Quoting: Copenhagen
The point is Goalies never go for as much as they are worth for some reason. You surely must understand that. Therefore getting 2 of the top 3 oilers best prospects is something (like I said above ) is something I would never do. Therefore an overpayment. Look over the past goalie trades over time. A first line D and a first would be more than any goalie trade ever got in my memory. Therefore its a lot to give up. You can value him how you want, I will value him how I want and go on your way.
With Shesterkin, Samsonov, Hart and the other guy up and coming from Blue Jackets, Gibsons value will continue to deteriorate fast. But I wouldnt trade him anyways if I am the ducks.
But your first sentence there assumes facts not in evidence: that world-class goalies get traded at all, and that the value of the goalies that HAVE been traded is somehow below the Platonic ideal of what they're truly worth. I don't think that Jake Allen went below his market value.
Let me try again to show you how logic works.
The statement that “no [first-class] goalie has ever been traded for more than Ethan Bear and a first” implies, logically, that the value of a goalie is MORE than Ethan Bear and a first. Why? Because if the reason that the statement that “no goalie has ever been traded for more than Ethan Bear and a first” is true is that the expressed value is TOO HIGH, then it logically, and inevitably, follows that SOME such goalie (along the lines of Binnington, Hart, Kuemper, Markstrom, etc.) would have been traded for less. And if THAT were true, then we’d see such goalies flying around like tumbleweeds in a sandstorm. But we don’t.
A lot of people don’t understand the fallacy in the “a comparable trade has never occurred” statement. Consider a similar one: “No world-class Norris Trophy defender like Victor Hedman or Roman Josi has ever been traded for more than two first-round draft picks.” Does that mean that two first-round picks is the proper price for one of those guys? But we’ve seen lots of lesser defensemen traded for less, haven’t we?
I know that you’re highly impressed that Robin Lehner was traded for a second and a song, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything under discussion because he was on an expiring contract when traded. Never mind any perceived on-ice difference in ability or performance; the discrepancy between Lehner’s pending free-agent situation and Gibson’s current six-year-plus term makes their respective trade values a galaxy apart.
As to your idea that Gibson's value will continue to deteriorate, I don't accept that it has deteriorated, or that it necessarily will. Gibson's and Vasilevskiy's current contracts both expire weeks prior to their 34th birthdays. Many world-class goalies function at the same high level after their 35th birthdays, as I think Cary Price will.
As for the rest of your comment, it's 100% valid. It's entirely sensible that you wouldn't want to pay the price I've suggested, and thus you firmly believe that it's an overpayment for your team. That's your call, and I'm not disputing it. Moreover, I don't expect to be proven "right" by an actual-world trade, either of a Gibson-Hellebuyck-Vasilevskiy netminder or a lesser #1 goalie, so we'll never know what Gibson's true trade value is. But the history you cite and logic tell me that it isn't as low as Ethan Bear and a first.