kipwinger

This doesn't really surprise me. Pronman has always been more bullish on the Wings farm system than the other Athletic prospects writer, Scott Wheeler, has been (Wheeler will do one of these too, and we'll rank higher). In part it can be explained by the fact that his assessments are based off of his initial rankings. So the more Pronman-guys you have the "better" your farm system will be. Generally not a problem, since he tends to get draft range correct most of the time. But he's been very open about the fact that he evaluates players based on the their "star potential" (my words). He really values flashy players. So he'd rank an Quinn Hughes type higher than a Seth Jones type, an Elias Petterson type higher than a Dylan Larkin type. Obviously, the problem with that is there's SOOOOO much more to the game than offensive totals. Having workhorse type guys is super important. Look at Vegas mauling Vancouver without any really dynamic offensive guys. Detroit has got a lot of that type of player as their top prospects: Seider, Rasmussen, Veleno, McIsaac, Mastrosimone all profile that way. If we went out a drafted purely on skill (let's say Raymond, Mysak, and Piorier) with our first three picks this year we'd probably jump WAY up in his rankings because of their dynamic offense, but all of those guys are VERY boom/bust.

The contract could have been signed for less and wasn't. I've given my (pretty solid) reasons for thinking so about 25,000 times now. If you choose to equate "high risk, high reward" or "I don't mind this contract" with "fair deal" then that's on you.

I've never said the contract was debilitating. I said it was an overpayment. And I've explained why. You keep changing the narrative. If I were the GM I wouldn't be willing to pay for the "hope" of a healthy season with a guy who has not, EVER, played a full NHL season. As a result, anything beyond that IMO is an overpayment. I've made that point abundantly clear. You and a handful of others are intentionally misrepresenting me now, suggesting that I'm saying the sky is falling because of the Fabbri contract. Clearly it isn't. But 2 years at 2.9 million is more than I'd have paid for a guy who is rarely healthy, only moderately productive when he is (this ain't no Malkin), and has absolutely ZERO contract leverage.

That's exactly the point, we don't know what we've got in Fabbri because he's can't string together healthy, productive, seasons. So rather than just assume his injuries are a thing of the past why not sign him to a one year deal, put the onus on him to stay healthy and produce (like I've been saying for about two weeks now), and THEN sign him to a bigger, longer, contract if he's able to do so. Also he didn't STAY healthy. He had ONE healthy season in his last FOUR. If he could STAY healthy I wouldn't be saying it was an over payment. I've only ever advocated that Fabbri ACTUALLY DO the thing you all keep giving him credit for...be a healthy, productive, hockey player. Doing something ONCE isn't a trend, if it were Justin Abdelkader would be a perennial 20 goals scorer.

Remember Franzen? Or Stephen Weiss? Edit: Also, Helm had a series of groin pulls and a broken collarbone. Kronwall broke his leg. All those injuries heal 100% and are not even close to as bad as blowing out an ACL...twice. That's a MUCH more significant injury.

Anything's possible, thought likely not probable. If that happened then everyone involved in the negotiation should be fired immediately for being horrible at their jobs. More likely the dude who updates the website got it wrong, and then corrected it.

You're allowed to think whatever you want. Unlike some on here I don't really care, and I'm certainly not going to attack you for it. TBH normally I might agree with you on a lot of this too. If a player had the pedigree and had shown a couple years with of growth, then I might be willing to pay a bit for potential. But Fabbri is a different story. To the extent that you can read into his production history (which isn't much considering his injuries and small sample sizes) he looks like he could be a Tatar-esque producer if all goes well (aside from that fact that his defensive metrics and possession metrics are abysmal and Tatar's are really really good). But the nature of his injury is incredibly serious. Blow your ACL out ONCE and you wear a knee brace for the rest of your career. Twice and who knows? But even before that he wasn't healthy. Dogsh*t players who are limited but generally healthy DO sign for 1.5 AAV. You know who else does? Inconsistent players and guys who are injured all the time. Because here's the thing, despite Fabbri's ppg average, his inability to stay in the lineup means you don't have any good idea how many points you're ACTUALLY going to get out of him. This is almost the exact same issue we had with Mike Green on his first contract, and why he wasn't worth the 6 mil AAV he was getting. His ppg average was actually pretty good, but he could never stay in the lineup long enough for that to move the needle.

I never said the deal "threatened" anything. I just said it was too high. I'm very aware of the Red Wings cap situation and dont think this deal is a problem in that respect. The money WOULD be right if Fabbri were comparable to the average. But he's not, because he's basically been injured for five f*cking seasons. He's an outlier, at the low end because there's not much to suggest he can stay healthy. I would have been fine with 1.75-1.8 at the upper limit but think the 1.5 AAV is fair considering how little he has played and the red flags that raises for me.

