Robby Fabbri Extended

[Akakabuto 1,751]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Buying out Cleary's contract was discussed ad nauseam. Do you want to start talking about buying out Fabbri's already?? That was fast

It just seemed to be the logical next step on the topic of bad comparisons.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

6 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

Who cares who he’s compared to

Sometimes when people discuss players contracts they tend to try to find good comparables as basis to argue their point.

9 minutes ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

not the biggest fan but we had a ton of cap space and its done with  ... he got overpaid but he’ll be gone before the deal ends 

 This is actually a reasonabale reaction. He maybe got a bit overpaid but the contract is short so it will never impact this team negatively. Regardless if he gets traded, leaves in UFA or get extended,

[kipwinger 8,526]

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.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

He maybe got a bit overpaid but the contract is short so it will never impact this team negatively.

And there it is.

Overpaid confirmed. Pack it up folks.

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

27 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

So far we have compared Fabbris contract to Helm and Abdelkader. Why do I get the feelin ol' Dan Cleary will show up in this thread soon?

Cleary is reserved for the Svech discussions.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

 

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

And there it is.

Overpaid confirmed. Pack it up folks.

Yes, admitting that he got maybe $450000 more than the ideal contract is the same as 'YzErMaN iS bAsIcAllY kYlE DuMbAss aNd tHiS DeAl iS tErRibLe AnD WiLl wReCK tHE TeAmS nEgOtIaTiOnS WiTh BeRtUzZi aNd mAnThA hE sHoUlD hAvE GiVeN HiM 1,5 MilLiOn oR tOld HiM tO GTFO'

[krsmith17 7,191]

41 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

You don't think it's low? Well of course you don't. You think he was "overpaid". He wasn't though. Unless he completely s***s the bed and puts up 20 points in 50 games the next two seasons. Highly unlikely in my opinion. It's a low cap hit, zero risk contract in my opinion. Outside of ELC's and borderline NHL players, you're not getting much value under 2-2.5M. 

50 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

This, I somewhat agree with. I would rather Mantha and Bertuzzi come in on the lower end, and I think they will. They certainly won't come anywhere close to the $15M / $9M you suggested from the beginning. Which is probably why so many people are attacking your opinion...

I can definitely see Mantha getting a contract somewhere around Larkin, and Bertuzzi a couple mil less.

[kipwinger 8,526]

22 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

 

Yes, admitting that he got maybe $450000 more than the ideal contract is the same as 'YzErMaN iS bAsIcAllY kYlE DuMbAss aNd tHiS DeAl iS tErRibLe AnD WiLl wReCK tHE TeAmS nEgOtIaTiOnS WiTh BeRtUzZi aNd mAnThA hE sHoUlD hAvE GiVeN HiM 1,5 MilLiOn oR tOld HiM tO GTFO'

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

[kipwinger 8,526]

17 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You don't think it's low? Well of course you don't. You think he was "overpaid". He wasn't though. Unless he completely s***s the bed and puts up 20 points in 50 games the next two seasons. Highly unlikely in my opinion. It's a low cap hit, zero risk contract in my opinion. Outside of ELC's and borderline NHL players, you're not getting much value under 2-2.5M. 

This, I somewhat agree with. I would rather Mantha and Bertuzzi come in on the lower end, and I think they will. They certainly won't come anywhere close to the $15M / $9M you suggested from the beginning. Which is probably why so many people are attacking your opinion...

I can definitely see Mantha getting a contract somewhere around Larkin, and Bertuzzi a couple mil less.

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.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

He got big raise because he was being paid basically league minimum. He was severly underpaid this season.

He had a higher ppg than what Mantha had when he signed his 2-year 3.3 m contract.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Akakabuto

[kipwinger 8,526]

2 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

He got big raise because he was being paid basically league minimum.

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.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

Whats your take on Manthas current contract?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

31 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

He got big raise because he was being paid basically league minimum. He was severly underpaid this season.

He had a higher ppg than what Mantha had when he signed his 2-year 3.3 m contract.

