Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
JiggyToTheCup

Gibson Signs 8-year extension

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fowl said:

6 million dollar goalies aren’t traded unless they suck, and then who would want them....Murray is betting on Gibson being a bargain.  Goalies are always a risky proposition.  I think 6 years at $6M would have been a better result.

He could get traded, but it would be an indication of a full rebuild. Doubt you'd trade a top ten goalie to improve scoring at the trade deadline 

Luongo got traded when he was still a good goalie. Ben Bishop and Kari Lehtonen were at least top 20 when they were traded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibsons will only be 26 once the contract starts. He'll be 33 (same age as Jonathan Quick this year) his contract year. 8 years is not that big a deal imo.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great deal. Sure the term is long and Gibson has had some injuries in the past. But if you look at his workload and the amount of games he missed last year it's not that bad. Sure it's a gamble but it's always a gamble. Look at what's going on with Kesler, Pronger, Hossa,...

Gibson is a very good goalie who shows flashes of brilliance. He'll become a great one. The money is great btw. Look at what Price got. And while his positioning isn't all that great he does make those highlight reel saves you just love as a fan :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an advance stats perspective, it never makes financial sense to pay that much for a goalie.  There is no real correlation between salary and save percentage better than average.

However, what you are paying for is a little piece of mind that Gibson will, at worst, be average over his career.  You are paying to guarantee that your goalie is not worse than average.

Given how the salary cap has increased, the cost of Gibson and the revolving door of backup goalies beginning the year after next (at about $1 million per year), will fit nicely within the teams salary structure for the next 9 years.

Edited by DT2008
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DT2008 said:

From an advance stats perspective, it never makes financial sense to pay that much for a goalie.  There is no real correlation between salary and save percentage better than average.

 

I'm with the concept that it doesn't make a ton of sense to pay top dollar for a goalie, but not for the reason you cite.  I do think that save percentage is important and what you want from your goalie, and that John Gibson is one of the best in the NHL.  I just don't know that from a roster-building perspective it makes sense to allocate that many resources to a goalie.  In order to win a Cup, you generally need a goalie who isn't going to lose you games.  Anything above that is gravy, but it isn't strictly necessary to pay for it when there are more important areas of the team.  I'd rather have Freddie Andersen and a $5 million forward than Carey Price, even when he was still elite.

All that said, Gibson isn't paid THAT much, and with the way the Ducks' roster is constructed, both now and in the near future, they're going to need an elite goalie to keep them relevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gorbachav5 said:

I'm with the concept that it doesn't make a ton of sense to pay top dollar for a goalie, but not for the reason you cite.  I do think that save percentage is important and what you want from your goalie, and that John Gibson is one of the best in the NHL.  I just don't know that from a roster-building perspective it makes sense to allocate that many resources to a goalie.  In order to win a Cup, you generally need a goalie who isn't going to lose you games.  Anything above that is gravy, but it isn't strictly necessary to pay for it when there are more important areas of the team.  I'd rather have Freddie Andersen and a $5 million forward than Carey Price, even when he was still elite.

All that said, Gibson isn't paid THAT much, and with the way the Ducks' roster is constructed, both now and in the near future, they're going to need an elite goalie to keep them relevant.

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gorbachav5 said:

I'm with the concept that it doesn't make a ton of sense to pay top dollar for a goalie, but not for the reason you cite.  I do think that save percentage is important and what you want from your goalie, and that John Gibson is one of the best in the NHL.  I just don't know that from a roster-building perspective it makes sense to allocate that many resources to a goalie.  In order to win a Cup, you generally need a goalie who isn't going to lose you games.  Anything above that is gravy, but it isn't strictly necessary to pay for it when there are more important areas of the team.  I'd rather have Freddie Andersen and a $5 million forward than Carey Price, even when he was still elite.

All that said, Gibson isn't paid THAT much, and with the way the Ducks' roster is constructed, both now and in the near future, they're going to need an elite goalie to keep them relevant.

I dunno about that...

While yes, obviously you need that, but just looking back at the past 13 playoffs...only 3 times was the Stanley Cup winning goalie below .920 save percentage. (2009 Fleury .908, 2010 Niemi .910, 2014 Quick .911). While actually 5 times the goalies had EXCEPTIONAL save percentage. (2008 Osgood .930, 2011 Thomas .940, 2012 Quick .946, 2013 Crawford .932, 2017 Murray .937) ...of course the 2017 one was split with Fleury who was at .924.