You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't change that face that he tore his ACL twice. No it wouldn't when you consider that he's never been able to contribute at that level consistently. If asking to prove he can stay healthy and contribute at that level, after years of inactivity, is offensive then he probably doesn't need to be on the team anyway. He's played 216 out of a possible 410 games in which he's been on an NHL roster. If you think the average player misses roughly 50% of their 5 year careers with injuries I don't know what to tell you. I don't agree that Mantha is a "good comparable". He's just good for your argument. At the time that Mantha signed his current deal he was coming off two consistent .6 ppg seasons and had no long term injury history. Fabbri, on the other hand, scored .6 ppg this year and missed most of the previous 3 years with a VERY significant injury. And even before THAT injury Fabbri has never played a full season. So really the ONLY thing comparable is that .6 ppg figure. Since then Mantha has been injured more often, but if you wanna compare broken hands and ribs and a punctured lung (all of which can heal to 100%) with two blown out ACLs (which can never be as structurally sound as they used to be) then ok.

Fabbri got 2 year, 3 million. I said a fair contract would have been 1 year, 1.5 million. I've also said it's not likely to impact that team too much, but that it probably will have some impact on how Mantha/Bert's agents pursue their contract negotiations. If you and a few others what to interpret that as some over reaction on my part that's fine, but it was a pretty measured response. Especially when you consider that you've already said you agree with my thoughts on the term, and KRsmith has already said the AAV was probably a little high.

It's not ONE injury and a "setback". He blew out his ACL twice. He's never played a full season, even before those injuries, and he hasn't since. He has no track record of health, and as a result no (consistent) track record of production, and no leverage. He could, and should, have been signed for less. I'd have qualified him at 1.5 x 1 year. He'd have signed it or sat out until training camp when he realized that he'd really like a million and half bucks to play hockey (provided he can stay healthy). No matter how often you push this "you don't like him" narrative it's never going to fit. Specifically because I've already said about 2,000 times that if he signed for one year, proved he can stay healthy and produce, that I'd be fine with a bigger and longer deal. The big mistake in your logic IMO is that you're comparing him to the average when nothing about him suggests he's comparable to the average. He's less consistent, more injured, played fewer games, and is not an arbitration eligible RFA or UFA. And that's overlooking the fact that there are serious flaws in his game and consistentcy, even when healthy. All of which is why I say give him a one year deal to prove he's closer to the mean than he currently looks. If you want to interpret all of that as "Kip just doesn't like him" then go ahead.

Makes total sense too. Classic case of recency bias. The only time that most Red Wings fans have ever paid any attention to Fabbri was during his 52 games stint here, and he looked pretty good, so he must be good right? Never mind every single other thing about his career.

I'm not "acting like" anything. I've made it very clear EXACTLY what I think his contract should have been, which is about half of his current AAV for half the term. As for the bold, saying something doesn't make it so. If you "think" his injury proneness will go away after one season in which he played 61 games then that's on you. I think it's naive, but whatever. I'm more inclined to have Fabbri prove he can stay healthy rather than just assume so. But it's whatever, the contract is signed, and more than half the people who attacked me for saying it was an overpayment have now conceded that it was.

That's my point. Fabbri is a mediocre player and got a huge raise, so why he worth it but Mantha and Bert (who are both much better) aren't? THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK HE CAN STAY HEALTHY. The fact of the matter is, he's never EVER been healthy two seasons in a row. Which is why I'd rather a guy with a track record of getting injured prove he can stay healthy BEFORE he signs a bigger deal. If he had been healthy for even a significant portion of his 5 year NHL career I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But he hasn't been. Not even close, in fact. He's the EXACT kind of player you shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt. If he were Tomas Tatar, and had been playing full NHL seasons and dropping 20 goals seasons year after year I wouldn't be complaining. Fact of the matter is that he absolutely HAS NOT shown that level of health or consistency. Edit: His career is 5 years old and he has NEVER played a full season. Not once. At what point do you conclude that a guy can't stay healthy? He's like Mike Green. Guy hadn't played a full season in the 5 years before he came to Detroit and then, NOT SURPRISINGLY, he was hurt all the time when he got here. Edit, Edit: Also there's EVERY reason to think he could have been signed for less. He doesn't have arbitration rights. So either he signs the qualifying offer or he sits out. And a guy who's trying to get his career back on track after FOUR YEARS of injuries is not going to opt out of a full NHL season over contract demands.

