The Leafs cap situation is a strawman you are trying to go down because you can't defend against what I said. In that season, 32% of the cap will be tied to just 6 players. That is concerning when you are signing all of your stars that offseason and need to fill 12(at a minimum) other roster spots. You may just be a fan so don't care but for a GM, it's his job to care and that is going to be a primary issue going forward. It's why the Ducks would be looking at trading Gibson as an option.

One of the best parts of being right is getting to correct spelling mistakes of words people should really be getting right when they are arguing the english language, like knowledge. It's in the same line as using the wrong 'you're' when calling someone an idiot.

Another of the best parts of being correct is when people need to go down strawmen like this because they can't argue the point.

HOw is it a strawman? It's an excellent example of how you can fill a team out even with 58.1% of your cap tied up into 5 players.

Allow me to do the math here, just for fun:
-23/24 current cap: $27 mil
-Players signed: 6
Zegras likely gets a Hughes-type contract (8 x $8), but for the sake of this argument, let's just give him $9, so now we're at $36 mil. Terry likely gets around $6.5 (Again, let's bump it to $7.5 to keep you happy ), so now we're at $43.5. Drysdale hasn't done a ton yet, so it's likely a bridge deal, but if let's just go crazy and give him Quinn Hughes money so that you're happy and everyone that isn't you looks stupid! Now we're at $51.3 on 9 players.

Jeeeez louise, we're starting to get tight here, but let's keep going. It's a given that McTavish is likely on that roster ($52.5-10 players), Dostal as the backup (Gave him a mil on a bridge deal here. $53.5-11 players including both goaltenders), perhaps Zellweger? ($54.36, 12 players). Update: There's $29.34 mil left in cap space. Let's go absolutely crazy and sign 2 players at $6 mil per player (Ahhhhhh yeahhhhh, we've crossed the cap floor! $66.36, 14 players).

So, where are we at now you may ask...there's a total of $17.14 mil left, an average of $2.14 mil per player to fill out a 22 man roster. That covers the arb raises and ELC/league minimum contracts.

Then, in 24/25, you shed over $11 with Rico/Silf.

Simple, simple, simple.

Wait, you think teams want to be in the Leafs situation cap wise? Like its a desirable goal they shouldn't try to avoid? Talk about out there opinions.

Simple for a non-competitive team but the Ducks want to be more. They have the best rookie in the league, the rebuild is over, its time to start getting better and that takes money(and much better goaltending while were on the topic of Gibson). Spending only 17 mil on free agents won't get them far.

Let's see, Cam Fowler is on your top pairing under those conditions. Good luck with that when the Ducks have had goaltending they currently do. McTavish is filling in at 2C, which is questionable at best, you've got both Henrique and Silf still in the top 6. There's a lot of high value positions there you are leaving out. It assumes batting a 100% rate for players being effective, which frankly doesn't happen for GMs. The longer we project into the future, the more can go wrong and that's where cap flexibility comes in.

But...I gave you the perfect example above?

Look, I just want to jump and clarify what I think the reason people are pushing back against you.

"We don't know how many Ducks players voted" is a true, factual statement. Because we don't! It's an anonymous poll!

"Gibson likely got high results because a lot of Ducks players voted" is -NOT- a true, factual statement. It is an opinion. Since, as we said above, we do not know who voted nor how they voted, we cannot factually state that Gibson's vote totals were because of his teammates voting. It could just as likely be that as it could be the entire NJ Devils lineup voting for him after he shut them out on in their 8th game of the season on November 2nd and they realized that their playoff hopes rested on the shoulders of a Jonathan Bernier/Mackenzie Blackwood tandem and the person responsible for handing out the poll did so just as Nico Hischier and Jesper Bratt were trading mournful looks about how they thought the next 74 games played out.

Is it likely that's how it happened? I don't know, probably not. Can you prove that's not how it happened, though? No, you can't - just like you can't prove that his votes actually came from his teammates supporting their boy. We've already established that part. So your second statement is opinion, and it is conjecture. You can believe those things, and logically they may be sound, but without hard evidence, you just can't say it's actually true.

Without hard evidence we can't say it's not true either. What we can say is that in 20-21, Gibson wasn't inside the top 5 for goalies in the same poll. He wasn't top 4 in 19-20 either, they only gave top 4 rather than 5 that year. Is there any logical reason to think that his lackluster play in 20-21 or 21-22 made a bigger share of players have faith in him? Of course not. It's reasonable to start thinking outside that box. I guess I'll ask this, what is more likely? That players across the league found faith in a 0.904 goalie or that his teammates tried to give him a confidence bump?

Speaking of things without evidence, Anaheim fans love to say that players/GMs have a high opinion of Gibson. Where is the evidence of this?

Your level of concern for the Ducks is admirable. Are you sure you're not a closet fan? Most of us are pretty even keeled, so I'm not sure that you'll fit in, but maybe a contradicting/self loathing fan is exactly what we need?

