Speculation: Edmundson and Fabbri - Next Contract Predictions

pawnjohn

Registered User
Jan 27, 2017
59
67
Yeah, well we can't be sure of it without professional opinion about it.

Here is a video of the injury


A contact ACL injury like this one is going to be completely due the hit and nothing to do with him coming into camp out of shape. In the video, you can see he is on one leg when he is being hit, and the outside portion of his knee rams into the boards. The valgus (or inward) force directed onto the knee from the boards while only balancing on one leg is what causes the injury. Him being in better shape, or having more strength in leg isn't going to prevent that injury from happening.

It is similar to a football player being tackled from behind/side with the impact right at the knee. The point of contact and force directly on the knee is going to cause the ACL to fail and tear as there is no time for his hamstring muscles to contract quickly enough to prevent the anterior translation of his tibia.


If this injury were a non-contact injury that happened during practice/training/game early in the season, then that could from not taking the off-season seriously. A muscular strain (or "pulled muscle") is the type of injury you would see more from deconditioned athletes trying to jump into play too early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80 and Ranksu

BleedBlue14

UrGeNcY
Feb 9, 2017
6,077
4,556
St. Louis
Here is a video of the injury


A contact ACL injury like this one is going to be completely due the hit and nothing to do with him coming into camp out of shape. In the video, you can see he is on one leg when he is being hit, and the outside portion of his knee rams into the boards. The valgus (or inward) force directed onto the knee from the boards while only balancing on one leg is what causes the injury. Him being in better shape, or having more strength in leg isn't going to prevent that injury from happening.

It is similar to a football player being tackled from behind/side with the impact right at the knee. The point of contact and force directly on the knee is going to cause the ACL to fail and tear as there is no time for his hamstring muscles to contract quickly enough to prevent the anterior translation of his tibia.


If this injury were a non-contact injury that happened during practice/training/game early in the season, then that could from not taking the off-season seriously. A muscular strain (or "pulled muscle") is the type of injury you would see more from deconditioned athletes trying to jump into play too early.


I was at this game, the sound of the hit was pretty bad honestly. I didn't think that it was a torn ACL when it happened but it surely didn't look or didn't sound good.
 

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Completely irrational, but I hate seeing so much potential being taken out by AHL journeyman. Yea I know they take the risk if they step on the ice
 

pawnjohn

Registered User
Jan 27, 2017
59
67
I also think the idea that Fabbri came way out of shape into season has been a bit over blown due to both Armstrong's comments and his injury struggles. He may have not taken the offseason as seriously as he could/should have, but there are a lot of factors that could come into play here.

While it is possible, I don't think Fabbri spent his entire offseason partying/sitting on the couch doing nothing. He's been an athlete his whole life and isn't about to just stop working all together once the season is over. He probably still spent a significant time in the weight-room and doing other things to stay in shape.

If there is an area that he may not have taken as serious, it could have been the actual hockey skills part, and or his skating. He may have thought that training camp was going to enough to prepare these aspects before the season started. He probably came into camp "in shape," just not in "hockey shape" if he spent more time on the ice/skating in particular vs doing other cardiovascular work such a running/biking/swimming.

I think it is pretty evident this was the case due to him starting of slow for the first month or two and then really started looking more like the previous year once he got his "hockey legs" back. If he came into camp in as poor of shape as some people act like, then he would have been a couple steps behind for a noticeably longer period of time.
 

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
I was surprised he was "not prepared" to begin with. He looked like a frustrated young player with no luck. I remember him being Mr. Postman for a long stretch. He sat a game and took off from there
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,027
12,734
I don't think I'm remotely qualified to comment on his conditioning (or lack thereof) in the offseason a couple years ago. However, for the purpose of this post let's assume he was out of shape and not taking his career seriously enough.

