Robby Fabbri Extended

[chaps80 1,591]

Solid deal and a no brainer, really. He is a former first round pick, and had a breakout season after coming to DET. 31 points in 52 games on the worst team in the NHL. Change of scenery did him well. Loved that trade for de la Rose, what a steal to say the least. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 hours ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

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

Yes, prolly shoulda been flipped at the deadline, but I'm happy to keep him as well

[krsmith17 7,191]

16 hours 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.

Okay, so we all agree that your original post about 350% raises and $15M/$9M cap hits was asinine. Now if we could get you to understand how very little this contract is going to impact the Mantha and Bertuzzi contracts...

Like I said before, maybe he could have been signed to a slightly lesser cap hit, but no where close to the $1.5M that you suggested... The two years is a non issue in my opinion.

The ONLY way this ends up being an "over payment", is if Fabbri completely falls off, and only puts up 20 points each of the next two seasons. 30+ points, and it's a good contract. If he comes close to the 50ish points that most seem to believe he's capable of, it will be an absolute steal of a contract.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Like I said before, maybe he could have been signed to a slightly lesser cap hit

And there it is folks. Overpaid confirmed.

Pack it up boys.

[krsmith17 7,191]

"Maybe he could have been signed to a slightly lesser cap hit", is not even close to the same as "overpaid". Overpaid implies that he won't live up to the contract. I believe he will, but more importantly Yzerman believes he will. As long as he doesn't completely fall apart (he won't), it will be a more than reasonable contract, maybe even a great contract.

The fact that anyone is this upset over a middle six winger signing a sub $3M contract is laughable. 

[kipwinger 8,527]

19 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Okay, so we all agree that your original post about 350% raises and $15M/$9M cap hits was asinine. Now if we could get you to understand how very little this contract is going to impact the Mantha and Bertuzzi contracts...

Like I said before, maybe he could have been signed to a slightly lesser cap hit, but no where close to the $1.5M that you suggested... The two years is a non issue in my opinion.

The ONLY way this ends up being an "over payment", is if Fabbri completely falls off, and only puts up 20 points each of the next two seasons. 30+ points, and it's a good contract. If he comes close to the 50ish points that most seem to believe he's capable of, it will be an absolute steal of a contract.

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.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

44 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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 get what you were going for, but it still makes no sense. Players get a lot more than 350% raises all the time. That doesn't mean that every player on that team should expect a similar raise. If that were the case, Fabbri should have been looking for a $6M contract based on Larkin's 650% raise. I know they're completely different players, under completely different circumstances, but apparently that doesn't matter...

47 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

It's not though. It's only an overpayment, if he doesn't live up to the contract. Players get paid based on future progression all the time. Why is this situation any different? There's no reason to believe that Fabbri (if healthy) won't produce at a similar clip as last season, which would be well worth ~$3M. There's also no reason to assume he will get injured. Players go through injury riddled seasons, and bounce back all the time. Also, no one here knows for certain that Fabbri could have been signed for less. It's purely conjecture on your part.

[kipwinger 8,527]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I get what you were going for, but it still makes no sense. Players get a lot more than 350% raises all the time. That doesn't mean that every player on that team should expect a similar raise. If that were the case, Fabbri should have been looking for a $6M contract based on Larkin's 650% raise. I know they're completely different players, under completely different circumstances, but apparently that doesn't matter...

It's not though. It's only an overpayment, if he doesn't live up to the contract. Players get paid based on future progression all the time. Why is this situation any different? There's no reason to believe that Fabbri (if healthy) won't produce at a similar clip as last season, which would be well worth ~$3M. There's also no reason to assume he will get injured. Players go through injury riddled seasons, and bounce back all the time. Also, no one here knows for certain that Fabbri could have been signed for less. It's purely conjecture on your part.

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.

Edited August 28, 2020 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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?

Because Mantha and Bertuzzi already got their "huge raises" off their ELC's... Mantha received a 400% raise, and Bertuzzi received a 250% raise... But again, this isn't how negotiations or contract construction work, so I don't know why we're still talking about it...

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

There's a pretty big reason to think he can't do it again. The fact that 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 the majority 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.

I doubt Fabbri will play 82 games each of the next two seasons, but I also doubt he will miss significant time (months) for a recurring injury. After a healthy season this past season, I don't think there's any reason to believe those long-term knee injuries aren't behind him.

You're acting as if Yzerman handed him a long-term contract, He got a two-year show-me contract. My bet is he will exceed expectations on this contract, and receive another raise on his next contract. You clearly disagree with that, so we'll see... 

[kipwinger 8,527]

35 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Because Mantha and Bertuzzi already got their "huge raises" off their ELC's... Mantha received a 400% raise, and Bertuzzi received a 250% raise... But again, this isn't how negotiations or contract construction work, so I don't know why we're still talking about it...