I mean, I guess my question would be do you consider .920 -> .930 a goalie who is just "good enough not to lose games" ? I wouldn't. I would for the bottom 3 of that span, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jasoaks said:

I dunno about that...

While yes, obviously you need that, but just looking back at the past 13 playoffs...only 3 times was the Stanley Cup winning goalie below .920 save percentage. (2009 Fleury .908, 2010 Niemi .910, 2014 Quick .911). While actually 5 times the goalies had EXCEPTIONAL save percentage. (2008 Osgood .930, 2011 Thomas .940, 2012 Quick .946, 2013 Crawford .932, 2017 Murray .937) ...of course the 2017 one was split with Fleury who was at .924.

I mean, I guess my question would be do you consider .920 -> .930 a goalie who is just "good enough not to lose games" ? I wouldn't. I would for the bottom 3 of that span, though.

 

It looks as if you're using playoff save percentage, which somewhat makes my point for me.  Just about any average goalie or better has the ability to get hot for a stretch of 20 games.  Heck, even below average goalies do, but they're less likely to do it and more likely to lose you games along the way.  Chris Osgood was an average to somewhat above average goalie for his long career.  For the most part, he wasn't going to be the reason you lost games, but he also wasn't going to consistently give you Hasek-like seasons either.  He COULD be Hasek-like for a small stretch, which he was in the 07-08 playoffs, despite being merely good during the regular season.  He actually was just as good the next year in the playoffs despite having a pretty poor regular season.

Jonathan Quick, good goalie but fairly over-rated in my opinion, got hot during a couple of playoff runs.

Fleury - slightly above average goalie who actually got panned for not coming through in the playoffs and winning games for his team, all of a sudden became a stud during the 2017 playoffs.  During the 2009 playoffs he just had to be decent enough not to lose his team some games.

Antti Niemi - Before he was awful, was a solid goalie, but not a Vezina candidate.  He was decent enough to help his team win a Cup.

Tim Thomas was the second coming of Hasek for a few seasons so he was a legitimately excellent goalie when he helped his team win a Cup.

Let's look at the goals saved above average table and see where the Cup-winning goalie ranked during the season in question:

  • 2018: Holtby (54th)
  • 2017: MAF (48), Murray (7)
  • 2016: MAF (8)
  • 2015: Crawford (7)
  • 2014: Quick (31)
  • 2013: Crawford (9)
  • 2012: Quick (3)
  • 2011: Thomas (1)
  • 2010: Niemi (24)
  • 2009: MAF (19)
  • 2008: Osgood (22)
  • 2007: Giguere (9)
  • 2006: Ward (59)

Only two top 5 goalie performances won the Cup and only half of the Cup-winning goalies were top 10.  True, some of these are good goalies who had a down season, but that somewhat reinforces my point that you don't have to be elite or having an elite season to get your team to a Cup.  You have to be good enough not to crap the bed and have the ability to steal a game or two, but you don't need to be Lundqvist or Luongo or Price.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jasoaks said:

I dunno about that...

While yes, obviously you need that, but just looking back at the past 13 playoffs...only 3 times was the Stanley Cup winning goalie below .920 save percentage. (2009 Fleury .908, 2010 Niemi .910, 2014 Quick .911). While actually 5 times the goalies had EXCEPTIONAL save percentage. (2008 Osgood .930, 2011 Thomas .940, 2012 Quick .946, 2013 Crawford .932, 2017 Murray .937) ...of course the 2017 one was split with Fleury who was at .924.

I mean, I guess my question would be do you consider .920 -> .930 a goalie who is just "good enough not to lose games" ? I wouldn't. I would for the bottom 3 of that span, though.

 

Osgood and Crawford had exceptional d in front. I never thought of either of them as elite but average goalies playing in great systems and led by great elite d (at the time of their winning)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cool with the $6.4M here, but the 8-year term.... I don't get it. Gibby's very good goalie and has been stellar during the past few regular seasons (when healthy), but he's also been pulled from 4 of his 26 playoff starts and has an 11-13 playoff record (during a stretch when the Ducks have been 31-26 over all). Given his injury history and some of his playoff performances, I'd have rather seen a shorter term for him on this contract.  I don't know how you get a max 8-year deal based on a couple of solid regular seasons.  You'd think the organization would want to see either greater physical resiliency or some greater playoff success before going for the full 8-year deal.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

I'm cool with the $6.4M here, but the 8-year term.... I don't get it. Gibby's very good goalie and has been stellar during the past few regular seasons (when healthy), but he's also been pulled from 4 of his 26 playoff starts and has an 11-13 playoff record (during a stretch when the Ducks have been 31-26 over all). Given his injury history and some of his playoff performances, I'd have rather seen a shorter term for him on this contract.  I don't know how you get a max 8-year deal based on a couple of solid regular seasons.  You'd think the organization would want to see either greater physical resiliency or some greater playoff success before going for the full 8-year deal.

Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either unless Bob knows something about the future of the salary cap that we don't.
Maybe 6 mil for a #1 goalie is a steal in 4 years.

Who knows the mind and thoughts of one, "Robert Murray?"

Edited by wataduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:

I'm cool with the $6.4M here, but the 8-year term.... I don't get it. Gibby's very good goalie and has been stellar during the past few regular seasons (when healthy), but he's also been pulled from 4 of his 26 playoff starts and has an 11-13 playoff record (during a stretch when the Ducks have been 31-26 over all). Given his injury history and some of his playoff performances, I'd have rather seen a shorter term for him on this contract.  I don't know how you get a max 8-year deal based on a couple of solid regular seasons.  You'd think the organization would want to see either greater physical resiliency or some greater playoff success before going for the full 8-year deal.

I think what you're seeing is a very valuable trade if the team needs a complete rebuild.  8 years at this price, if Gibby stands up like he has, means you can get multiple players in return even 4 years into the contract.  Gibby gets his guarantee, a very good price for him/season, and we get an excellent price for us, for trade fodder as long as he stays as productive has he has been.  If he gets better, the upside is all ours.  And if decide to carry him through some bad years, I think he's cheap enough that we can do it and try to make it with him to the other side of the valley.

one way to look at it - forwards will be willing to trade to the Ducks if we have Gib, Hank, Rakell, and Getz still in the mix.  Kesler too if he bounces back.  Gib might be able to carry that feeling through an inevitable? points drought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the contract he will be 33....I can say this...but I beleive he deserves to have 8 year contract. He has time to use to prove.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gorbachav5 said:

It looks as if you're using playoff save percentage, which somewhat makes my point for me.  Just about any average goalie or better has the ability to get hot for a stretch of 20 games.  Heck, even below average goalies do, but they're less likely to do it and more likely to lose you games along the way.  Chris Osgood was an average to somewhat above average goalie for his long career.  For the most part, he wasn't going to be the reason you lost games, but he also wasn't going to consistently give you Hasek-like seasons either.  He COULD be Hasek-like for a small stretch, which he was in the 07-08 playoffs, despite being merely good during the regular season.  He actually was just as good the next year in the playoffs despite having a pretty poor regular season.

Jonathan Quick, good goalie but fairly over-rated in my opinion, got hot during a couple of playoff runs.

Fleury - slightly above average goalie who actually got panned for not coming through in the playoffs and winning games for his team, all of a sudden became a stud during the 2017 playoffs.  During the 2009 playoffs he just had to be decent enough not to lose his team some games.

Antti Niemi - Before he was awful, was a solid goalie, but not a Vezina candidate.  He was decent enough to help his team win a Cup.

Tim Thomas was the second coming of Hasek for a few seasons so he was a legitimately excellent goalie when he helped his team win a Cup.

Let's look at the goals saved above average table and see where the Cup-winning goalie ranked during the season in question:

  • 2018: Holtby (54th)
  • 2017: MAF (48), Murray (7)
  • 2016: MAF (8)
  • 2015: Crawford (7)
  • 2014: Quick (31)
  • 2013: Crawford (9)
  • 2012: Quick (3)
  • 2011: Thomas (1)
  • 2010: Niemi (24)
  • 2009: MAF (19)
  • 2008: Osgood (22)
  • 2007: Giguere (9)
  • 2006: Ward (59)

Only two top 5 goalie performances won the Cup and only half of the Cup-winning goalies were top 10.  True, some of these are good goalies who had a down season, but that somewhat reinforces my point that you don't have to be elite or having an elite season to get your team to a Cup.  You have to be good enough not to crap the bed and have the ability to steal a game or two, but you don't need to be Lundqvist or Luongo or Price.  

Yes! I love goalie talks!! Yeah, I agree...Osgood wasn't great, but had moments of greatness. And also completely agree that Quick is over-rated. Fleury was also a stud in the 2018 playoffs. His 2009 playoffs was like a joke lol Niemi I think was a one hit wonder in 2010 -- I have the same feeling about Ward in 06. And I am still pretty sad about Tim Thomas retiring :(

But yeah, my point was more you need a goalie to be above average during the playoffs...which yeah I guess does actually make your point stronger. I think that list you just posted is really good to show that about half the time the winning goalie was NOT exceptional during the regular season. Any average goalie can get hot, yeah. But it is still probably in our better interest to bet on an above-average goalie to have backing us up than hoping an average goalie can get hot.

