Regarding the two posts above, I think there is one issue being overlooked. The ducks are one of the few teams that can take Mrazek's contract, provide a (potentially) elite goalie in return, and might be willing to trade their (potentially) elite goalie for the right price. Toronto could attempt to address the goalie position in separate moves (sign a UFA and then pay something to dump Mrazek). So the question is whether better goalies than Gibson are available as UFAs (or via trade) at a lower cost.
More on the "potentially" below.
I think this is a very good post. The only thing I would add is that the floor with gibson is pretty high and for anyone who has watched him the last three years, the elite ability is CLEARLY there. He has carried the team during long stretches and was widely considered the top goal tender for the USA team earlier this year.
Ultimately, he's worn down in the later part of the year (I think more mentally than physically) and lost concentration when the team was out of contention and playing laughably bad in front of him. And, of course, the ducks have been awful with the best players hurt and not many very good players. Not excusing Gibson's play - and some ducks fans often comment on Gibson's attitude/mental approach - but the dynamic is pretty clear.
So what is a team potentially trading for? Gibson is literally in his prime age-wise and has shown no signs that his physical skills are in decline. There are no guarantees, but I think it is VERY likely he returns to top form, is a top 5 goalie, and at worse a top 15 goalie. And in the playoffs, he'll be a guy who can steal games for the next 5+ years.
The ducks are in an interesting spot. They can field offers but be patient. I think he's still held in very high regard among gms and scouts.
Getting rid of Mrazek is nowhere near the "big deal" posters are making it out to be. He has no trade protection... there are lots of teams looking for a tandem-capable goalie to help stabilize the position a little bit. If one of those teams can pick up a small asset along the way, all the better.
As for what Gibson is -- he seems to have higher upside than any UFA goalie outside of Ville Husso (as you could get a Shesterkin/Vasi challenger at $6.4m, roughly $2m less than those guys are paid/going to be paid).
But, he also has by far the biggest downside because I don't believe anyone in the UFA crop is going to get $6m+ this year. He certainly seems to be held in high regard amongst the pro hockey people, but that regard will certainly change if he goes to new scenery, and continues to be a 3.00 / .904 goalie, or really, anywhere near that.
For a team like Toronto, a lot has focused on what futures the Leafs would give up to get him. A much bigger component of any Gibson-to-Toronto deal needs to be "how are they going to clear the cap space to accommodate him?"
The Leafs spent just under $5.5m on their goaltending tandem last year. Acquiring Gibson means you're likely to spend around $7.5m when you factor in a backup. Rielly got a $2m raise, which basically comes from the cap increase and Kessel off the books. You can probably pay for Gibson + Backup by moving Kerfoot & Mrazek, while replacing Kerfoot with a $1.5m forward. The problem is -- you've now taken an already top-heavy team, and made them even top-heavier.
When you do that, and subtract material amounts of futures, that becomes a real problem. Futures can deliver performances well in excess of their contracts as they're on ELCs, or can be used to trade for guys that are underpaid. It's very difficult for a good team with cap challenges to trade futures for guys that aren't clearly underpaid.
