Rumor: Dreger says Ducks Talking to Pens/Leafs/Philly (blueliner)

[Ducks Nation*]

Why not something like:

Despres + Choice of goalie prospect

for

Gibson

?

Because we don't need Gibson.

I laughed.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I laughed.

You guys also laughed at the idea of Whitney being moved for Kunitz and a prospect, then that happened. People also laughed at us for what we thought Goligoski could get his team and then we saw a 40 goal scorer come to the Pens and a guy that can be a top 4 in a pinch and log 20mins a night and not suck as a defenseman. So...


We'll see who laughs last or at all, nothing could come of this if anything.

 

[KIRK]

I laughed.

And with good reason . . .

So, what's the word from the west coast on this d-man thing? Anything to it? What type of player are you seeking? I mean, I know ideally it would be an impact top four guy who can hit like a truck with a cap hit around one million a year? But, absent finding that, which way, if any, do you think Murray is headed?

 

[Honour Over Glory]

And with good reason . . .

So, what's the word from the west coast on this d-man thing? Anything to it? What type of player are you seeking? I mean, I know ideally it would be an impact top four guy who can hit like a truck with a cap hit around one million a year? But, absent finding that, which way, if any, do you think Murray is headed?

I think it'd be hilarious if the Leafs some how trade Gardiner back to the Ducks and get something of value out of that.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

And I didn't necessarily mean to imply otherwise. I just think that while the Pens won't actively trade picks/prospects for rentals, they won't do the inverse and dump impending UFAs either. I'm not saying I wouldn't do that if I were the GM, but all signs point towards the Penguins really wanting to have that extra depth on defense for a long playoff run and to guard against injuries in general; and because they seem to really value what Niskanen brings to this team specifically.

Niskanen is far from untouchable, but I still think he doesn't get moved unless it's in a player for player hockey deal. Maatta at 19 isn't going to change that, although Dumoulin or Despres could. But if I'm a betting man, I say the Pens hang on to Niskanen through till the end of the season and either try to trade his rights or simply let him walk as a UFA. Same things with Brooks, unless there's a pure hockey deal out there that's too good to pass up, AND we have guys like Despres and Dumoulin who are playing too well to keep down in WBS or play so well if they force the coaches' hands during a call up.

We will need to move someone when Vokoun comes back.

And people need to come to grips with the fact that for this year, this is the roster. Minus Nisky most likely, but this is it because of the cap.

We can play around a lot more next year if the cap raises to over $70 million as many speculate.

 

[KIRK]

I think it'd be hilarious if the Leafs some how trade Gardiner back to the Ducks and get something of value out of that.

I was thinking Gunnarsson, but he actually now makes 3M, so his value isn't what it was. Yeah, Gardiner is the only one who makes sense, and oh the irony of that. With him being an impending RFA, the Ducks may not be so interested in that headache again.

 

[jmelm]

We will need to move someone when Vokoun comes back.

And people need to come to grips with the fact that for this year, this is the roster. Minus Nisky most likely, but this is it because of the cap.

We can play around a lot more next year if the cap raises to over $70 million as many speculate.

I don't agree with this, from everything that we know publicly from the Penguins. We heard, BEFORE Vokoun went out with an injury (saving us about $1.5 million versus Zatkoff against the cap whilst he's out), and before Letang went out for however long, that we would be cap compliant WITH Niskanen as long as we were not carrying 8 Dmen -- i.e. putting Simon Despres' salary in the minors, which is a good move anyway rather than letting him sit in the pressbox.

Thus, we can infer from that info that as soon as Letang comes back, we can't afford to keep a Maatta or Despres or Dumoulin on our roster, but we CAN keep the rest of our team in tact. So there is obviously no necessity to move anybody out. The only player where there could possibly be a problem with is the $550k for Kobasew, who may have been signed to replace D'Agostini. When the latter comes back from Injured Reserve, we won't have an issue with Vokoun still out, but we could theoretically have an issue keeping both of them when Vokoun comes back. But that will only be 3-6 months from now, one of those 2 forwards will separate themself from the other as the better of the two, and who knows what cap space we might accrue if we have any injuries during that time.

In other words, we have NO cap concerns, if any, for at least 3-6 months; and the only player(s) that we might need to reconcile to stay cap compliant, if any, is Kobasew vs. D'Agostini. So we're all good, and that still doesn't account for the possibility of other trades, injuries, etc...

They have to do the same with Orpik, unless they plan to let Martin walk a year later OR only play one of Despres, Dumoulin, Maatta, maybe Harrington before the 2015-2016 season.

It's a simple numbers game, which is why some of us wondered IF the Pens might listen on Orpik and consider a deal IF it's an excellent hockey deal.

I used LA's trade of Jack Johnson as an example. If you can get a legit top 6 forward for Orpik who's young and under contract or under control for a few years, then do you make the deal and trust Despres (or Dumoulin) to be your Slava Voynov?

