That would be an easy pass. Ducks have Dostal playing well in the AHL. Goalie prospects are a no thanks.

Don't think that's enough for Gibson

Honestly it's ill-advised to pass on goalie prospects. In my mind you should have a good amount of them because they're so unpredictable. As much as Dostal looks great if he flops and you trade Gibson you're screwed.

That means their value is even lower than you think if goalie prospects are so unpredictable. Makes it even more of a pass.

Don't be set with one good goalie prospect in the pipeline. Some good competition is always good. Then whatever one develops slower you can trade for other assets - that's how a rebuild works. Although I agree I wouldn't make the focal point of the deal a goalie prospect, but I wouldn't throw one out just because a good ones in it.

I actually had an idea about this not too long ago here:

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/2232203


My thought was that it's more important to get Zegras some scoring help up front than to have a goalie that by the time Anaheim will competing, Gibson will be declining anyways.

Ducks decline swiftly. Gibson is their “team”. They lose him they enter a “second” rebuild unless they find themselves in another Andersen/Gibson situation; which they aren’t in before or after this trade.

I don’t like either prospect for Anaheim and the first is whatever.

Trading Gibson must either
A) be a benefit for the ducks
B) a more then fair trade to signify the movement of their star
C) be a move out of necessity (having too many goalies)

They are in none of these situations

I think this is where people get lost. I’m not saying/ ducks fans are not saying Gibson is worth 4 firsts, a top prospect and more (I mean some crazy people will but you get what I’m saying)

@op and @ryminister_27 reading your posts comments (which is actually fair value rymi)

The ducks must look at this trade and say; yes it is worth losing our spine. This trade isn’t it. Rymi yours is fair but as I said, the ducks must WANT to accept the trade, not be satisfied. They need to go; oh damn. It is trading their best player but more so; the one player that will allow them to win. Their only game breaker. And he’s in net which is a very hard to find position.

It’s not the same as trading a top line player or trading a regular goalie. If that clarifies anything. He’s not worth the entire bank, but he won’t be cheap. Will he be worth it? Maybe not.
Could he be traded for this, I guess; but do I see happening? No.
I wouldn’t trade for him if I was any team unless the ducks were selling him, meaning theyre the ones initiating the trade not me buying him and having to pay premium.

Gibson hasn't been elite since 2018.

Fair but the best prospect in this trade is a goalie when the ducks still need high end talent. Ducks shouldn’t be moving their best trade chip without getting a high talent piece in return.

We could get much more for Gibson.

You should delete this comment bud.

You should look up the stats.

Since January 1, 2019, at 5v5
Ullmark: 69 GP, .924 sv% / .814 HDsv%
Koskinen: 88 GP, .915 sv% / .820 HDsv%
Gibson: 91 GP, .915 sv% / .818 HDsv%

In that timeframe, 31 goalies have played at least 2800 minutes in the NHL (5v5). Gibson ranks 25th by sv% and 23rd by HDsv%. That's not elite.

Here is the link:

http://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20182019&thruseason=20202021&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=g&rate=y&team=ALL&pos=S&loc=B&toi=2800&gpfilt=gpdate&fd=2019-01-01&td=2021-02-24&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL

Wow that’s crazy. Now look at the defense cores of those teams and their stats. Then tell me why Gibson is always in the Venezia talk.

To think that we would trade Gibson and not get immediate help. Where do people GET these ideas?

Gibson won't turn 34 until after his current contract expires -- after SIX more seasons. I was unaware that most goalies crater before they're 33.

In my youth, my math teachers taught me that the difference between 0.820% and 0.818% was 2 in one thousand.

I'm curious. Does your bank of statistics also have their respective power-play figures?

Generally the rule of thumb with goalies in the business is after they turn 30 the decline starts. Not always, but usually. & with Gibson's athleticism and the style he plays, wouldn't shock me one bit to see a decline around 30 or 31

No point. Ullmark has been amazing

Interesting avatar. What connection do you have to our 12th president?

So, they get 3 or 4 years of elite level goaltending for another LD (There's like 50 of them in the Ducks system), UPL (Who could be good, but also could be not good...), and a 1st (THAT ISN'T EVEN THIS YEAR!?!?!?!).

That doesn't sound like a good deal.

A quick look at High Danger shots against in the link provided shows, once again, that Koskinen faced similar number of dangerous shots over this time period.

Gibson: 9.00 HDSA/60
Koskinen: 8.72 HDSA/60

Ergo: Mikko Koskinen is ELITE! Trade him for a top-10 pick in the best draft in 20 years + TWO A-level prospects!!

Yup, he's been just as good as Gibson over the past 2+ years.

I'm not sure what you're asking, as goalies don't see much action on the PP and the numbers you're quoting are 5v5, not all situations. Did you mean PK? You can manipulate NST (link provided above) to find these numbers too.

Of the top-31 goalies (by TOI) at 4v5 since 2018, Gibson's .863 sv% ranks 23rd while his .796 HDsv% ranks 12th.

... I never said it was

My apologies...I just took by the "Having too many goalie prospects isn't a bad thing" part that you were into this deal...Cheers!

Just looked at your your one. I don't *Hate* it, but also don't think adding Galimov makes any sense.