I honestly don't care at this point. If anything is going to serve as a wake up call to a young guy, missing a year and a half should be it. This season is by far the biggest season in his career and his agent has explained the grim reality of what happens if he has a bad year. Prior to injury, his draft status and rookie year set him up to become a very wealthy man, even if he fell short of expectations and had a mediocre NHL career. He would have gotten a raise on his 2nd contract and if he stagnated/regressed here another team would have offered him another couple million dollars to see if a change of scenery could fix him. During the summer in question, it was obvious that he was going to make $10+ mil in his NHL career even if he screwed around and tried to get by on talent alone.

That ship has sailed. I love Fabbri (my #15 Winter Classic jersey is may favorite thing in my closet), but he is damaged goods in the eyes of GMs. A bad season this year is going to raise concerns that injury robbed him of what could have been, which is a more difficult narrative to recover from than laziness/uncoachability. His injury cost him a few million dollars on the contract he will sign with us. If he is middling, the contract he gets after that will be less than it would have been if he was middling among rumors that he didn't take his career seriously enough.

I'm happy to see he is attending BioSteel camp. That's arguably the best offseason program an NHL player can do and there is a bigger spotlight on that than pretty much any other summer preparation. I have every reason to believe he is taking things seriously if he is putting himself into the spotlight prior to camp like that. I have every reason to believe that he is battling to resurect his career. He probably recklessly spent a lot of his ELC money. Most 20 year olds who suddenly make that type of money throw it around on the assumption that more is coming and that they can use the next contract to start saving and investing. I doubt he's broke, but I also doubt that he is set up to live an upper class lifestyle for the next 65 years. This year is objectively the biggest year of Fabbri's life and he has had to watch his team from the sidelines for the previous 18 months. EVen if there were issues in the past, I have no reason to believe that he isn't adequately preparing himself this summer.
 

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,002
8,261
Where are folks seeing that Fabbri is attending BioSteel camp? Been searching around a bit and haven't found any info...
 

BleedBlue14

UrGeNcY
Feb 9, 2017
6,077
4,556
St. Louis
Edmundson arbitration day is July 25th, so 6 days to go.

Was just about to post something in regards to Eddy's arb date. I really hope we lock him up to some term. If the Maroon addition results in not having the money to sign Eddy long term it's sort of a boneheaded move. That is of course unless he's demanding a Parayko contract which he hasn't earned
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,027
12,734
I'm still confident that our cap situation is not impacting negotiations with Ed at all. If we don't get an extension done, I think it is because Eddy is asking for more than his comparables justify and we're just simply not willing to bend. There are just too many simple ways that we can manage to fit a fair contract under the cap for it to be a hold up.
 

TheBluePenguin

Registered User
Apr 15, 2015
6,590
6,644
St Louis
I'm still confident that our cap situation is not impacting negotiations with Ed at all. If we don't get an extension done, I think it is because Eddy is asking for more than his comparables justify and we're just simply not willing to bend. There are just too many simple ways that we can manage to fit a fair contract under the cap for it to be a hold up.

It just depends on what he think he is, since he played great with Petro most of the year on the top pairing, he may think he deserves close to Parayko money or top 2 money, I doubt it, but honestly do not know anything about his personality off the the ice. It does have to kind of suck for him to see Bo and Gunner make more money then him lol
 

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,661
9,296
Lapland
What is player contract where we could compare Edmundson should get? I think playing 1st pair with Pietro does have impact his AAV $
 

BleedBlue14

UrGeNcY
Feb 9, 2017
6,077
4,556
St. Louis
What is player contract where we could compare Edmundson should get? I think playing 1st pair with Pietro does have impact his AAV $

Ekholm, ideally maybe Hamonic as well. Could make a case about Doumolin too from PITT but he has like 3 cups with them so I’m sure has inflated value a bit. Scandella is another one that comes to mind. All about in the 3.5-4 range with some nice term
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ranksu

