Ducks can probably get that value just for Rakell and Lindholm, with out taking Mrazek

Take out Gibson and the picks from the Ducks, ANA not getting nearly enough for Lindholm Rakell and Gibby

This is exactly what I'd expect the perspective of us Ducks fans would be (I actually almost agree completely on value alone). The issue is value aside, Toronto is getting 2 rentals and only one long-term player, while the Ducks are getting 3 high end long-term pieces. So even though value may be slanted, it needs to be for it to make sense for Toronto. IMO this value would totally be worthwhile, and would lock up two of our most questionable holes in the system with another RD and LW. I tried to talk through the value in a mock team I just made. Let me know your thoughts

The Ducks dont need the trade to make sense for TOR, the Ducks need the trade to make sense for the Ducks

Gibson is essentially being treated as a throw in here

Lindholm could get a first and Liljegren by himself (if not more)
Rakell could fetch Robertson (or a similarly valued prospect from another team) +

Mrazek and Holl are cap moves for TOR here so they need to add more to get us to take them

This is extremely far off value wise for ANA

I'm gonna repost what I have in the intro of my Armchair GM for reference here. I think it helps explain the thoughts on value. I'm a bit lower than you on the return Lindholm/Rakell could get, or maybe I'm just a lot higher on Robertson and Liljegren. Also, Gibson absolutely has solid value and is a better goaltender than his stats suggest (thanks to our defense). But that said, he's 28. By the time we're competing he'll be past his prime and we'll be transitioning to Dostal. I'd prefer to get a return for him now while his contract still looks good to another team without retention

Trying to be conservative from the Ducks POV:
Lindholm = Robertson + ~half of the 1st
Rakell = half the 1st + ~1/3 of Liljegren
Gibson = 2/3 Liljegren and Holl at least
Taking on Mrazek's salary, the 3rd and 5th are cherries on top since at the end of the day, value aside, Toronto is getting 2 rentals and only 1 long-term contract in this, while Anaheim is getting 3 solid long-term pieces between Robertson, Lil, and 1st

I think you are grossly undervaluing all the Ducks players here

and when I say grossly I mean Grossly

Interesting. There are already comps for 2/3.

Chiarot went for a 1st and a bunch of meh. Lindholm is totally better than Chiarot and is likely worth the 1st and a good prospect on top of that. I'm saying not quite a 1st and Robertson because I think Robertson is more than just a "good" prospect

Jarnkrok couldn't pull in a 1st on his own, and even the 2nd and change was viewed as a gross overpayment. Rakell's stats are almost identical to Jarnkrok this season, though I do think he's more talented. Getting a 1st for Rakell alone is probably a stretch, especially with few buyers and a lot of sellers. Gonna be hard to get his full value. half a 1st and part of Liljegren is slightly less than a 1st to me, since both of those are/were 1st rounders.

Gibson is where I'm admittedly getting less value than he's worth and totally agree (if I could edit this I'd make it Kerfoot instead of Holl, but still a loss on value). But I think it's necessary, in addition to taking on some salary in Mrazek and giving meh draft picks up, because otherwise Toronto would never accept giving up a bunch of young, valuable assets for 2 rentals they can't re-sign.

Smilinac is not meh, hes a good prospect, I actually wanted us to draft him in the second (I think we took Colangelo)

And Lindholm at least would fetch Robertson and a 1st by himself

Rakell at the least gets what Jarkrok got, I think he gets more there arent alot of rental top 6 forwards that are going to be available and a 2, 3 and 7 > half a first and a third of Lily

Trading Gibson for anything less than something that drops everyone jaws doesnt make sense for ANA. Gibson will still be great when we are competing, Goalie primes are much, much different than the primes of skaters, some goalies dont hit their prime until 32-33 years old

Imo this is off by multiple 1st rounders in value

and thats before you factor in taking Mrazek

Smilnac was a 3rd rounder, isn't even the best dman (let alone player) on his own team, and he's with Quinnipiac University. It's a win if he becomes a regular NHL 3rd pairing Dman, that's pretty meh.

Lindholm fetching a first and prospect is good value. To say at LEAST a 1st and robertson is optimistic

I agree Rakell is worth at least what Jarnkrok got, which was less than a first. That's why half a first and just under half of a former first rounder who has developed very nicely is exactly that

And just flat out no, goalies do not hit their prime at 32-33. Are there individual examples of goalies playing very well at older ages? Totally, but on average? Not at all. Here's one article example, but look up just about any decent analysis and you'll have a lot of trouble finding data to suggest a goalie isn in their prime in their early 30s. Some will say they can maintain their level somewhat until then, but prime? Absolutely not. On top of that, Gibson has a long injury history already, so I'd expect an earlier peak in his career, not later. He's currently being outplayed by Stolarz by the way (granted 2/3 of a season sample size is poor).
https://thehockeywriters.com/3-old-goalies-breaking-the-curve/

I would love it if you could post an armchair GM showing how much value you see these players are worth and how much more value the ducks could get for them. Would be interested to see the general feedback, because our first two aren't far off, the only one that is is Gibson, which probably isn't necessary if we can get a solid return in separate trades for Lindholm and Rakell. The concept was if it was all smushed into one.

Draft round has 0 correlation to prospect value. And Smilanic is a forward so I’m confused on what you’re talking about. He’s a sophomore that’s only being out scored by seniors on his team that are all older than him, 2 of which are 4 and 5 years older than him. He is a good prospect.

It is optimistic but it’s closer to reality than this. Look at any recent report on his value and it’s clear as day.

I guess we just disagree on the value of half a first and a third of a prospect, to me thats essentially a 3rd and a forth

Flat out yes there are countless examples of goalies being elite late into their 30s. Fluery won the vezina literally last year at 35 years old, look at Carey prices playoff run last year, Tim Thomas won 2 Vezinas at 34 and 35, Broduer won a Vezina at 34 and 35, Rinne won a Vezina at 35, Luongo was elite into his late 30s I can keep going if you need me to 😂

There is no Gibson trade that makes sense for the Ducks, and any deal that does wouldn’t make sense for whichever team would be acquiring him I’ve posted multiple ACGMs on values of Rakell and Lindholm.

The concept of smushing all these trades into one is poor asset management from the start but even still the above return is flat out bad and Verbeek would immediately be a bad hire if he did something like this

Nah, pretty sure Leafs fans will all love this one.

I would love the through of @dutchie @rhea from Toronto perspective view.

I do think Gibson is the most important player in this trade. He's very good goaltender. So to move him out of Anaheim pretty sure there need to have a very good return.

I think I would better like a trade for Gibson and Lindholm and go get another trade with islander for a guys like Clutterbuck to add grit and sandpaper on leafs teams.

I like the ideas but it is not enough especially with the retention. I would love Lindholm on my team though. Adding Gibson adds another really big ticket too, not that he is not fantastic but too many big salaries.

Part of me really wants to hang on to Timmy too. I think he will be really good and I'm with you I want to add some nasty.