Modifié 11 juill. 2021 à 16 h 54
Quoting: OldNYIfan
I keep re-reading this passage in an effort to make sense of it. I cannot fathom what a player’s presence on a last-place team has to do with his trade value. Do you think that John Gibson’s value is decreased by playing for the last-place Ducks more than Jack Eichel’s value is decreased by playing on the last-place Sabres or Zach Werenski’s value is decreased by playing on the last-place Blue Jackets or Thomas Chabot’s value is decreased by playing on the last-place Senators?
And I think that you should look at the Erik Karlsson trade again.
No, I think ANA best interest would to trade him. For all the reasons I mentioned. And ANA has less leverage in the situation.
And u want to compare C.Tierney, to Guentzel..? And the Sharks gave up Tierney and DeMalo from their NHL roster. Not E.Kane and MEV. Not two major pieces to their winning team.
But whatever, that’s not really the point. The bigger point is yes, if ANA decides to trade Gibson or Gibson asks for one. Either one, they don’t have any leverage, being a rebuilding team and the longer they keep him, the more his value goes down.
Just like Eichel, Sabers are gonna have to come down off their ask. They don’t have a ton of leverage. Even with multiple teams bidding.
Its easy; it’s just, ok then, keep him.
Just like it would be with Gibson. Ok, keep him, and still be a last place team and waste away Gibson’s prime years.
They will lose leverage. It’s not a hard concept to understand.
Gibson is actually married to a girl I went to HS with. Well, she wasn’t there when I was there, she’s 5-6 years younger than me. But her older sister was a freshman when I was a Senior. She was hot too.
Her dad is my lawyer. He’s a big time lawyer in Pittsburgh. They have money. Good Guy too. And good family. John Gibson did very well in that department!!