2 hours ago, RobD360 said:

Osgood and Crawford had exceptional d in front. I never thought of either of them as elite but average goalies playing in great systems and led by great elite d (at the time of their winning)

This is also very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:

I'm cool with the $6.4M here, but the 8-year term.... I don't get it. Gibby's very good goalie and has been stellar during the past few regular seasons (when healthy), but he's also been pulled from 4 of his 26 playoff starts and has an 11-13 playoff record (during a stretch when the Ducks have been 31-26 over all). Given his injury history and some of his playoff performances, I'd have rather seen a shorter term for him on this contract.  I don't know how you get a max 8-year deal based on a couple of solid regular seasons.  You'd think the organization would want to see either greater physical resiliency or some greater playoff success before going for the full 8-year deal.

Who do the Ducks have in the system that will challenge him for the #1 spot? When Andersen was traded, Gibson became the #1 for the foreseeable future. Not the temporary #1 until Anaheim drafted or traded for someone better. The Ducks have clearly committed to defense and goal tending for the future. I really don't see the problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:

Who do the Ducks have in the system that will challenge him for the #1 spot? When Andersen was traded, Gibson became the #1 for the foreseeable future. Not the temporary #1 until Anaheim drafted or traded for someone better. The Ducks have clearly committed to defense and goal tending for the future. I really don't see the problem with that.

Depth Chart for the Ducks Defence Corps is great.....as for Goaltending its Good.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

Yes! I love goalie talks!! Yeah, I agree...Osgood wasn't great, but had moments of greatness. And also completely agree that Quick is over-rated. Fleury was also a stud in the 2018 playoffs. His 2009 playoffs was like a joke lol Niemi I think was a one hit wonder in 2010 -- I have the same feeling about Ward in 06. And I am still pretty sad about Tim Thomas retiring :(

But yeah, my point was more you need a goalie to be above average during the playoffs...which yeah I guess does actually make your point stronger. I think that list you just posted is really good to show that about half the time the winning goalie was NOT exceptional during the regular season. Any average goalie can get hot, yeah. But it is still probably in our better interest to bet on an above-average goalie to have backing us up than hoping an average goalie can get hot.

I'm happy with having Gibson in the fold.  I'm kind of with dts in that I think the term is a bit scary, but Gibson has shown he's an elite-level netminder and we got him at a reasonable price.  It certainly never HURTS to have a great goalie in the playoffs, as long as he can stay healthy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:

Who do the Ducks have in the system that will challenge him for the #1 spot? When Andersen was traded, Gibson became the #1 for the foreseeable future. Not the temporary #1 until Anaheim drafted or traded for someone better. The Ducks have clearly committed to defense and goal tending for the future. I really don't see the problem with that.

I don't really see this as being relevant.  #1 goaltenders can be acquired via trade without mortgaging your entire franchise (unlike #1 centers or D-men). Some teams are very good at drafting or acquiring an excess of talented netminders, but can only keep one as their starter long term (how many has Washington traded away now because of Holtby?). There are a handful of NHL starters available each and every season via trade or free agency, and even more goalie prospects available via trade for cheap prices before they establish themselves as legit NHL starters. 

It's going to be a great deal if it works out. But goaltender is a very physically demanding position and Gibson already has an injury history.  8 years is a big gamble IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

I don't really see this as being relevant.  #1 goaltenders can be acquired via trade without mortgaging your entire franchise (unlike #1 centers or D-men). Some teams are very good at drafting or acquiring an excess of talented netminders, but can only keep one as their starter long term (how many has Washington traded away now because of Holtby?). There are a handful of NHL starters available each and every season via trade or free agency, and even more goalie prospects available via trade for cheap prices before they establish themselves as legit NHL starters. 

It's going to be a great deal if it works out. But goaltender is a very physically demanding position and Gibson already has an injury history.  8 years is a big gamble IMO.

I feel like the Ducks have been one of the more solid teams of getting good, young goalies and putting them through their system... Bryz, Hiller, Freddie, Gibson...that's 4 consecutive great starters at one point in their career all started with the Ducks...that's impressive. I don't know enough about other teams and their goalie drafts to know if other teams have had this success...but that's pretty great from the Ducks.

