kipwinger

I don't agree that it's low. Matter of fact that's exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm not sure why it would be doubtful that Yzerman could sign him for less though. Fabbri isn't arbitration eligible. Yzerman would only need to send him a 1 year, 1.5-1.75 million AAV qualifying offer. If Fabbri rejects it then he sits out for a year, which would almost certainly not want to do given how little hockey he's played and how much he's trying to get things back on track. I'll be pretty annoyed if Bert and Mantha make anything close to the upper limits you've mentioned here. Neither of them have ever produced like a 5.5 or 7 million dollar player (respectively). Neither player has ever scored 50 pts. and they're not exactly super young anymore. Most players are at their peak around 25 years old. Not to say they start falling off at 25, but they don't typically dramatically increase their production either. Most just stay at that level for a few more years. I'd be very wary of giving Mantha or Bert money like they're Taylor Hall or Tyler Seguin (on their final RFA deals) without them ever having produced at that level.

Regardless of the "risk" if Abby had signed a 4 million dollar contract after one good year I'd be saying he got overpaid. Just like I'm saying it about Fabbri now. Neither player was worth that AAV based on one marginally successful season, and neither player has a track record of even THAT level of success. You saying it doesn't make it so. If I'm a GM and I'm spending someone else's money to rebuild a team that's in the basement I need something more than that. I need a track record. And if you don't have a track record then you need to sign a "prove it" contract and show me. You seem to be going on faith. That's fine for you I guess. As I said, I'm not willing to assume a guy will be healthy and productive if he's never shown he can do so in his 5 year career so far.

I don't think it was much of an overreaction. I said he was over paid and gave the reasons why. I stand by that. I also made clear that I didn't think it would hurt the team much, though I do think it may have some implication in future negotiations with guys like Mantha and Bert. All of that seems pretty tame to me.

You can debate them all if you want, but I genuinely don't want or need you to agree with me. I was simply pointing out that I have reasons for not thinking Yzerman is very good as a GM. And I only mentioned that because you accused me of having an anti-Yzerman bias. Again, I made that clear in the first post.

If you pay guys based on one successful season and ignore their track records you'll lose just as often as you win. Remember when Abby scored 40 pts (including 20 goals), got a 4 million dollar contract, and then reverted back to his former levels of production? Yeah, me too. Fabbri has not been able to string together EVEN TWO healthy, productive, NHL seasons. Which is why I said sign him to a one year deal and see if he can do what he's never done before. But up to his point I'm not willing to just assume he'll stay healthy. Why? Because he's never had two healthy seasons in a row at any point in his career. I'm using Cups as ONE metric. Which is why I listed others. My points of view aren't based off one single piece of evidence. But I'm sure that was clear from my post. Edit: And for the record, I DO think Jim Rutherford is a dumb*ss, and his dumb*ss has been MUCH more successful as a GM than Yzerman.

Never said any of this, never called you or anyone a slappy for liking the Fabbri contract. I've consistently discussed ONLY the contract and not engaged in the name calling and petty baiting that you and others have tried to engage me in on this top. And I don't have a "bias" against Yzerman. I don't think he's an especially good GM, but that's based on the evidence below and not some anti-Yzerman "feeling" I have about the guy. Do I think he's the worst GM in the league? No. But I don't feel like I need to bend over backward to defend the guy's every move given his track record. His teams have never won a Cup and have under performed expectations as often as they've met them. He walked on to a team with bona fide super stars already, especially at key positions and has never really "built" a team from a position like Detroit is in. He mishandled the Marty St. Louis situation, then lost the subsequent trade, then signed Ryan Callahan to a horrible contract to boot. Thus tripling down on his own stubbornness. But that's not the ONLY bad contract he signed. Boy howdy does he have some doozies under his belt (Carle, Garrison, Sustr, Callahan, Coburn). Add a smattering of bad trades (Perlini and Kaski just in the past year). You don't have to agree with my reasons, but I DO have reasons. I'm not a child. I don't "like" or "dislike" players based on my feelings about them. Mainly because I don't have "feelings" about them. Guys who are good, and help the team, I "like" and guys who don't I feel otherwise about. And that goes for Yzerman too. He was a GREAT player. But that doesn't mean I "like" him as a GM. He hasn't proven (to me) that he's especially good at that. And I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to his short comings just because he was "The Captain".

I realize it's the same knee. I misspoke in the previous post. And I don't think I'm overplaying anything. He has NEVER played a full season. He played 30 games a year ago. Zero the year before. Only 51 the year before that. He can't stay healthy and he's never, ever, scored 40 NHL points in a season. That means, to me, that he should be at the very low end of the market and not at all near the top or average.