I agree. I said this right when it happened and many times since: I believe they signed Scuderi with the foresight of knowing that they were going to lose at least one, if not both, of Orpik and Niskanen at the end of the year, and so they figured (smartly, IMO) to bring a Dman in with veteran experience who could (A) play with Letang, (B) not make us have to rush any of the kids now, and (C) be around to mentor these kids as they come into the league over the next few years.

Now, that being said, I do agree that if we do not intend to re-sign Nisky and/or Orpik, we really have to try to trade their rights, for whatever we can get for them, as soon as our season is over. I would also consider moving either one of these now guys in a hockey deal if it would truly help us in the immediate/near future.

On the Jack Johnson example: yes, I do believe we have players who will be (whether that's Voynov", but the big difference between Orpik and Johnson is that Jack was signed for 6 years, was younger with higher upside, and Orpik is an impending UFA. The only way we get good value for Orpik is by either (A) re-signing him without a full no-trade clause and trade him within a year or two max; or by finding a team that wants Brooks Orpik both now and to re-sign for the future.

And the only way we get decent value in this latter, and more likely, situation is by finding a team that not only wants Brooks, but is also a team Brooks would consider re-signing with (such a deal, for example: if we traded Orpik's rights this offseason, it could be for a condtional 2014 or 2015 pick in which if the other team signs Brooks, the pick goes from, say, a 5th or 6th rounder, to a 2nd or 3rd, or from one mid round pick to a second one the following year).

But yeah: I do think that we have guys RIGHT NOW that would not be a huge drop off from Orpik (Despres/Dumoulin), and who by next year may even be as good or better than Brooksy is. So sooner or later, we've got those players coming.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I was thinking Gunnarsson, but he actually now makes 3M, so his value isn't what it was. Yeah, Gardiner is the only one who makes sense, and oh the irony of that. With him being an impending RFA, the Ducks may not be so interested in that headache again.

Given how Carlyle is, I bet he signs and is happy to make things right with the Ducks, the thing is, is that what the Ducks want? That type of defenseman I mean.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

I laughed.

Don't get me wrong, Gibson is better than any of the goalie prospects we have, but we traded up to draft a goalie in the mid-2nd round (the 2nd goalie taken in the draft, fwiw) in this past draft a year after drafting goalies in the 3rd & 4th rounds, we're not going to be trading for any similarly aged goaltending prospects anytime soon. Gibson would be awesome because he is better than the guys we have and he's a local kid, but it doesn't make any sense for the Ducks to deal him at this point and it sure as hell doesn't make sense for the Penguins to overpay for a goaltending prospect with 2 whole pro games under his belt, and it would require quite the overpayment to get Anaheim to move him.

If the Penguins are going to acquire an heir apparent to Fleury via trade it's not going to be a kid who is years away, it's going to be someone who has NHL experience but is blocked behind a superior starter. This is less of a rant against Gibson than it is against the numerous times I've seen Zach Fucale mentioned as a dream scenario (who was drafted 8 whole spots ahead of Tristan Jarry...let's see how they develop even the slightest bit before we pull the ripcord, damn it), but neither option makes a whole lot of sense unless you equate World Championships success with NHL readiness...I sure as hell don't.

 

[Darth Vitale]

Yah the Gibson thing... if he's as good as people say, people should know better than to suggest that. Not happening. Gibson is more valuable to the Ducks than Neal was to the Stars and Kunitz was to the Ducks before.

 

[Ogelthorpe]

Because we don't need Gibson.

TV is 37 and has a health concern, and MAF is a playoff concern. If MAF ***** the bed again in the playoffs, then absolutley the Pens could need Gibson.

 

[Nietzsche Zone Play]

trading for a young, prospect goalie is the riskiest thing a GM could do. they drafted/signed all those guys over the past couple years to prevent having to roll the dice while giving up assets.

the better thing would be to wait until Gibson comes up and snag Hiller or Fasth for cheap. not saying they will or even should do that, but trading for a prospect goalie is not going to happen.

 

[wej20]

Pens would love to have Gibson (not at the price it would cost to acquire him though), he's also highly unlikely going to solve anything this year if Fleury blows up in the playoffs.

 

[Your Boy Troy]

The ducks are very high on John Gibson. I doubt that he will ever be dealt. Frederik Andersen might be a realistic option. He is a big goalie, and he has put up great numbers in the AHL. I am not entirely sure on how athletic he is.

 

[Gooch]

Goalie prospects are the absolute worst thing to trade for, or frankly even draft. How often to you see big upside prospect goaltenders actually live up to their potential? Then, how long do you actually see them do it for a stretch of more than one or two seasons? It seems for every one of them there's an undrafted college goaltender or an under the radar late round pick guy or a journeyman who somehow becomes great as he ages.

I hated when we traded up to draft a goaltender I'd absolutely despise trading away what we all thought was a top 4 young workhorse defender for a goaltending prospect. You might as well just put Despres on waivers and lose him that way because in the end the same net return will occur.

 

[Nietzsche Zone Play]

but Gibson's from Pittsburgh, it's different!

