I don't disagree with the value, but I just don't see us trading John Gibson.

If someone told me that we HAD traded John, without telling me what we'd got in return, I would hope that it was at least this good a package.

I completely agree with my colleague @OldNYIfan
Value is practically perfect and what the Ducks would most likely ask for. But I just can’t see Ducks be willing to move Gibson any time soon.

Please point to goalie who has ever held the trade value of essentially 3 1st rd picks plus roster players or one who has ever returned such a package.

Gibson is a great goalie, but the fact is goalies just do not return the insane amount of value you have coming from the Canes in such a trade.

If I'm Carolina I'd do this without Necas, could substitute something else in if necessary.

@OldNYIfan @HadesOfSoCal

I don't really see the Ducks trading him either. However, I think it should be considered because by the time they will be competitive again Gibson will probably be 29 or 30. Not only that but he will probably steal some games too making them respectable but not bottom 5. So if the Ducks could add a couple legitimate pieces in a Gibson trade, they will probably bottom out and have a pretty good rebuild in the next 2 years. That's why I see the Canes as a good trade partner seeing that they have some good young pieces and can afford to make a big trade for, imo, their only position of need.

Definitely a tough call to make as a GM, but timing is everything and the team doesn't seem to be lining up with the goalie. If I was a Ducks fan, (which I was in the Kariya days!) I would have a hard time trading Gibson, but I could understand the plan if the trade got back some decent young players.

Well yeah lol, so would I! The canes have so many good prospects but I have no idea what B. Murray would want to get him to do it. I imagine it would be a big trade though. Could change the 1st to a 2nd or Necas for Suzuki.

Anaheim GM gives you a monthly million dollars just to make sure you aren't joking.

No such comparable exist because no one in the recent modern era trades franchise goalies.

Necas is the only reason Anaheim would even consider this trade. Nedeljkovic is only a prospect, although a good one, as is Fleury, and Mrazek is in there only for cap equivalence purposes.

Because the four first-round picks could turn out to be Duncan Siemens (11th OA), Sven Baertschi (13th OA), Mark McNeill (18th OA), and Tyler Biggs (22nd OA), the last of whom has a certain resonance in this context.

Or...more likely, goalies just don’t carry that sort of value

I'm more thinking it'd be a 1st, Nedeljkovic, Bean, Foegele, Mrazek for Gibson

Roberto Luongo

You want a great goaltender but you don't want to pay for him. Fleury is a slow-developing 3rd-pairing d-man. Nedeljkovic had one good year on a strong AHL team.
At least Necas has shown some potential from playing 2nd-line minutes, but he'll never be a Elias Pettersson type of player - so why would Anaheim make that trade?

A few points;

-I didn’t make the trade proposal.

-Gibson is a fine goalie, but no team would or has ever paid such a price for a goalie, which is basically my point. The best at that position just doesn’t hold that much value.

-I don’t really give a rip how Necas would fit in with ANH. To expect a roster player like him, plus the equivalent of 2 more 1st round picks ++ for a goalie is ridiculous.

and @davidrabbit

I think the notion of 'equivalent of 2 more 1st round picks' is a common way to look at players but a mistake. Once they're drafted, their draft position really doesn't matter after 2-3 years sometimes after 1 year. Once they're picked, they don't hold the value of the pick, they hold the value of the player that they are. Any GM hanging to 'where they were drafted' years after should never be a GM.

Fleury and Necas were players that were drafted 6 and 3 years ago. Hanging onto Fleury being a 1st round pick as a basis in value doesn't make sense. Hell Sanderson was just take 5th by the Sens and I doubt they could get '5th' overall value for him. Lundell was taken 12th and I'd pay more for him than Sanderson.

The value in the trade I proposed is in the 1st round pick and Necas. Fleury still has potential but time is running out and Nedeljkovic is coming into his prime as a goalie and could be a starter or could not be. That's a lot of risk for Anaheim with Necas being the best but still unknown player in the trade. So that's why I added the 1st.

It's difficult to make the argument that there is any significant difference between Haydn Fleury (taken high in 2014) and Jacob Larsson (taken low in the first the following year), who's already on the Anaheim roster. Larsson has played 113 games in the NHL and Fleury only 19 more, and their offensive and defensive capabilities, so far, seem pretty equal. You're absolutely right -- arguing that either one is worth a first-round pick now is ludicrous, and your trade is pretty much right on value (although I wouldn't do it, personally).

Great point. I was thinking about Larsson too after I revisited the trade. Fleury would seem redundant. Thanks for the thoughts!