Jan. 18, 2017
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lambchopz</b></div><div>Oh I understand all that 100%. Ducks shouldn’t move Gibson for cheap, but I also don’t think the Leafs should spend a lucrative amount on him at all</div></div>
Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all. I think it's the hilarious "Kawhi" talk that probably started this. IMO Gibson > Campbell with that D-core in front of him, but you can also *probably* get Campbell back cheaper by simply re-signing him, than trading for someone like Gibson.
Semi-off topic, but the whole "Kawhi" thing was just a terribly foolish thing for anyone to say, media or not, because that was the acquisition of a top 10 NBA player, which, if you compare it to hockey, is pretty much impossible. You (the Leafs) alread have 1 (Matthews), with another one very close (Marner), and when you think "top 10" or even "top 20", there's not really anyone like that that should be available. You guys were hilariously close to knocking off the back to back champs, and the only real difference was that Nick Paul snuck a couple through in game 7. It wasn't depth, it wasn't skill, it wasn't goaltending, it wasn't leadership, it was simply that Tampa scored more goals in game 7 than the Leafs. A couple of decent depth moves and the Leafs stay at the top of the Atlantic.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PredsWingsFan</b></div><div>Too much. If I am Philly, 2 firsts alone id probably run with it. a first and Kallgren, maybe...
This deal you have here, you should toss in Mrazek as well to the deal to even it out more. Heres your chance to move him.</div></div>
I think, from an actual value part, you're not wrong, but from a Philly spot, you've basically got a long term goaltender, with a ton of control left, and he's only 23. I mean, I'd have to be drastically overpaid to move him. A couple of late 1sts likely never replace Hart, and I don't know that Robertson would be a particular need at this point.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ritzy</b></div><div>Or, TOR could sign Campbell at that money and keep their prospects and picks.</div></div>
But, Ka-whi would you want to do that!
As a Ducks fan, I get that Gibby's name is out there a bit right now, but don't see him being moved anyway. Gotta be an overpay for it to make sense for Anaheim, and that seems unlikely given the market for goaltenders. There's really no gun to Verbeek's head saying "You gotta trade 'em!", so again, unless someone does something hilariously stupid, Gibby will be with the Ducks to start the season next year. I also think it's worth keeping in mind that he has a 10 team NTC, which, if we've learned anything about NTC's, more than likely covers every Canadian team.
Also: This isn't just an overpay, it's an extreme overpay. I'll take it though...
These Nylander-Chychrun trades that have been on here make very little sense to me. Don't get me wrong, Nylander is an excellent player, but if you were guaranteed to be a bottom 5 team next year with or without Nylander, would you:
A) Trade Chychrun for the pick/prospect haul that he should command, giving you a whole bunch of team control over future players
B) Trade Chychrun for Nylander, who is under contract for 2 years before he walks as a UFA?
Sure, with B, you could always flip Nylander down the road, but why not just skip that step? There's about a 0% chance that Nylander's value is going to improve playing down there, especially as the contract gets closer to the end, which ends up just being extremely poor asset management on Arizona's part. Any combination of a decline in offence, an injury, poor usage, etc. turns this gamble into a huge L.