another goalie the starting role?
 
And everyone else' reasoning is Stuart isn't good enough for 2-3 years now. So maybe we should give another goalie the starting role?
Or perhaps we go with the option that costs the Oilers nothing and could yield much bigger rewards.


Yeah, who would want a good veteran that plays their role to a T?

It would suck if Gibson could do the same.
He gets caved very frequently. He's a non-factor in most games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashtoNowitzki
Why? The guys who scouted him are still here. That signing was disastrous for the team.



That he sucks? Is that the reason? Because Fowler was pretty piss poor on the Ducks before being traded.
I think it was Jason Strudwick who said some interesting stuff about what constantly losing does to a player (he would know). I don't think we need an ex-NHL player to tell us that losing all the time affects your competitive spirit and makes the game harder to play, mind you.

Anyways, I think you have to look at guys like Fowler, Gibson, even Zegras in the context of their consistently awful team. Their team's baseline was to be nowhere near competitive in the league. Gibson hasn't sniffed the playoffs in almost 7 years.

I get the argument against Gibson, 100%. But I strongly disagree that you can divorce his numbers completely from the team he plays on, especially given his position on the ice.
 
Or perhaps we go with the option that costs the Oilers nothing and could yield much bigger rewards.



He gets caved very frequently. He's a non-factor in most games.
Going with the route that cost us nothing is the reason why we lost Holloway and Broberg when we could have traded them for Buchnevich
 
I think it was Jason Strudwick who said some interesting stuff about what constantly losing does to a player (he would know). I don't think we need an ex-NHL player to tell us that losing all the time affects your competitive spirit and makes the game harder to play, mind you. I think you have to look at guys like Fowler, Gibson, even Zegras in the context of their consistently awful team. Their team's baseline was to be nowhere near competitive in the league. Gibson hasn't sniffed the playoffs in almost 7 years.

I get the argument against Gibson, 100%. But I strongly disagree that you can divorce his numbers completely from the team he plays on, especially given his position on the ice.
I understand this, but it's not as if there's some switch that's flipped when a player goes from a bad to a good team.

Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about sending Jeff Skinner to a farm upstate.


Going with the route that cost us nothing is the reason why we lost Holloway and Broberg when we could have traded them for Buchnevich
????????
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad