Value of: John Gibson to Carolina

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Thats fine and fair to not be crazy about Suzuki or any other prospect for that matter but their value is still their value and Suzuki’s has only gone up since being drafted. Yes, the Canes have a very deep prospect cupboard but that doesn’t mean just because they CAN give up that kind of value in a trade, they should or it’s reasonable. Now, you might say ‘I don’t care what’s reasonable. This is what I want and unless I’m getting a ridiculous overpay then Gibsons not going anywhere’, but that’s not exactly going to get the trade juices flowing

That's not how any of it works.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

That's not how any of it works.

Not how any of what works?

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Gibson and maybe a pick for Mrazek and Hamilton

Losing Dougie would hurt but the Canes are so deep on the blueline he would be easily replaced.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Gibson for Mrazek and Hamilton

Losing Dougie would hurt but the Canes are so deep on the blueline he would be easily replaced.

Uhhhhhm by who on the right side? Pesce can slot up sure, but he's our only other RHD at the moment.

The whole premise is a flawed pipe dream though...Ducks shouldn't give him up without a king's ransom, and Canes shouldn't be paying a king's ransom for a goalie even though it's our #1 need. We're finally in a contention window with our roster for the next few years, don't create 2-3 holes to fill 1, there should be cheaper stop-gap options out there. Give up top prospects and you lose on the ELCs/RFAs to balance out the big contracts

 

[YP44]

Gibson and maybe a pick for Mrazek and Hamilton

Losing Dougie would hurt but the Canes are so deep on the blueline he would be easily replaced.

isn't Hamilton in the final year of a deal that will take him to UFA. If the ducks do that and he walks they sure look bad.

 

[Leafs87]

The #1 thing a rebuilding team should skimp on is goaltending. Look at Buffalo and Oilers constant failures. Ducks have a stud and he's plenty young.

This. I would also say trading your 1C or 1D equally as bad, even during rebuild. You don’t get fair value back, and may never be able to replace said piece.

 

[Jumptheshark]

who is the DUCKS goalie after this?

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Not how any of what works?

Trading. Like you really seem to think this is NHL 21.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Trading. Like you really seem to think this is NHL 21.

In fairness, this is HFboards trade board. 99% (or higher) of what is proposed and discussed doesn't work like real life trades either. If it did, the board wouldn't exist or it would be empty and exceedingly boring.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Trading. Like you really seem to think this is NHL 21.

No... I really don't but thanks for that valuable insight

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

who is the DUCKS goalie after this?

Dostal would be the next coming but is still years away. I'm sure whatever trade there is for Gibson would be sending a goaltender back. It wouldn't be someone of his caliber or maybe not even all that close (otherwise why would the team give up a kings ransom for Gibson) but the trade would be done with the idea that the Ducks are rebuilding and wouldn't need a top goalie for the next 3-4 years.

 

[Stephen]

They are already at the bottom of the standings, with Gibson. Bottom five team whose best forward (Getzlaf) should be expected to decline. Drafted just two slots behind the last place team in the league.

You really think the best course of action is to move the team's best player and arguably only established elite talent, who is signed long term through his prime, in order to gain a couple extra lottery balls?

The team is clearly positioned to have a chance at winning the lottery in the next couple years. Do you have to finish dead last to be considered on a proper rebuilding path?

We are seeing rebuilding teams like Toronto and Edmonton run into a wall because they can't find their Gibson, and have made mistakes trying to add key veterans to their core. The Ducks are miles ahead of where those teams started their build because they already have their goaltending and some great defensive players (Lindholm, Silfverberg etc). Adding high end young talent like Zegras, Drysdale and the next couple early picks - to an already solid core of defensive insulation + elite goaltending seems like a way more clear path to returning to contention than conducting a fire sale and banking on the lottery.

Rebuilding teams usually divest themselves of their better players who happen to be entering their late 20s as the process begins. The assets that come back are combined with home grown picks to fuel a critical mass rebuild to dramatically change the character and composition of the team. If the Ducks want to keep Gibson for whatever reason, it’s completely their prerogative but it’s not necessarily the best use of Gibson’s prime - for Gibson personally, or the Ducks bigger build.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

In fairness, this is HFboards trade board. 99% (or higher) of what is proposed and discussed doesn't work like real life trades either. If it did, the board wouldn't exist or it would be empty and exceedingly boring.

Nah not that, I know that, rather the idea that trade values are set and objective. According to that poster it doesn't matter how the other side feels about Ryan Suzuki, which is pretty obviously not how it works in real life. Or that its not possible a team would put an exceptionally high value on their franchise goaltender, they'd either want an "overpay" or accept what's given to them.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

No... I really don't but thanks for that valuable insight

I mean of course you do. You're arguing that both guys have more or less definitive trade values that can't be influenced by how a team actually feels about a player. It's straight from a video game attribute.

 

[HanSolo]

I think it’s a little disingenuous to just call it a grab bag of futures when each piece is equivalent to a 1st round pick. Yes the package will have a good amount of futures but they aren’t a random smattering. It’s filled with quality not some Ryder + Halak + 2nd nonsense.

Again, I understand the position of not wanting to trade Gibson and only entertaining overpays as an offer. I’m just saying an offer that amounts to the value of 4 x 1st rounders is a non starter and no one in the league would give that value up for a goalie, even an elite one with a great contract.

I'm not saying they aren't first round value but there's a difference between a first round pick value and a proven star commodity. I can't even say Anaheim would be looking for first overall pick returns because 1OA's have missed in the past. For example, if I'm Anaheim I wouldn't trade Gibson for Hischier, Hughes, Ekblad (maybe if a capable goalie comes back too), RNH, or even Hall really. Yakupov should go without saying. That's not to say all those guys are misses, but some like Ek and Hall aren't enough to make trading your best player for the future worth it with no one to replace him at the most limited position on a team's roster.

But take all those names together and that's more than half of the last decade's worth of 1OA's. Now I'm not stupid, I know there have been some very good picks made beyond 1OA with some real superstar players, but the draft history shows the further you get away from the top 5 picks, the less likely a selection is to have an above average NHL career.

So continuing to beat the drum on the concept of 1st overall equivalent pieces is a pretty flat argument in my opinion. If someone came in here and said hey how about Griffen Reinhart, Micheal McLeod, Lawson Crouse, and Samuel Morin for John Gibson? That person could say, "hey not only were they four first round picks, but top 15 picks to boot!" but that wouldn't really make that package of crap worth an elite goaltender would it? I'm not saying MMC's proposed package is on that level, but the fact that the assets equate to four first rounders really doesn't matter if all the proposed assets don't pan out to a high enough improvement to the Ducks roster to offset the loss of a top ten, arguably top 5 goaltending talent in the NHL who is still very young for his position and signed to one of the more manageable contracts you could ask of an elite goaltending talent.

And that's all before you get to the notion that Anaheim doesn't have to, and really isn't in a great position of strength to be trading a guy like Gibson. Miller basically has 1 maybe 2 more years left in him. Dostal is proving to be a fantastic goaltending prospect but has no pedigree on the North American stage to really give Anaheim a cushion to put their starting goalie on the block. So, considering Gibson is far from expendable and is, rather, their most untouchable player, it would take an offer that so very clearly improves the team enough to offset the loss of elite talent in net to make the team even entertain the idea. A package of futures, even above average in quality ones isn't gonna get you there if the team can't be certain what they're getting in the long run. It's not an indictment on the players in question. It's a matter of having a guy who's about as good as you could reasonably hope for at his position, who you can build a team around, and throwing that certainty to the wind in exchange for unproven potential. There's no real reason for Anaheim to gamble so why should they?

You say no team in the league would give up more than the offer in question for an elite goalie as though the question at hand is "what can Anaheim get for Gibson" rather than what it actually is which was "what would it take for Carolina to get Gibson." Just because you think an overpay is improper value doesn't mean that's not what it would take. The guy is virtually untouchable. You want to pry him out of Anaheim, the only realm where that could happen is one where an entirely implausible offer is going back to Anaheim. I should think that should resolve the question.

Which is fine as it doesn’t seem like any Ducks fan wants to even entertain trading him.

And it's almost certain that barring some ridiculous overpay, neither would Anaheim's management. To put it in a more simple way to understand, Gibson is Anaheim's Aho, Dahlin, McDrai, etc. Typically franchise cornerstones don't get traded out unless the team is in a bind or there's behind the scenes drama for anything less than a king's ransom. We exist in an era where franchise players are increasingly staying long term with their teams. With Getzlaf's decline, Gibson is unquestionably the team's franchise player and it would take a lot for the Ducks to part with him. Again, you're being dismissive about the whims of Ducks fans as though Carolina convincing Anaheim to part with Gibson would take anything less than an offer that exists outside the realm of plausibility. It's not Ducks fans saying they don't want to trade Gibson. They're saying Anaheim wouldn't want to because they don't have any reason to.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I mean of course you do. You're arguing that both guys have more or less definitive trade values that can't be influenced by how a team actually feels about a player. It's straight from a video game attribute.

Ive already stated that it would take an overpay for Gibson and that’s a fair position. It’s also fine to reject an offer of assets that equate to 4 x 1st round picks on the basis that those specific prospects/players might not be the right fit for the Ducks.

What is silly though is to say that the VALUE of the offer is insulting or weak or whatever other adjective you want to label it with.

I get that you want superstar for superstar or close to it. As much as we’d like to get Gibson, you’re not getting Aho and you’re not getting Slavin or one of our core guys. We’re offering futures because that’s what we have to deal. If it’s not a fit then again, that’s fine but the value of the pieces are good. Just not good for you and the direction you think the Ducks should go in. It makes sense for a rebuild.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Nah not that, I know that, rather the idea that trade values are set and objective. According to that poster it doesn't matter how the other side feels about Ryan Suzuki, which is pretty obviously not how it works in real life.

Yes and no. I agree it’s not set in stone regardless of situation, but the other side doesn’t set the value either. It doesn’t work that way in real life either.

1. If one team doesn’t value a player, it doesn’t mean 29 other teams have the same assessment. Value isn’t in a vacuum.

2. In the end, Value is only what one team will pay and another team is willing to accept. If I think my house is worth $500,000 and you think it’s only worth $300,000, it doesn’t mean the value is $300,000. That may be the value to you, but not the value I would accept and thus not the value.

Or that its not possible a team would put an exceptionally high value on their franchise goaltender, they'd either want an "overpay" or accept what's given to them.

That’s fine. You value your own player very highly, more highly than he does. He values his player more highly than you do.

i fully understand that you don’t want to trade Gibson except for an overpayment. That’s reasonable. IMO, until a goalie is traded for such an overpayment, I don’t value them as much, which is fine. Gibson isn’t going anywhere anyhow.

 

[bsu]

Please close this thread.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Yes and no. I agree it’s not set in stone regardless of situation, but the other side doesn’t set the value either. It doesn’t work that way in real life either.

1. If one team doesn’t value a player, it doesn’t mean 29 other teams have the same assessment. Value isn’t in a vacuum.

2. In the end, Value is only what one team will pay and another team is willing to accept. If I think my house is worth $500,000 and you think it’s only worth $300,000, it doesn’t mean the value is $300,000. That may be the value to you, but not the value I would accept and thus not the value.



That’s fine. You value your own player very highly, more highly than he does. He values his player more highly than you do.

i fully understand that you don’t want to trade Gibson except for an overpayment. That’s reasonable. IMO, until a goalie is traded for such an overpayment, I don’t value them as much, which is fine. Gibson isn’t going anywhere anyhow.

For this specific purpose they do though. In this example let's say the other 29 teams think Suzuki is as valuable as a prospect can be and is worth a franchise goaltender straight up(I know no one's saying that but it's an easier example). If the Ducks don't, though, then they don't have to accept that he is, they just move on. If anything, in a trade scenario, the value on a player is always set by the team trading for that player.

I do think I misinterpreted this thing a little and it's more about offense taken by the other poster, but I also think they misinterpreted what others were saying as well on a few levels.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

If anything, in a trade scenario, the value on a player is always set by the team trading for that player.

So in this proposal, the Canes are trading for Gibson, so you are saying the Canes set the value of Gibson? Is that really what you are saying?

Of course not. One team doesn’t set value as either team can walk away and either keep their player or go elsewhere. It’s a negotiation.

teams decide what they are willing to take (or pay) for a player and only when they achieve agreement is value determined.

 

[CanadienShark]

I think trading Gibson to Colorado would make a ton more sense than the Hurricanes. Gibson to Colorado would make the Avs an instant contender. Plus I dislike seeing the Ducks waste him in his prime when he's a Vezina-calibre goaltender.

Would make a proposal but don't know what both parties would seem fair.

Why? Both are great fits. The teams are close right now. Gibson makes whichever team he goes to (if he moves) better than the other. Gibson makes either team an instant contender; if they aren't already.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

So in this proposal, the Canes are trading for Gibson, so you are saying the Canes set the value of Gibson? Is that really what you are saying?

Of course not. One team doesn’t set value as either team can walk away and either keep their player or go elsewhere. It’s a negotiation.

teams decide what they are willing to take (or pay) for a player and only when they achieve agreement is value determined.

Uh, yeah. Its up to the Ducks to agree, but he's only as valuable to them as they're willing to pay. Of course its a negotiation, I never said otherwise, but that values gonna be set by what a team is ultimately willing to pay.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all here, by the way. Just semantics.

 

[poobags]

I don't think we're disagreeing at all here, by the way. Just semantics.

That's not how any of it works.

I think this is probably the source of this "disagreement." Throwing around absolutes is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion.

EDIT: woops that isn't an absolute, but still one line reductive replies like this aren't helpful

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think this is probably the source of this "disagreement." Throwing around absolutes is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion.

EDIT: woops that isn't an absolute, but still one line reductive replies like this aren't helpful

Those are directed at two different posters, so likely not. One "disagreement" seems to be over wording mostly and we're mostly saying the same things, the other definitely wasn't that. As for whether its helpful or not, I disagree.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I'm not saying they aren't first round value but there's a difference between a first round pick value and a proven star commodity. I can't even say Anaheim would be looking for first overall pick returns because 1OA's have missed in the past. For example, if I'm Anaheim I wouldn't trade Gibson for Hischier, Hughes, Ekblad (maybe if a capable goalie comes back too), RNH, or even Hall really. Yakupov should go without saying. That's not to say all those guys are misses, but some like Ek and Hall aren't enough to make trading your best player for the future worth it with no one to replace him at the most limited position on a team's roster.

But take all those names together and that's more than half of the last decade's worth of 1OA's. Now I'm not stupid, I know there have been some very good picks made beyond 1OA with some real superstar players, but the draft history shows the further you get away from the top 5 picks, the less likely a selection is to have an above average NHL career.

So continuing to beat the drum on the concept of 1st overall equivalent pieces is a pretty flat argument in my opinion. If someone came in here and said hey how about Griffen Reinhart, Micheal McLeod, Lawson Crouse, and Samuel Morin for John Gibson? That person could say, "hey not only were they four first round picks, but top 15 picks to boot!" but that wouldn't really make that package of crap worth an elite goaltender would it? I'm not saying MMC's proposed package is on that level, but the fact that the assets equate to four first rounders really doesn't matter if all the proposed assets don't pan out to a high enough improvement to the Ducks roster to offset the loss of a top ten, arguably top 5 goaltending talent in the NHL who is still very young for his position and signed to one of the more manageable contracts you could ask of an elite goaltending talent.