Vincenzo Arelliti

He Can't Play Center
Oct 13, 2014
9,363
3,854
Lisle, IL
Two days remaining until Ed's arbitration hearing. That means we will know no later than Friday as to whether or not he and STL will be agreeing to the arbitrated amount or working out a last minute deal. If they really think it's in the best interest to get Ed signed long-term (I have doubts about that due to expansion), then it's not out of the question that they buyout Bouwmeester during the arbitration secondary window between Wednesday and Friday to free up the cap. I'm personally hoping for a 2 year bridge at 2-3M that allows us to not have to protect Ed in the ED. Being able to instead protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Tarasenko, Schwartz, O'Reilly, Schenn, Fabbri, and a FA or two would be ideal.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,260
6,794
Central Florida
Two days remaining until Ed's arbitration hearing. That means we will know no later than Friday as to whether or not he and STL will be agreeing to the arbitrated amount or working out a last minute deal. If they really think it's in the best interest to get Ed signed long-term (I have doubts about that due to expansion), then it's not out of the question that they buyout Bouwmeester during the arbitration secondary window between Wednesday and Friday to free up the cap. I'm personally hoping for a 2 year bridge at 2-3M that allows us to not have to protect Ed in the ED. Being able to instead protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Tarasenko, Schwartz, O'Reilly, Schenn, Fabbri, and a FA or two would be ideal.

How does not signing Edmundson long term allow us not risk losing him if we don't protect him? If we go to arbitration, we either chose a 1 year deal or 2. At 1 year, we would sign him long term the next year and have to protect him in 20-21. At a 2-year award, he'd be a UFA at the end and we risk losing him to free agency as opposed to the expansion draft. Why risk losing him in UFA to avoid losing him in the expansion draft? Sign Eddy long term, deal with the expansion draft in two years either by making a trade, protected 4 D and less skaters or losing someone really good.

There is no reason to risk losing someone really good in order to not lose someone really good. Its possible that we would end up losing 2 good players by risking Eddy to UFA. Let's say Mikkola is everything Ranksu says, or Walman or Schmaltz really step up. Then we still have the same dilemma, but could possibly lose Mikkola to the expansion draft AND Edmundson to free agency. Whereas we only lost one if we signed Eddy long term.
 

Vincenzo Arelliti

He Can't Play Center
Oct 13, 2014
9,363
3,854
Lisle, IL
How does not signing Edmundson long term allow us not risk losing him if we don't protect him? If we go to arbitration, we either chose a 1 year deal or 2. At 1 year, we would sign him long term the next year and have to protect him in 20-21. At a 2-year award, he'd be a UFA at the end and we risk losing him to free agency as opposed to the expansion draft. Why risk losing him in UFA to avoid losing him in the expansion draft? Sign Eddy long term, deal with the expansion draft in two years either by making a trade, protected 4 D and less skaters or losing someone really good.

There is no reason to risk losing someone really good in order to not lose someone really good. Its possible that we would end up losing 2 good players by risking Eddy to UFA. Let's say Mikkola is everything Ranksu says, or Walman or Schmaltz really step up. Then we still have the same dilemma, but could possibly lose Mikkola to the expansion draft AND Edmundson to free agency. Whereas we only lost one if we signed Eddy long term.
I think it’s unlikely that we get a long-term deal now, and I also think that it’s less risky to lose Edmundson to FA than it is to lose him to ED. If Mikkola is that big of a deal, then Edmundson is expendable. If he’s not that big of deal, then we can expose Mikkola.

If we can sign Edmundson long-term, we likely lose Dunn. It’s not an easy decision to make, but it’s unlikley that we get a long-term deal done before next year anyway, so it might not even be a choice that’s in or hands.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,260
6,794
Central Florida
I think it’s unlikely that we get a long-term deal now, and I also think that it’s less risky to lose Edmundson to FA than it is to lose him to ED. If Mikkola is that big of a deal, then Edmundson is expendable. If he’s not that big of deal, then we can expose Mikkola.

If we can sign Edmundson long-term, we likely lose Dunn. It’s not an easy decision to make, but it’s unlikley that we get a long-term deal done before next year anyway, so it might not even be a choice that’s in or hands.

None of that makes any sense. Why is it unlikely there is a long term deal? You have no clue where the discussions are at. Besides, you said you'd you have your doubts that its best to sign him long-term, not that you have your doubts they will be able to. Why does signing Edmundson mean we lose Dunn? We can still make a choice on who to protect. If we like Dunn better in a few years, we protect Dunn. But we would be making the choice then, not two years before we need to. My point with Mikkola was that we would lose both. Because letting a 27 year old top 4 D hit the UFa market is a recipe to lose him or to have to overpay him. So we will lose Eddy to free agency or be forced to sign him to a bad contract,and lose someone else to the expansion draft. Sign Edmundson now and you lose 1 player, and have options to make trades to protect who you want. Let him hit free agency and you very likely lose two. I don't get why limiting our options makes sense.
 

Vincenzo Arelliti

He Can't Play Center
Oct 13, 2014
9,363
3,854
Lisle, IL
If we can't come to a long-term deal this year (which at least seems unlikely since that's why we're going to arbitration in the first place), then I do think it's ideal that we elect for 2 years. If we elect for one, then we have the possibility of being able to sign Edmundson to a long-term deal next year, but then we have to protect Ed or Dunn in the following year unless Mikkola or someone else makes one of them expendable (I wouldn't bank on that). By bridging Edmundson to two years, we gain more cap flexibility, the ability to protect Dunn, and get to instead expose one of our less than ideal contracts (Steen or Bozak more than likely) that would have a good likelihood of being chosen. Yeah we might have to pay more for Edmundson than we otherwise would have, but if he's really so good that we are forced to pay him big money then we would have lost him to expansion anyway while on a cheaper contract.

In Summary:

Long-term deal
Exposes either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020
Cheaper deal for Ed than delaying until UFA
Very tight against the cap this year
Won't lose Ed to FA

1-year deal
Cheaper for one year
Opportunity for long-term next year (see above)
Might force Ed into another 1-year deal next year that brings him to FA

2-year deal
Cheaper for two years - lots of cap this and next year
Don't have to expose either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020

More expensive deal in 2020 for Ed or Might lose him to FA

Given Ed's like for the team, the role for him next to Petro, his bromance with Fabbri, and the Blues having the cap to sign him in 2020 (if we lose any of Steen, Bozak, or Perron to ED), I don't think we have much of a danger of him walking. I think the threat of him being taken by Vegas is more likely, given that he will more than likely be the best player available from STL, and he will most likely be on a very fair deal if we sign him long-term this or next year, than Ed walking in FA. Plus, if he is taken by Vegas we will not be able to easily shed Steen, Bozak, or Perron - which frees up some space for Schenn and Pietrangelo's extensions. In this scenario we could protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Schwartz, Tarasenko, O'Reilly, Schenn, Fabbri, Barbashev, and Perron, and leave Vegas a choice between Steen or Bozak, or a player like Soshnikov, Schmaltz, or Walman.


I'm not saying it's silly to disagree with me, but I think it might be a safer bet to bet on Ed's loyalty than it is to bet on Mikkola or Walman making Ed an easy casualty.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,260
6,794
Central Florida
If we can't come to a long-term deal this year (which at least seems unlikely since that's why we're going to arbitration in the first place), then I do think it's ideal that we elect for 2 years. If we elect for one, then we have the possibility of being able to sign Edmundson to a long-term deal next year, but then we have to protect Ed or Dunn in the following year unless Mikkola or someone else makes one of them expendable (I wouldn't bank on that). By bridging Edmundson to two years, we gain more cap flexibility, the ability to protect Dunn, and get to instead expose one of our less than ideal contracts (Steen or Bozak more than likely) that would have a good likelihood of being chosen. Yeah we might have to pay more for Edmundson than we otherwise would have, but if he's really so good that we are forced to pay him big money then we would have lost him to expansion anyway while on a cheaper contract.