 

[Pancakes]

Goalie prospects are the absolute worst thing to trade for, or frankly even draft. How often to you see big upside prospect goaltenders actually live up to their potential? Then, how long do you actually see them do it for a stretch of more than one or two seasons? It seems for every one of them there's an undrafted college goaltender or an under the radar late round pick guy or a journeyman who somehow becomes great as he ages.

I hated when we traded up to draft a goaltender I'd absolutely despise trading away what we all thought was a top 4 young workhorse defender for a goaltending prospect. You might as well just put Despres on waivers and lose him that way because in the end the same net return will occur.

Eh, if you look through the goalies playing in the NHL right now, quite a large number of them were drafted in the first or second round. I don't think it's a bad thing to draft a goalie high, but it's like any position. Be sure that the player you're drafting is BPA. Don't draft a goalie high just because you need a goalie.

 

[Gooch]

Eh, if you look through the goalies playing in the NHL right now, quite a large number of them were drafted in the first or second round. I don't think it's a bad thing to draft a goalie high, but it's like any position. Be sure that the player you're drafting is BPA. Don't draft a goalie high just because you need a goalie.

How many of them fizzle out after a season or two? If you were to look at old threads on HF boards here you'd see so many goaltender once lauded as tops in the league are boderline washed up now. Lundqvist is basically the only one outside of Brodeur that has been consistently good for their career and he was a 7th round pick I believe. I dont know, is Carey Price considered good now? It changes with him every season it seems. Remember Steve Mason? Markstrom was supposed to be the best thing ever in florida. Jonathan Quick was merely a stop gap measure until star prospect Bernier was set to take over in LA. Luongo is the greatest goaltender in the entire NHL.... yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Nfumass]

Eh, if you look through the goalies playing in the NHL right now, quite a large number of them were drafted in the first or second round. I don't think it's a bad thing to draft a goalie high, but it's like any position. Be sure that the player you're drafting is BPA. Don't draft a goalie high just because you need a goalie.

13 starters are either 1st or 2nd rounders, less than half and some of those like dubnyk aren't good starters.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Goalies are just too big of a gamble to take high or trade a lot for. It seems like every other summer a new Euro comes over at age 30 and quickly becomes a starter.

 

[The Old Master]

And the only way we get decent value in this latter, and more likely, situation is by finding a team that not only wants Brooks, but is also a team Brooks would consider re-signing with (such a deal, for example: if we traded Orpik's rights this offseason, it could be for a condtional 2014 or 2015 pick in which if the other team signs Brooks, the pick goes from, say, a 5th or 6th rounder, to a 2nd or 3rd, or from one mid round pick to a second one the following year).

you missed one more option,,,,Waite till the trade deadline and then move orpik or nisky [ or even England]...at that time other teams would sale their souls to land either of them, thinking that's just what they need to get a chance at the cup and it would open up some space for us to add also. imo

 

[AjaxTelamon]

you missed one more option,,,,Waite till the trade deadline and then move orpik or nisky [ or even England]...at that time other teams would sale their souls to land either of them, thinking that's just what they need to get a chance at the cup and it would open up some space for us to add also. imo

Indeed, but they will be trading mostly futures. It will be hard for us to get a comparable roster player back for Orpik at the deadline. Contenders don't do hockey deals at the deadline very often with other contenders.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

That doesn't mean we can't get picks at the deadline and flip them to someone else

 

[Ogelthorpe]

but Gibson's from Pittsburgh, it's different!

I like Gibson based on the fact that he has been a winner at every level he has played at, with the exception of winning a Memorial Cup. However, he did win a ton and put up crazy stats in Kitchener. More so, the world championships was a big coming out party for Gibson...were he dominated NHL competition at age 19-20.

I don't care what anyone says, every prospect is risky, not just goalies. Remember when Alexander Daigle was the can't miss number 1 overall.....yeah, that worked out well.

Point being, if MAF and TV are both done after this year, I'd rather the next starter be Gibson than Zatkoff or Hartzell.

 

[SEALBound]

I like Gibson based on the fact that he has been a winner at every level he has played at, with the exception of winning a Memorial Cup. However, he did win a ton and put up crazy stats in Kitchener. More so, the world championships was a big coming out party for Gibson...were he dominated NHL competition at age 19-20.

I don't care what anyone says, every prospect is risky, not just goalies. Remember when Alexander Daigle was the can't miss number 1 overall.....yeah, that worked out well.

Point being, if MAF and TV are both done after this year, I'd rather the next starter be Gibson than Zatkoff or Hartzell.

VERY much agreed. If MAF poops the bed again in the playoffs, I'd rather have Gibson be the back up than Zatkoff or Hartzell.

We give the Ducks the choice of the prospect to replace Gibson and we keep molding and shaping our prospects and perhaps one day we let MAF go and it turns to a Gibson-Hartzell/Jerry/Murray/etc combo.

Salaries/caps are about a wash. Fits a major need for both sides. Yes, another forward prospect for Despres would be nice...but those are easier to find than a goalie prospect like Gibson.