He got a big raise because of his CHARACTER. Yzerman loves guys with CHARACTER. Fabs may not be fast, may not be big, may not be that astute defensively, may not even be that skilled. But boy does he show real CHARACTER out there. He could probably CHARACTER a puck into the back of the net if he just CHARACTERED a little more. Throw a weak check that takes you out of position? No worries, just put some CHARACTER on it. Id give Mantha a massive raise too if he showed some CHARACTER but he doesnt CHARACTER nearly as much as Fabs does. Imagine an entire team of Fabbris CHARACTER. Now that would be something. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

16 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He got a big raise because of his CHARACTER. Yzerman loves guys with CHARACTER. Fabs may not be fast, may not be big, may not be that astute defensively, may not even be that skilled. But boy does he show real CHARACTER out there. He could probably CHARACTER a puck into the back of the net if he just CHARACTERED a little more. Throw a weak check that takes you out of position? No worries, just put some CHARACTER on it. Id give Mantha a massive raise too if he showed some CHARACTER but he doesnt CHARACTER nearly as much as Fabs does. Imagine an entire team of Fabbris CHARACTER. Now that would be something. 

It worked for Cleary.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

23 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He got a big raise because of his CHARACTER. Yzerman loves guys with CHARACTER. Fabs may not be fast, may not be big, may not be that astute defensively, may not even be that skilled. But boy does he show real CHARACTER out there. He could probably CHARACTER a puck into the back of the net if he just CHARACTERED a little more. Throw a weak check that takes you out of position? No worries, just put some CHARACTER on it. Id give Mantha a massive raise too if he showed some CHARACTER but he doesnt CHARACTER nearly as much as Fabs does. Imagine an entire team of Fabbris CHARACTER. Now that would be something. 

You know who else got CHARACTER? Perfetti, thats who. 

[kipwinger 8,526]

1 hour ago, Akakabuto said:

Whats your take on Manthas current contract?

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.

Edited August 27, 2020 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

14 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

It worked for Cleary.

But not for the Red Wings

7 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

You know who else got CHARACTER? Perfetti, thats who. 

But does he smoke weed?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

But not for the Red Wings

Is character more important than truculence or leadership?

[kipwinger 8,526]

1 minute ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Is character more important than truculence or leadership?

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

[Akakabuto 1,751]

12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Well I'll use the same criteria as I'm using for Fabbri. I'm 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.

Mantha got a two year deal, not three, same as Fabbri. Manthas ppg was 0.6. Fabbris is 0.59.

That sorts out production. Now the injuries are the only real argument you have against this contract. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Akakabuto

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 minute ago, Akakabuto said:

Mantha got a two year deal, not three, same as Fabbri. Manthas ppg was 0.6. Fabbris is 0.59.

That sorts out production. So the injuries are the only real argument you have against this contract. 

That is a legitimate concern.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

Just now, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

That is a legitimate concern.

Sure, it can be. Just trying to break this down bit by bit. 

[kipwinger 8,526]

25 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

Mantha got a two year deal, not three, same as Fabbri. Manthas ppg was 0.6. Fabbris is 0.59.

That sorts out production. Now the injuries are the only real argument you have against this contract. 

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.

Edited August 27, 2020 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

29 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

Mantha got a two year deal, not three, same as Fabbri. Manthas ppg was 0.6. Fabbris is 0.59.

That sorts out production. Now the injuries are the only real argument you have against this contract. 

injuries are a concern for both players. However Fabbri gets a significant raise because of the gumption and cup level character. Mantha has never displayed character like this. Get away from the front of the net if ur not gonna deflect the pucks with character

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

14 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

injuries are a concern for both players. However Fabbri gets a significant raise because of the gumption and cup level character. Mantha has never displayed character like this. Get away from the front of the net if ur not gonna deflect the pucks with character

Gumption and cup level character? From 50 games? Id be trying to sell that tomfoolery to dubas and get that 15th pick off him in a package deal Asap