SalarySwishSalarySwish

Gibson

Created by: gaz
Team: 2023-24 New Jersey Devils
Initial Creation Date: Dec. 14, 2023
Published: Dec. 14, 2023
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Legend
Left Handed
Original Team
Waivers Exempt
Right Handed
Position
Trade Clause
Max Perf. Bonus
Expiry Status
Term Remaining
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
Waivers ExemptMcDavid, Connor
$12,500,000 (Performance Bonus$250,000)
C
NMC
UFA - 5
Trades
NJD
  1. Gibson, John ($400,000 retained)
ANA
  1. Hämeenaho, Lenni [Reserve List]
  2. Miller, Colin
  3. Vanecek, Vitek
  4. 2025 1st round pick (NJD)
Buyouts
Recapture Fees
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2024
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the COL
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NSH
2025
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
2026
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the NJD
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
21$83,500,000$81,155,000$422,500$5,482,500$2,345,000
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$8,800,000$8,800,000
LW, RW
UFA - 8
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$8,000,000$8,000,000
C
UFA - 7
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$2,125,000$2,125,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$6,000,000$6,000,000
LW, RW
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$7,250,000$7,250,000
C
UFA - 4
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$7,875,000$7,875,000
RW, LW
UFA - 8
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$3,150,000$3,150,000
C, LW
NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$400,000$400K)
RW, C
RFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RW, LW
RFA - 2
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,400,000$1,400,000
C
RFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,350,000$1,350,000
RW
UFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$3,400,000$3,400,000
LD
UFA - 5
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$918,333$918,333 (Performance Bonus$3,250,000$3M)
RD
RFA - 3
Logo of the Anaheim Ducks
$6,000,000$6,000,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,050,000$1,050,000
LD
RFA - 2
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$4,400,000$4,400,000
RD
UFA - 4
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$850,833$850,833 (Performance Bonus$57,500$58K)
G
RFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$925,000$925K)
LD/RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,100,000$1,100,000
LD/RD, LW
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$775,000$775,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$9,000,000$9,000,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$1,000,000$1,000,000
LW, C
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight

Top Comments

Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:27 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 41,463
Likes: 18,838
Take out Miller. Putting Smith back there full time doesn’t help us.

And add enough retention to get Gibson in $4m-$4.5m range.
Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:43 p.m.
#2
Once a Kings Fan Too
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 41,043
Likes: 25,830
Quoting: NHLfan10506
Take out Miller. Putting Smith back there full time doesn’t help us.

And add enough retention to get Gibson in $4m-$4.5m range.

I don't think that you're getting Gibson with that much retention unless Anaheim is getting a significant asset back; a 2025 first doesn't do it and you're not about to trade any of your 4 youngsters whose last name begins with the letter "H." Miller is a nice idea as a stopgap, but inasmuch as the Ducks have two RhD prospects on the Canadian team for next month's World Juniors plus Gudas and Lyubushkin, he's a UFA, and you need him more than we do, he can be left out of this deal, but doing so, of course, increases the need for retention on Gibson. So I think that at a minimum, you'd have to send the 2024 first and add Clarke or Stillman (depending upon who the Ducks feel is the better prospect) to Vanecek and the Finnish kid. Since the Ducks really have no pressing need to divest themselves of Gibson, especially if retaining up to $1.6 million (they won't retain more), I think that the offer for him has to be a significant and appealing one.
Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:50 p.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 41,463
Likes: 18,838
Quoting: OldNYIfan
I don't think that you're getting Gibson with that much retention unless Anaheim is getting a significant asset back; a 2025 first doesn't do it and you're not about to trade any of your 4 youngsters whose last name begins with the letter "H." Miller is a nice idea as a stopgap, but inasmuch as the Ducks have two RhD prospects on the Canadian team for next month's World Juniors plus Gudas and Lyubushkin, he's a UFA, and you need him more than we do, he can be left out of this deal, but doing so, of course, increases the need for retention on Gibson. So I think that at a minimum, you'd have to send the 2024 first and add Clarke or Stillman (depending upon who the Ducks feel is the better prospect) to Vanecek and the Finnish kid. Since the Ducks really have no pressing need to divest themselves of Gibson, especially if retaining up to $1.6 million (they won't retain more), I think that the offer for him has to be a significant and appealing one.


Do that…but with $2.6m retained instead of $1.6m.

Our cap is going to get tight in Gibsons last two years with Mercer, Hughes Holtz all getting big raises. Play around with 2025-26 NJD lineup and you will see how every dollar will matter.

EDIT - our “cap” not our “gap”
OldNYIfan liked this.
Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:51 p.m.
#4
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2023
Posts: 12,731
Likes: 3,393
Edited Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:56 p.m.
Quoting: OldNYIfan
I don't think that you're getting Gibson with that much retention unless Anaheim is getting a significant asset back; a 2025 first doesn't do it and you're not about to trade any of your 4 youngsters whose last name begins with the letter "H." Miller is a nice idea as a stopgap, but inasmuch as the Ducks have two RhD prospects on the Canadian team for next month's World Juniors plus Gudas and Lyubushkin, he's a UFA, and you need him more than we do, he can be left out of this deal, but doing so, of course, increases the need for retention on Gibson. So I think that at a minimum, you'd have to send the 2024 first and add Clarke or Stillman (depending upon who the Ducks feel is the better prospect) to Vanecek and the Finnish kid. Since the Ducks really have no pressing need to divest themselves of Gibson, especially if retaining up to $1.6 million (they won't retain more), I think that the offer for him has to be a significant and appealing one.


Again I think the big gap here is that ducks fans are viewing gibson as a +ve value asset and the retention as costing more on top of that.
We view gibson as a negative asset at his full cap hit, and the retention being the only thing making him tradable at all.

I think if John Gibson hit waivers today he'd go unclaimed

I think if John gibson were a free agent this past offseason he wouldn't get more than 4.5-5 mill

I think if Gibson were an upcoming UFA he wouldn't get more than 5.5.

In terms of Vanacek.

I think if he was a free agent this past offseason he'd have gotten at least 4

I think if he was a free agent this coming offseason he'd get at least 2-2.5

And I think if he hit waivers one or multiple of Columbus, Toronto, Chicago, put in a claim
Dec. 14, 2023 at 1:53 p.m.
#5
Once a Kings Fan Too
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 41,043
Likes: 25,830
Quoting: NHLfan10506
Do that…but with $2.6m retained instead of $1.6m.

Our gap is going to get tight in Gibsons last two years with Mercer, Hughes Holtz all getting big raises. Play around with 2025-26 NJD lineup and you will see how every dollar will matter.

I knew that you're familiar with Anaheim's financial practices, so I assumed that it was something like that. It's hard to work out a deal that would satisfy both sides economically, but I haven't checked your recent post on the subject, so maybe you have the solution. I'll go see.
See All