I doubt Fabbri will play 82 games each of the next two seasons, but I also doubt he will miss significant time (months) for a recurring injury. After a healthy season this past season, I don't think there's any reason to believe those long-term knee injuries aren't behind him.

You're acting as if Yzerman handed him a long-term contract, He got a two-year show-me contract. My bet is he will exceed expectations on this contract, and receive another raise on his next contract. You clearly disagree with that, so we'll see... 

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.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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 the part that makes me lol

[Akakabuto 1,751]

18 hours ago, kipwinger said:

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.

They both signed the contract the year they turned 24, Fabbris birthday is in february and Manthas in september. And they scored at the same clip the season before. Manthas rookie numbers in the regular season are slightly better but I think Fabbri makes up for it big time by scoring 15 p in 20 games in the playoffs in his rookie season. So if Fabbri puts up bigger, the same or even a slightly smaller numbers - than Mantha did - next season his contract is a better one for Detroit.

You were wrong in that Fabbris production doesn't warrant the deal that he's getting. Both when comparing to players inside the club and around the league. Get over it. Your injury concern is more legit but I argue that it looks like his ONE injury(and setback) is behind him and apparently Detroits medical staff and Steve Yzerman thinks so too.  You know, the ones who should know.

You just don't like the player that much and your gut reaction to this deal was wrong.

 

[kipwinger 8,527]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's the part that makes me lol

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.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

That's a bulls*** lowball offer that he and his agent would have been dumb to accept. 

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

Yup, the contract is signed, and I'm sure after two years, not a single person would say, "that was a bad signing", or even an "overpayment"...

[Akakabuto 1,751]

6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's the part that makes me lol

Nobody is conceading to that Kips 'I would make him an offer he can't refuse' makes any sense.

It would piss off the player, the players teammates and the players agent. What a great GM Kip would be...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

LGW: Fabbri signed! Hooray!
Kip: Contracts a little high
LGW: WTF? You hate Fabbri! You're biased! Anti-Yzerman agenda! Troll!
Kip: Nah just think the contracts a little high
LGW: Well it is a little high.. BUT ARE WE GONNA TAKE THIS OR WHAT?!?!

Classic comedy

[kipwinger 8,527]

1 minute ago, Akakabuto said:

They both signed the contract the year they turned 24, Fabbris birthday is in february and Manthas in september. And they scored at the same clip the season before. Manthas rookie numbers in the regular season are slightly better but I think Fabbri makes up for it big time by scoring 15 p in 20 games in the playoffs in his rookie season. So if Fabbri puts up bigger, the same or even a slightly smaller numbers - than Mantha did - next season his contract is a better one for Detroit.

You were wrong in that Fabbris production doesn't warrant the deal that he's getting. Both when comparing to players inside the club and around the league. Get over it. Your injury concern is more legit but I argue that it looks like his ONE injury(and setback) is behind him and apparently Detroits medical staff and Steve Yzerman thinks so too.  You know, the ones who should know.

You just don't like the player that much and your gut reaction to this deal was wrong.

 

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.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Kip: Contracts a little high

L M A O

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

Nobody is conceading to that Kips 'I would make him an offer he can't refuse' makes any sense.

It would piss off the player, the players teammates and the players agent. What a great GM Kip would be...

If Fabbri is too pissy to play, trade him. Shoulda been traded at the deadline when his value was high anyway.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If Fabbri is too pissy to play, trade him. Shoulda been traded at the deadline when his value was high anyway.

You would make a great assistant GM to Kip.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

Same thing if I ever critique Zadina. Write book about why. LGW: You're just a hater.

It's all just one long march into the grave...

2 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

You would make a great assistant GM to Kip.

Why am I the assistant???

[kipwinger 8,527]

1 minute ago, Akakabuto said:

You would make a great assistant GM to Kip.

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.

[Akakabuto 1,751]

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

It's not ONE injury and a "setback". He blew out his ACL twice.

I call it a setback when you have the same injury twice without playing any games inbetween.

 

8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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).

But how is any of this good GM'ing? When you come off a 0.6 ppg season that offer would have been offensive.

Also, re the bolded, where do you get that from?

11 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

He's less consistent, more injured, played fewer games, and is not an arbitration eligible RFA or UFA.

I think we have established that Mantha is a good comparable and when it comes to injuries Mantha is Mr Glass compared to Fabbri. 

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

Ok. Lets find som sort of middle ground. What the absolutely highest AAV you would have been content with?

[kipwinger 8,527]

Just now, Akakabuto said:

I call it a setback when you have the same injury twice without playing any games inbetween.

 

But how is any of this good GM'ing? When you come off a 0.6 ppg season that offer would have been offensive.

Also, re the bolded, where do you get that from?

I think we have established that Mantha is a good comparable and when it comes to injuries Mantha is Mr Glass compared to Fabbri. 

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.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

14 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

>Kipwinger MURDERS silly Fabbri slappy (with logic) and BURIES the body (under facts) with just one post