Bobby Kittleberger: John Gibson's Contract is, Statistically, About Right Statistically, John Gibson's 8-year contract with the Anaheim Ducks is spot on.

Getting him signed for less than $7 million and the limited NTC is the main reason for the 8 year contract IMO. The Ducks got a decent cap hit and the ability to move him if circumstances change and Gibson got 8 years of paycheck security. Pretty good day for the Ducks and Gibson.

It's a fabulous deal for both Ducks and JG... He's a complete stud -- 60+ games a yr is perfect because RM is a great backup - 8 mil combined for 2 excellent goalies is how you want to manage the cap. I can see RM being resigned for a mil or so yr by yr going forward as he is terrific for 20 games or so. And an absolute stud in shootouts, which JG is not.

Was absolutely stunned to see many negative reactions just after the signing here. One of the best goalies around and super underrated. Decent contract!

Gibson will actually be here for the next 9 years. He has 1 more year on his current contract, then the extension kicks in. He'll be 33 years old at the end of his contract year (or the same age J. Quick will be this season). With a limited ntc, I think this is a good deal for both sides.

Andersen>Gibson.

Too much money for a goalie.

Andersen>Gibson.
- YzermanTheMan

You wish!

Was absolutely stunned to see many negative reactions just after the signing here. One of the best goalies around and super underrated. Decent contract!
- DutchSenators

MOSTLY BANDWAGON KING FANS WERE TALKING NEGATIVE. THEY SURE GOT BURNED ON KOVALCHUCK DEAL....THEY WILL BE BUYING HIS CONTRACT OUT BY APRIL NEXT YEAR

MOSTLY BANDWAGON KING FANS WERE TALKING NEGATIVE. THEY SURE GOT BURNED ON KOVALCHUCK DEAL....THEY WILL BE BUYING HIS CONTRACT OUT BY APRIL NEXT YEAR
- rubberduckies

No it wasn’t, no they didn’t and no they won’t. I’ve read a lot of other teams fans, teams bloggers, even Ducks fans say this was a bad deal.

I personally think it’s a good deal, years are a little high but the price is right especially for a legit #1. It’s turns into a great deal IF he stays healthy which is the only concern with it.

And as for the Kovalchuk, if you honestly think he won’t produce playing with one of the best players in the league and posted up next to a top 3 dmen in the league on the PP, then you sir are the bandwagon fan.

I think its a great deal. The kid is a stud and is only going to get better. Looking at some other contracts the Ducks have signed in the past this one ranks near the top.

Great deal, with salary cap going up each year that % of his contract to the total decreases and he is one of the top 6-10 goalies in the NHL (if not higher).

That's an interesting theory there Bob, but being from New York, I'm inclined to think otherwise. You see, in hockey there's only one thing that matters, and that's winning. While your statistics paint a picture, you left out the most important part.

Now, as a Rangers fan who gave up his season seats at MSG for the beaches of Los Angeles, I know a capable goalie when I see one. King Henrik knew how to win hockey games. No matter what the odds, Lundqvist found a way to get the W.

Where's the parallel? In a world of unknowns only so much can be known, and I know this, John Gibson knows how to win hockey games. That's that.
- FromNYCToLA

Gibson has just as many cup rings in 4 seasons than Lundqvist has in 13. I guess he's the king of coming close but failing?

I don't feel like money is ever the issue for a goalie signing. It's term. Like most goalies, his stats are likely going to drop off about half way through that contract. I'm not a big fan of any of these long term contracts being handed out these days for ANY player (and that includes players on my Sharks). This is how you get yourself handcuffed to declining players with limited cap room.

The deal is good for the Ducks. He's an outstanding goalie. The deal makes sense for their situation and that's all that matters. The Ducks don't have a lot of obvious holes. Sure, you can argue they are aging, you can argue they needed more quality depth, and you can argue they have a few albatross contracts. All teams have roster problems that just can't be fixed in one offseason. Gibson was not one of them. So why create a situation next season and unsettle one of your best players? The kid is money. Shore it up, maybe pay a little extra to Gibson over market (which is a bizarre criticism in itself, considering the market for players is a snap shot and seemingly variable year-over-year), but solidify a cornerstone player and don't think about it for the next 8 years.

The deal is good for the Ducks. He's an outstanding goalie. The deal makes sense for their situation and that's all that matters. The Ducks don't have a lot of obvious holes. Sure, you can argue they are aging, you can argue they needed more quality depth, and you can argue they have a few albatross contracts. All teams have roster problems that just can't be fixed in one offseason. Gibson was not one of them. So why create a situation next season and unsettle one

of your best players? The kid is money. Shore it up, maybe pay a little extra to Gibson over market (which is a bizarre criticism in itself, considering the market for players is a snap shot and seemingly variable year-over-year), but

solidify a cornerstone player and don't think about it for the next 8 years.
- Only_A_Ladd

Excellent analysis- well done.

