Not at all worth it for NJ. Gibson is having a better year than his previous ones but he is still average at best

$1.4M retained for 4 years for a small market team is painful, but for Holtz I’d take that deal from ANA pov. Leo and Holtz would be fun to watch. I imagine NJD fans won’t like this though

The defense is lousy.
I think Gibson is above average. Top 10-15 ish.

But I hear you…can probably fill the spot with other pieces.

3 years…and only $1.4m. Not gonna kill ya.

I know that missing the playoffs is disappointing for the Devils, but they have an incredibly young group - it seems unwise to trade away potential pieces like Holtz just to get a Goalie that they could sign a similar version of in free agency in the next couple years.

I generally agree.

It’s more a reactionary idea to reading a “top needs for every team” article.

My solution has usually been build from blueline.

Options aren't exactly great this off season, and there's the question of what to do about Vanacek as he has another year on his deal.

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2025/sv/all/goalies/ufa?stats-season=2024&hide=skater-stats&limits=gp-15-90

The following offseason however is ripe with prime goalies - Ullmark, Saros, Shesterkin - as well as solid 1A type guys to a potential 1B in Schmid (or vice versa). The great (or annoying) thing about the Devils being so young is they can stake next year on a Kakhonen, Nedeljkovic or even Mrazek or Wedgewood, and they will still be one of the youngest teams in the league, with defenders who are going to be getting better at helping out the weaker netminders.

Believe me, I'd like the Devils to do something rash and trade Mercer and Holtz for Gibson, but I don't think it makes a ton of sense to give up prime assets for a tendie that would only be there at the opening of their window.

I do agree that NJ shouldn't be making any rash decisions, however, considering they do have Schmid who could be their future 1A, it could make sense to get a guy who could help them win at the start of their window. The only thing though is that if they are giving prime assets for a starting goalie, then 1) they better be sure that they are getting a true number 1 that can be that difference maker and 2) they should be in a position to make the post-season if it's a mid-season trade.

I don't think acquiring Gibson is a bad idea for NJ, but I don't think he checks those two boxes, so if I was Fitzgerald I wouldn't be giving up prime assets for him, or at least not any that are currently contributing to the team or bound to in the future like Nemec. There's no guarantee that guys like Ullmark, Saros or Shesterkin would make it to free agency or sign with NJ but maybe NJ could look at trying to trade for Ullmark and Saros in the off-season.

There appears to be an overabundance of goalies available for trade right now (Saros, Gibson, Markstrom, Vejmelka Knight, Lankenin, Merzlikins) and backup types (Mrazek, Allen, Kahkonen, Reimer, Martin) and, of course, unwanted guys (Raanta, Campbell, Petersen, Samsonov).

So I think trade is probably the avenue to add a goalie. Free agency will be thin.

Few goalies, if any, that are available for trade will be worth a premium asset like Holtz (certainly not Nemec). But with the combination of a team adding $$ and Lindy Ruff’s treatment of Holtz, scenario like this becomes plausible.

This sentiment always bothers me. Small or big market teams don't matter with retention in a Salary Cap world. Every team can spend to the cap every season of they want. It's a matter of goals and realistic expectations. If you are planning to be a bad team then spending cap on your own roster is bad strategy because it means you will miss out on higher picks and be bad longer. Spending as little money as possible on your own roster and selling your excess cap space for futures is the ideal strategy for a rebuilding team. There is not a single team in the league that doesn't have the financial capability to ice a team to the max cap.

You understand when you retain a percentage of the cap, you retain that same percentage of the real salary too, right? So a small market team who has poor gate revenue because they are currently rebuilding, thus bad, is paying for a former player to play elsewhere. That has actual, real world consequences for ownership.

For expiring deals it's no problem, you only have 30% of the actual salary left on the season to retain on, that doesn't end up amounting to much, but for a deal with multiple years on it like above, that's ~5 million dollars real money (as of today) that Anaheim is paying to NJ over the next 3.5 years.

Another way to look at....

Option 1: Keep Gibson and about $20 million in remaining payable
Option 2: Sell Gibson at full AAV for lower return; have $0 in remaining payable ("and all I got was this lousy t-shirt")
Option 3: Sell Gibson at 25% retained for higher return; have $5 million in remaining payable

There are obviously many other factors...

But there is likely a point where sinking $5m or so becomes worthwhile investment...whether it be a pick, a certain player, whatever.

It rounds out to less than 1% of their revenue.

See Giggy’s reply. It’s the real money implication you aren’t considering. $5M for NJD and $5M to ANA are very different things, similar (though to nowhere near the same extent) as they would be to the Yankees and A’s. Pro sports is still a business and not every owner/team’s pockets are endlessly deep

Right now, they are on the hook for ~$22 million for Gibson.
Selling him, at say 25% retained, would reduce salary expenses by ~$16m.

So you would actually be saving money by removing him from payroll.
Its just a question of 100% removal vs 75% removal vs 50% removal (and the tradeoffs for each)

It’s a weird thing I keep seeing.

“We don’t need to move him” immediately followed by “we can’t afford to pay a portion of his salary”

You're discounting the fact that then we're down a goalie. We can just offload Gibsons contract and continue on as normal.

We'd be paying Vanacek $4.8 million to the end of his deal, and then whatever goalie comes after an additional 1.4 million for two years.

So while it's a net money save move the first two seasons, were also getting a significantly worse goalie back the other way that we have to pay, loosing us more games, costing us more gate revenue, probably jersey revenue as well (tons of Gibson jerseys are worn at Ducks games).

I personally think the above deal is a little light. It's less than a first away, but still light given the retention.

We can handle Vanecek in separate transaction. Put that $ into retention and add a 3rd.

Gibson ($3m retained) + 3rd
For Holtz

Just to clarify, I think we both said yes to the original trade nonetheless. We were just trying to give you a bit of insight as to why retention over a long period on Gibson is particularly painful for a small market team, which you said you were particularly bothered by