kipwinger

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.

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.