The criticism in length of contract really isn't warranted since Gibson is only 25. It's not like a 25 year old forward signing an 8 year deal. Goalies hit their prime around age 25-26 and stay there until around 32-34. Same with players that play D. This is a perfect contract for the Ducks.

The injury issue is real. Last year he avoided groin issues that plagued him in the past. They were more issues caused by "contact" via puck or players. That and Carlyle was more careful with him since Miller was a more than capable backup.

Gibson is a good goalie. The cap hit is ok but the term is just way too long for a goalie. This was the first season he has played 60 games and he was pretty bad in the playoffs. I don't think he has proven that he can handle the full workload of a starter and still have juice for the playoffs.

Same concern I have had with Matt Murray. Last year was his first season without having Fleury there to take a big portion of the workload and he struggled badly. Thankfully the Pens signed him to a more reasonable deal.

Was absolutely stunned to see many negative reactions just after the signing here. One of the best goalies around and super underrated. Decent contract!
- DutchSenators

Ya this was a great deal!!!! Especially when compared to % of cap space relative to the signings of other top 10 goalies.

You're comparing the wrong contract when you look at Matt Murray as a comparison. Gibson is in the final year of his RFA bridge deal (3 years for $6.9 mil; $2.3/year cap hit). Murray's bridge deal is 3 years for $11.25 mil; $3.75 mil cap hit. So next summer I'm sure the Penguins will want to extend Murray before he gets close to UFA. They may not go as high on the amount of years but I bet the annual cap hit will be larger than Gibson's.

You're comparing the wrong contract when you look at Matt Murray as a comparison. Gibson is in the final year of his RFA bridge deal (3 years for $6.9 mil; $2.3/year cap hit). Murray's bridge deal is 3 years for $11.25 mil; $3.75 mil cap hit. So next summer I'm sure the Penguins will want to extend Murray before he gets close to UFA. They may not go as high on the amount of years but I bet the annual cap hit will be larger than Gibson's.
- Shuttles

Not entirely sure I agree with you. After this season, Murray will be in the exact same position Gibson was in this year. He'll be 25 entering the final year of his RFA contract. I'm sure his representatives will look at the Gibson contract (8 years) and want the same (assuming player wants to make that long a commitment to the team). The dollar amount will undoubtedly be higher since Murray can add "Stanley Cup winner" to his resume. If Murray wants to remain a Penguin, I don't think 8/7+M is unreasonable.

I think the Gibson contract is an excellent one for the Murray camp to compare.

Not entirely sure I agree with you. After this season, Murray will be in the exact same position Gibson was in this year. He'll be 25 entering the final year of his RFA contract. I'm sure his representatives will look at the Gibson contract (8 years) and want the same (assuming player wants to make that long a commitment to the team). The dollar amount will undoubtedly be higher since Murray can add "Stanley Cup winner" to his resume. If Murray wants to remain a Penguin, I don't think 8/7+M is unreasonable.

I think the Gibson contract is an excellent one for the Murray camp to compare.
- quackup

I agree with you 100%. I think you misinterpreted my comment as I was was replying to a message above but forget to reply directly to his comment. He was saying he was thankful that Murray was signed to a more reasonable deal which is true. We had Gibson on an amazing deal for 3 years. Murray's next contract will be a big one and Gibson's will be the starting point of comparison. My guess Murray's next contract will be at least 7mil cap hit.

You're comparing the wrong contract when you look at Matt Murray as a comparison. Gibson is in the final year of his RFA bridge deal (3 years for $6.9 mil; $2.3/year cap hit). Murray's bridge deal is 3 years for $11.25 mil; $3.75 mil cap hit. So next summer I'm sure the Penguins will want to extend Murray before he gets close to UFA. They may not go as high on the amount of years but I bet the annual cap hit will be larger than Gibson's.
- Shuttles

My comparison wasn't so much directed at the contract as much as the performance. Both goalies have been really good early in their careers but haven't yet proven they can handle a heavy load as the dedicated #1 guy.

There has been a trend to overpay the top level goalies and play them a ton of games to get the value out of them. They often end up burned out by playoff time.

My criticism of Murray was that he was outstanding in the last two playoffs when he was very well rested having Fleury who carried a big part of the load. This past season when he was the #1 guy he struggled in the playoffs.

There has been a trend to overpay the top level goalies and play them a ton of games to get the value out of them. They often end up burned out by playoff time.

My criticism of Murray was that he was outstanding in the last two playoffs when he was very well rested having Fleury who carried a big part of the load. This past season when he was the #1 guy he struggled in the playoffs.
- MacPatty

Regardless, both Murray and Gibson are outstanding young goalies that I don't think have hit their prime yet. Just need to stay healthy and strong.