I mean, you were originally worried about Gibson, and we all said "Nah dude, we aight!", so then you flipped to how there's no way to make it work with the cap, so I did a plain Jane version of "This is pretty f*ckin' simple" example, and now you're concerned about roster quality. Do I need to go out and make some trades for you? Will that be enough to get an "atta boy!" from you?

Or, on the flip side, are you just one of those people that argues for the sake of arguing? If so, that's cool and all, but there's really no point in me continuing this discussion.

FWIW, would I want to be in the Leafs shoes? Well, they were a top 4 team in the NHL this year, so there's that...

When you make explanations that are poor answers, yes, you tend to have to flesh them out. In this case, your roster where cap isn't a problem...has 2 unnamed 6 mil defensemen plugging holes (lets call them dmen because thats the biggest problem) and needs 3 top 6 wingers from 17 mil cap. You can see how your explanation doesn't actually work out very well. You tried to give a simple answer to a complex problem when I'm proposing a more easily attainable, complete answer by being willing to move Gibson(and keep in mind, your statement was that the Ducks have no reason to move Gibson which I've more than gone past the level of reasonable reasons they would). One of these are as reasonable solution, one is pipe dreams from a biased fan.

If you want to get away from complicated answers, lets have a Ducks fan answer the simple question. Why would Gibson still have premium value, after 3 seasons in which he's performed terribly, paired with a large contract with lots of term? That's the one question that there is never a good answer to because a good answer doesn't exist.

dude i'm not getting sucked into this Gibson argument, just letting you know that people are going to push back if you keep saying two things are true but the second thing literally cannot be proven true if the first statement *is true*.

The point was never if they are true, the point was if they are contradictory of each other...which by the definition of the word, they aren't.

Mannnnn, is that the only point that you've been trying to make here? That we should be willing to move Gibson? For a guy that contradicts himself on a regular basis, you'd think you could have just skipped all of this and read back in thread a bit to the exact spot where I already answered this question. We are! I said it on page 2 of this thread! To YOU! My exact quote was: "The Ducks have zero reason to trade John Gibson without being overpaid for him". If that's wasn't clear enough, I can re-word it to "The Ducks will likely trade John Gibson if someone overpays for him", or "Ducks fans will accept an overpay if someone wants to acquire John Gibson."

There. We sure did tidy up that pretty quickly.

The Leafs have no reason to move Kyle Clifford unless someone over pays for him. Does that make him worth premium value? Of course not. It's not an answer to the question.

That's probably enough of this. @Salzy made a career defining move earlier by hitting up the old ignore list, which is pretty perfect for trolls, so I'm going to follow his lead.

Cheers dude, enjoy talking to yourself.

Wow! This one's awful even by the sliver of Toronto fanbase that believes in the Gibson-is-garbage idiocy.

For that package, we literally wouldn't give you Anthony Stolarz. Olli Eriksson Ek, maybe.

At some point, the Toronto guys with IQ's measurable in three digits are gonna start feeling embarrassed for these yahoos.

Yet not one Anaheim fan can come up with an answer to why GIbson would be worth a premium after 3 bad seasons while earning a big contract with lots of term.

i mean, they are, aren't they?

you agree that the first statement is true, yes? "we do not know who voted in this poll", as we agreed, is a factually correct statement.

so, the second statement, "his teammates were probably the ones voting for him" cannot be proven true with the information we have on hand. the only information we have is that we don't know who voted and how they voted.

so if the second statement cannot be true if the first statement is true, do they not contradict each other? i don't know why you're pushing back so hard on this?

I'm pushing back because it's very obviously wrong.

If one of those statements is true, the other can be true as well. We don't know who voted in the poll, the Ducks who voted likely voted for Gibson. Those are both things that can be true. No part of either one is exclusionary. The only way for one to not be able to be true, zero Ducks would have had to vote in the poll. That, however, is based on an assumption as much as anything else is and is unlikely enough to just discard outright.

Two more guys to add to the pantheon of Toronto all-stars. The intelligent guys in that fanbase must be seething. We should all agree not to respond to these morons' provocations.

Why are you wasting your time with a guy who wouldn't admit he was wrong if he'd said 2 + 2 = 5 and you'd called him on it?

yeah, just time to bail. i think this might be the absolute mountaintop of "your player is trash! and that's why i'm trading a big pile of nothing for him"

I don't remember it being this bad on a regular basis, but ACGM has absolute become the land of:
-Creates thread.
-Trades for player.
-Gets called out for trade.
-Argues that the player actually sucks.
-Quietly inserts the player in their top 6/top4/#1 goalie spot.

It's weird. Can we not just go back to the "Ben Chiarot is horrible and while we all know that in some stupid universe, some dumb AF GM is quite likely going to do something incredibly stupid, but we certainly hope it's not our team" threads?

We've gone all the way to the point of:
-Our player is worth a lot, we just can't tell you why.

They are directly opposed to each other. One states that we don't know who voted. The other states that more ducks players voted. They completely contradict each other.