You don't advocate at all. You just attack people that you disagree with. And disagreement isn't "trolling" BTW. Heaven forbid someone have a legitimate point of view that isn't yours.

How should I know? That's irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting that overpayments don't exist because they don't make sense. Yzerman has, over the course of his GM career, over paid a number of players (Carle, Garrison, Filppula, Sustr, etc. etc. etc.) Why? I don't f*cking know. Maybe he's not a very good GM? Ever consider that? And I know this one will blow your mind too. LOTS of GMs over pay guys. Why? Who knows. But it happens. And it did in this case for all the reasons I stated ad nauseum.

Fabbri isn't representative of the market. That's my whole point. UFAs with track records and without injury issues tend to make about that much. Not some reclaimation project who has never scored 40 points or played a full 82 games season. BECAUSE YZERMAN OVERPAID HIM! You think Fabbri was going to turn money away? This is no different than saying that Abdelkader's contract isn't bad because if he could have (and should have) been signed for less then he would have.

Not sure that's the reason. Nobody is arguing with a silly exaggeration. They're arguing that the Fabbri contract is even an over payment at all. They're arguing that any suggestion that the contract isn't good is incorrect. Also, I've clarified a number of times since that post A) why I think it's an overpayment, and B) what I would have given him (1year, 1.5 million) and people are still arguing. See this is what I mean. You don't even think it's an overpayment at all. That's fine. I wish you'd just debate the actual substance of my argument which...for the 40 millionth time is...that an non-arbitration eligible RFA, with blown out knees, who has no track record of production, and has played less than 100 games in 3 years COULD have been signed for less. And because of that, it's an overpayment.

Vanek's last contract was signed 2 years ago. So hardly. But nice try. I don't know why, at this point, it's so hard to just admit that Fabbri's contract is a little high? That's literally all I was saying to begin with, and a bunch of people couldn't stand it. It's not even that divisive a stance TBH. If any other GM, on any other team, signed any other non-arbitration eligible player (with bad knees and no track record of production) everyone would be like "yeah that's too much". But because its Yzerman and the Red Wings half the board has to twist itself in knots trying to explain how it's really a pretty good contract despite the fact that it could almost certainly have been signed for less.

Remember that time Holland signed Mikael Samuelsson to a 2 year, 3 million AAV contract and everyone around here LOST THEIR MINDS? That was after Samuelsson had posted three consecutive years in which Samuelsson had either scored 50 points, or was on a 50 point pace. That's a track record Robby Fabbri can't even boast. His previous contract with Vancouver after posting numbers much closer to Fabbri's current production? 2.5 million AAV. AND those were both UFA contracts. Guys who score like Fabbri are a dime a dozen. Or how about when we signed Thomas Vanek (the first time) for 2 million dollars after three of the worst seasons of his career (all of which were better than anything Fabbri has ever done)? People loved that contract right? Then we signed him again (as a UFA) after a year away from Detroit in which, yet again, out performed anything Fabbri has ever done. This time for 3 million. And the crowd went wild, right? Nope. UFAs who outperform Fabbri don't literally grow on trees. But they might as well. So giving that money to a guy with as many question marks as Fabbri has, and as little leverage as Fabbri has, is definitely an overpayment.

The comparable players you're talking about probably aren't RFAs without arbitration rights, haven't blown their knees out twice, and played only 90ish games over three seasons. Excuse us for thinking maybe those things mean he should make a little less than average. And speaking for arbitration rights, that's one big difference between Mantha/Bertuzzi and Fabbri. They actually have MORE leverage than he did. So again, if you think that the agents for Mantha/Bert aren't going to press for the absolute max, given what they just saw Fabbri get, you're pretty naive.

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show that Fabbri, like Helm, is pretty mediocre. If 24 year old Darren Helm had blown his knee out twice, was an RFA, and had only played 96 games over three year, and then got a raise from 800K to 2.9 million I think more than a few eyebrows would have been raised. As it was he got a raise from 800K to 2.1 million and a whole lot of people didn't like it. And that was before his UFA deal, which is only marginally more than Fabbri will make now. Yet when I suggest that Fabbri's contract was too much given all these issues, people act like I'm crazy. I could be wrong, but I don't see Fabbri continuing to improve that much. And definitely not into the 70 pts range. I think its more likely that he plateaus or drops off. And that's if he doesn't get injured again. Which is why I favored a one year "prove it" contract. If I'm wrong, and he comes out and drops 50+ pts next year then give him more. No harm in that. But I've seen LOTS of players have a big year and then fall off a cliff. No reason to think Fabbri's any different than any of them.

Because Jim Rutherford is a dumbf*ck and has, throughout his career, made idiotic trades just for the sake of "shaking things up".