Would be so damn sweet after the first go around. But I'm pretty sure the Jackets are looking for a lot more in the skill department. Hence why I like the idea of a deal around Merzlikins and Zadina.

Interesting, Chicago may be looking to move Brandon Saad for cap space this offseason, per Chicago sports media. https://www.dailyherald.com/sports/20200827/could-saad-be-headed-out-of-town-again Always loved Brandon Saad. Throw him on a line with Zadina and Marco Rossi and our top six would be sick.

Again, I was exaggerating Mantha and Berts numbers to show why Fabbri's raise (of an equivalent percentage) was absurd. If you choose to interpret a different way that's on you, but I thought it was clear the first time and I've now clarified it twice. I'm not sure how you can say "he could have been signed to a slightly lesser cap hit" and then say it's only an overpayment if he falls off. If he could have been signed for less, and wasn't, it's an overpayment. That's all I've been saying since page one.

He's had one healthy season in the last four. Sorry if I'm not totally convinced he's healthy.

The two issues are intertwined. Mantha's production had been .6 ppg in his only two NHL seasons to that point. Fabbri's has been all over the place, presumably because of injuries and small sample sizes. Mantha was more productive in WAY more games (more games that he was on the roster for) than Fabbri has been. I think it goes without saying that a guy who scores at a similar or better rate, but plays in way more games, is a more valuable player all else being equal. If Fabbri had played as often as Mantha did, and put up the same numbers on a consistent basis, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he didn't. Never has. Which is why (for the millionth time) I'd have made him accept a 1 year deal so he could show that he can actually string together consistently productive (reasonably healthy) seasons. Edit: FWIW Mantha signed his deal at age 23, Fabbri at age 24. So Fabbri had one full year more than Mantha to prove himself. In Mantha's age 24 season he posted 48 in 67. By just about every metric, Mantha was a MORE productive player at a similar age as Fabbri.

I think you'll find that anybody with character also has leadership. Truculence goes along with grit...obviously.

Well I'll use the same criteria as I'm using for Fabbri. In 2018 when Mantha signed his current deal he: Was also an RFA with without arbitration rights (like Fabbri). Did not have a significant injury history (unlike Fabbri), the year prior he had broken his finger in a fight. Two years prior he mas mostly in the AHL but got a 10 game call up, the year prior he missed 22 games with the aforementioned finger injury, and that year he missed 2 games. So he missed 24 (22+2) games out of a possible 174 (82+82+10) games. So he missed roughly 1/7 of the games he could have played in. Fabbri played 61/70 this year, 32/82 last year, 0/82 the year before. Mantha had just broke out for 24 goals and 48 points. This is a significantly better ppg than Fabbri has going into this offseason. Mantha's rookie ppg was better than what Fabbri put up this year too. So all in all I'd say he's was probably worth significantly more money and term than Fabbri got. I'd say the Mantha deal (3.3 million by 3 years) was fair, and Fabbri's is high. TBH I'm MUCH more concerned about what Mantha will make on this next contract because I don't think he's improved much at all since then. His production stagnated for two years before jumping up this year (or not jumping at all if you exclude one 4 goal game). He has yet to play another full season, is hurt often, and disappears for stretches. I'd be VERY wary of giving him 6 million or above. He hasn't shown the kind of sustained production that Larkin (for instance) had shown before his bigger deal.

And he hasn't done a whole lot of justify giving him a whole lot more IMO. He's never healthy, doesn't produce that much, and has significant injuries. But it's not like I didn't suggest he should make more money. I said he should get nearly twice his currently salary on a one year deal to prove that he can stay healthy and produce. Then give him the raise.

You're completely misinterpreting my first post, and those figures and I'm not sure whether it is on purpose or not. I said Fabbri got a 350% raise. At that rate Mantha and Bert would get 15 million and 9 million respectively. The point was that the raise Fabbri got was absurd, and I was using absurd comparisons to show why. I clearly don't think Mantha/Bert will get that, as evidenced by every single other thing I've said since then. My entire point has always been that Fabbri got an insane raise he didn't deserve based on one halfway decent, shortened, season; despite the fact that he's an RFA, has never score more than 40pts, has never played a full season, and has a significant injury history. We wouldn't give a 350% raise to Mantha or Bert (because that would make their salaries laughably, comically, high) so why did Fabbri deserve one? The answer, according to most around here is either A) because we have the cap space, or B) because it won't hurt the team. I disagree with both.

Yup, that's what we did. No hyperbole here.

So we're up to 5 or 6 people now who are willing to admit he got overpaid? That's a relief. Just a few short days ago it was just me. I'll settle for a split decision.