And that's all before you get to the notion that Anaheim doesn't have to, and really isn't in a great position of strength to be trading a guy like Gibson. Miller basically has 1 maybe 2 more years left in him. Dostal is proving to be a fantastic goaltending prospect but has no pedigree on the North American stage to really give Anaheim a cushion to put their starting goalie on the block. So, considering Gibson is far from expendable and is, rather, their most untouchable player, it would take an offer that so very clearly improves the team enough to offset the loss of elite talent in net to make the team even entertain the idea. A package of futures, even above average in quality ones isn't gonna get you there if the team can't be certain what they're getting in the long run. It's not an indictment on the players in question. It's a matter of having a guy who's about as good as you could reasonably hope for at his position, who you can build a team around, and throwing that certainty to the wind in exchange for unproven potential. There's no real reason for Anaheim to gamble so why should they?

You say no team in the league would give up more than the offer in question for an elite goalie as though the question at hand is "what can Anaheim get for Gibson" rather than what it actually is which was "what would it take for Carolina to get Gibson." Just because you think an overpay is improper value doesn't mean that's not what it would take. The guy is virtually untouchable. You want to pry him out of Anaheim, the only realm where that could happen is one where an entirely implausible offer is going back to Anaheim. I should think that should resolve the question.

And it's almost certain that barring some ridiculous overpay, neither would Anaheim's management. To put it in a more simple way to understand, Gibson is Anaheim's Aho, Dahlin, McDrai, etc. Typically franchise cornerstones don't get traded out unless the team is in a bind or there's behind the scenes drama for anything less than a king's ransom. We exist in an era where franchise players are increasingly staying long term with their teams. With Getzlaf's decline, Gibson is unquestionably the team's franchise player and it would take a lot for the Ducks to part with him. Again, you're being dismissive about the whims of Ducks fans as though Carolina convincing Anaheim to part with Gibson would take anything less than an offer that exists outside the realm of plausibility. It's not Ducks fans saying they don't want to trade Gibson. They're saying Anaheim wouldn't want to because they don't have any reason to.

Long post but to this all I'll say is I agree with much of what you're saying however I think there's a big difference in comparing xyz player who was just drafted in the 1st round and has done nothing to decrease their stock to the Griffen Reinharts and Samuel Morins of the world who are clearly busts or underachieving picks at the very least at this point. No one would call them equivalent to 1st round pick value now and no one has been trying to do that in this thread. Nothing was based solely on pedigree and saying 'technically they were a first round pick so that's automatically their value. Here's 4 x 1sts and you have to accept it and like it.'

Those are directed at two different posters, so likely not. One "disagreement" seems to be over wording mostly and we're mostly saying the same things, the other definitely wasn't that. As for whether its helpful or not, I disagree.

I think the disagreement is mainly the semantics of value vs. fit and really in any trade it's going to be a combination of the two. There's general consensus value across the league and value to a team. Sometimes those are the same or close and sometimes not. I'm sure the Anaheim Ducks think Connor Hellybuyck is a great goalie, maybe even the better than Gibson. What would they give up for him? Probably nothing because they already have an elite goalie signed to a great deal. That doesn't mean that Hellybuyck is worthless. In fact 29 other teams might be willing to give up a fortune for him, but I'm sure this would vary to a certain degree based on team needs.

Anyway, we're running around in circles so let's leave it at this...

- Unless the Ducks want to do a substantial rebuild they aren't trading Gibson
- No team who is trying to acquire a top end goalie as a finishing piece to their roster is going to a star for star trade; it's always going to be heavily futures
- If it's going to take something better than the equivalent of 4 x 1st round picks in terms of league wide value to get Gibson he's not going anywhere because no one will pay that price let alone higher than that