I agree, Fabbri is a Helm level player. Accept that Helm coulld actually play defense in addition to his Fabbri-esque production at the same age. I'd also point out that Helm wasn't coming off two blown out knees. However, I'd still reiterate that spending roughly 3.5% of your cap on a Helm-level player is an overpayment given how totally replaceable they are. Again, I'm not saying there is some sort of long term implication of this deal for the team. I'm just saying that Fabbri isn't that good and given his injury history and RFA status Yzerman should have brought him in on a one year, 1.5 million deal. If Fabbri stays healthy and produces again (no guarantee) then give him a longer term deal for an AAV that closer to the upper end of what a 3rd liner makes. Giving him two years at 2.9 million seems really generous given how many question marks there are about Fabbri and the fact that he has no leverage whatsoever. I'm not sure how comparing Fabbri to Helm makes the case that he's worth this new contract. Pretty much EVERYONE on LGW hates Helm and thinks he's totally overpaid and replaceable.

That's 1 million per point on the UFA market. Fabbri is an RFA with a significant injury history. He shouldn't be getting paid at the high end of the pay scale for a 3rd line winger given these two things. Edit: Given this model we should be paying Madison Bowey 2.7 million on his next contract because his season pace was 27 pts. over 82 games. I don't think anyone would be happy with that for Bowey on an RFA contract. So this pay scale is probably not a good model for RFAs. Again, 2008 was prior at the bad signings of Helm, Abby, Nielsen, or Ericsson. Which is what I was referencing. The whole point was that if the definition of "bad contract" is one that hurts the team, then the signings of the guys above aren't "bad contracts" because they never "hurt" the Wings in any meaningful way. One the other hand, if a "bad contract" is paying a guy more than he's worth then all of those contracts are bad. And so is Fabbri's. Not world-ending bad, but not good value either.

Hossa was gone before any of the "bad contracts" I mentioned. And the Wings didn't offer Quincey a contract at the conclusion of his second stint. He did not leave because we couldn't afford him. He left because we didn't want him.

Helm was not an RFA when he signed his current 3.8 million dollar deal. Back when he was an effective 3rd liner he was making less than that. He signed his last RFA deal for 2.1 million when he was roughly the same age as Fabbri. Before that he made 800k on his previous RFA deal. He signed the 2.1 million deal in 2012 after seasons of 26 and 32 points. Robby Fabbri's career high to this point is 36 points. He's horrible defensively and he's got significant injury history. He is not noticeably more valuable than 2012 Darren Helm.

I don't "hate" or "like" players. I don't know them so having personal feelings about them is childish. I don't think he's anything more than a decent third line winger. Totally replaceable. He also has a significant injury history. And he's an RFA. because of all those things I think that 2.9 million was too much. I don't think the contract will cripple the team, though I do expect it will factor into other negotiations this year. But that doesn't mean it's not an overpayment.

Nope. Mantha got his extension in July, 2018 after his 24 goals, 48 point season. Something that Robby Fabbri has never done. Also, Anthony Mantha hasn't blown his knee out twice. If his bridge deal was worth 3.3 million, then Fabbri's should be significantly less. Which is exactly what I've been saying. Thanks for playing. I don't think he overpays more or less than anyone else. I'm simply saying that the Fabbri contract IS an overpayment. And I think that any GM, whether Yzerman or Holland or whomever, should never overpay for mediocre talent. If you're cool with him overpaying mediocre guys then good on you.

That's very succinct, but ignores the fact that their salary will be based on the outcome of a negotiation. And as with all negotiations there will be a range of potential salaries that they could fall in. Don't be surprised if they come in at the very top of that range now. Just like Fabbri did. And not because he's some stud, but because if a mediocre player is worth 3 million then a top line player is worth considerably more.

So if you're Anthony Mantha's agent, and Robby Fabbri just got 2.9 million dollars a year based on his "pace", you're telling me you're not asking for 8 million to start? Same with Bert. If I'm his agent I'm definitely starting at 6.5 or 7. Sure both of them will come down a bit, but in an ideal world you'd want Mantha at around 6 million and Bert around 5 million. And if you WOULDN'T ask for that money you'd be a horrible agent because the GM just proved his willingness to overspend my almost a million and a half dollars per year. And I DO think Nylander and Marner are relevant. Dubas hamstrung his team because he didn't use RFA leverage when he could have. And both of those players had a better track record of success than any of our guys do. And because he overpaid them he lost a 1st round pick in the Marleau trade to free up additional cap space. Something he may have to do again this year. So it's not like the pitfalls of overpaying RFAs are hard to imagine.

How? Name a single guy we wanted to sign, but couldn't, because we didn't have cap space? Name a single pick or prospect we traded away (a la Patrick Marleau) to open up cap space? It didn't happen.