I mean, I know there were goalies we drafted or signed that haven't panned out with other teams like Fasth, but I'm just trying to say we seem to never need to trade for a starter since Giguere...and the goalies we bring up to be an actual #2 back-up seem to turn into great starters pretty consistently.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jasoaks said:

I feel like the Ducks have been one of the more solid teams of getting good, young goalies and putting them through their system... Bryz, Hiller, Freddie, Gibson...that's 4 consecutive great starters at one point in their career all started with the Ducks...that's impressive. I don't know enough about other teams and their goalie drafts to know if other teams have had this success...but that's pretty great from the Ducks.

I mean, I know there were goalies we drafted or signed that haven't panned out with other teams like Fasth, but I'm just trying to say we seem to never need to trade for a starter since Giguere...and the goalies we bring up to be an actual #2 back-up seem to turn into great starters pretty consistently.

We had Allaire as goaltender coach for quite a while, which definitely helped the Ducks franchise for goalie development. Goaltending was a little shakey the season after Allaire left, but things have settled since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wataduk said:

Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either unless Bob knows something about the future of the salary cap that we don't.
Maybe 6 mil for a #1 goalie is a steal in 4 years.

Ummm... we all know it goes up constantly.  Are you expecting it to drop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gotchabari said:

Ummm... we all know it goes up constantly.  Are you expecting it to drop?

Either the NHL or the NHLPA have the option of opting out of the current CBA Sept. 1st 2019. If both sides keep it then the current CBA expires Sept. 15th 2022. So I guess we will find out next year if both sides are fine with the current growth of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gotchabari said:

Ummm... we all know it goes up constantly.  Are you expecting it to drop?

You mean the salary cap or your next comedy album?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:

I don't really see this as being relevant.  #1 goaltenders can be acquired via trade without mortgaging your entire franchise (unlike #1 centers or D-men). Some teams are very good at drafting or acquiring an excess of talented netminders, but can only keep one as their starter long term (how many has Washington traded away now because of Holtby?). There are a handful of NHL starters available each and every season via trade or free agency, and even more goalie prospects available via trade for cheap prices before they establish themselves as legit NHL starters. 

It's going to be a great deal if it works out. But goaltender is a very physically demanding position and Gibson already has an injury history.  8 years is a big gamble IMO.

Gamble yes...But a vote of Confidence by the Ducks is a Yes...It could make or break Gibson for those 8 years.

DuckPride 4ever

MooseDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, perry_mvp said:

Either the NHL or the NHLPA have the option of opting out of the current CBA Sept. 1st 2019. If both sides keep it then the current CBA expires Sept. 15th 2022. So I guess we will find out next year if both sides are fine with the current growth of the game.

Historically, they will be.  If nothing else to keep up with inflation.  I'll have to check, but I can't think of a year it dropped.  It has remained for a year, but then went up the following.

So in 8 years, it is likely to go up at least 3 or 4 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DuckFan4Life said:

"He seems to be getting better every single year." 

@LindsayBHockey breaks down the @AnaheimDucks' decision to give @JohnGibson35 an 8-year contract. #NHLTonight

https://mobile.twitter.com/nhlnetwork/status/1026664980266078208

Also:

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2018/08/montreal-boston-find-themselves-atop-goaltending-salary-chart.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Thom-74 said:

We had Allaire as goaltender coach for quite a while, which definitely helped the Ducks franchise for goalie development. Goaltending was a little shakey the season after Allaire left, but things have settled since then.

Oh that's right, I remember when he left...that wasn't a great day...

I was just thinking too, I really think if Hiller didn't get vertigo we would have been able to win a cup with him...if Freddie didn't lose his focus in 2015 we would have easily won a cup that year, too...and I think if we can strengthen our offense a bit we'll be winning a cup with Gibson.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

Oh that's right, I remember when he left...that wasn't a great day...

I was just thinking too, I really think if Hiller didn't get vertigo we would have been able to win a cup with him...if Freddie didn't lose his focus in 2015 we would have easily won a cup that year, too...and I think if we can strengthen our offense a bit we'll be winning a cup with Gibson.

What. An optimistic post/comment about our team. I didn't think that was allowed.  :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dukitup said:

What. An optimistic post/comment about our team. I didn't think that was allowed.  :)

haha well, there is that IF :P but I mean looking at our deffense...including the ones that are still up and coming...and combine that with Gibson...when Gibson hits his prime and our core defense will basically be at their prime as a group...that's just gonna be...epic! If we have a strong enough offense with that group...we'll be in very, very good shape.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...