In Summary:

Long-term deal
Exposes either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020
Cheaper deal for Ed than delaying until UFA
Very tight against the cap this year
Won't lose Ed to FA

1-year deal
Cheaper for one year
Opportunity for long-term next year (see above)
Might force Ed into another 1-year deal next year that brings him to FA

2-year deal
Cheaper for two years - lots of cap this and next year
Don't have to expose either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020

More expensive deal in 2020 for Ed or Might lose him to FA

Given Ed's like for the team, the role for him next to Petro, his bromance with Fabbri, and the Blues having the cap to sign him in 2020 (if we lose any of Steen, Bozak, or Perron to ED), I don't think we have much of a danger of him walking. I think the threat of him being taken by Vegas is more likely, given that he will more than likely be the best player available from STL, and he will most likely be on a very fair deal if we sign him long-term this or next year, than Ed walking in FA. Plus, if he is taken by Vegas we will not be able to easily shed Steen, Bozak, or Perron - which frees up some space for Schenn and Pietrangelo's extensions. In this scenario we could protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Schwartz, Tarasenko, O'Reilly, Schenn, Fabbri, Barbashev, and Perron, and leave Vegas a choice between Steen or Bozak, or a player like Soshnikov, Schmaltz, or Walman.


I'm not saying it's silly to disagree with me, but I think it might be a safer bet to bet on Ed's loyalty than it is to bet on Mikkola or Walman making Ed an easy casualty.

I guess we have to just agree to disagree. Couple points to clarify though.

1) We are going to arbitration because Edmundson had to elect on a certain date. Even if the discussions were going great and everything was in place but signatures, he still would have elected arbitration just in case things went south. Its not at all uncommon for players who fully intend to sign a deal before arbitration to elect for it just in case. If we don't have a deal before arbitration, then yea, there was a problem getting a long-term deal done. But until we hit arbitration, there is no indication a long-term deal is unlikely. And even after arbitration, I believe there is still time to get something done.

2) Ed will be more expensive in two years, not because he takes great leaps and bounds in ability, but because we won't have RFA years to balance out the UFA, and because competition always drives the price up. He could regress froma borderline top pair D he looked like this last year to an ok top 4 and he'd still be more expensive in two years than what we could sign him for today.

3) This is the big one. You say you doubt we can get a long-term deal done this year, and hint we may not be able to get one done next year, but we should rely on Eddy's loyalty to be an easy signing in 2 years when every other team also gets a shot? If we were on the same page salary-wise and he really wanted to be a Blue for all the reasons you listed, why can't we sign him now or next year? If we are unable to sign him now, or next year, we definitely won't be signing him in 2 years. You do not let top 4 defenseman go to UFA at 27....full stop. If it comes down to it and we can't make a trade with Seattle to protect everyone we want to, we trade Edmundson for a mid-first. Then we at least get something out of it rather than losing him to UFA at 27.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nonzerochance

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
Why couldn't we protect both Edmundson and Dunn? I thought there was an option to protect 4 defenseman. This is what Nashville did in the last ED, and I think we should do that too.
 

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
If we can't come to a long-term deal this year (which at least seems unlikely since that's why we're going to arbitration in the first place), then I do think it's ideal that we elect for 2 years. If we elect for one, then we have the possibility of being able to sign Edmundson to a long-term deal next year, but then we have to protect Ed or Dunn in the following year unless Mikkola or someone else makes one of them expendable (I wouldn't bank on that). By bridging Edmundson to two years, we gain more cap flexibility, the ability to protect Dunn, and get to instead expose one of our less than ideal contracts (Steen or Bozak more than likely) that would have a good likelihood of being chosen. Yeah we might have to pay more for Edmundson than we otherwise would have, but if he's really so good that we are forced to pay him big money then we would have lost him to expansion anyway while on a cheaper contract.

In Summary:

Long-term deal
Exposes either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020
Cheaper deal for Ed than delaying until UFA
Very tight against the cap this year
Won't lose Ed to FA

1-year deal
Cheaper for one year
Opportunity for long-term next year (see above)
Might force Ed into another 1-year deal next year that brings him to FA

2-year deal
Cheaper for two years - lots of cap this and next year
Don't have to expose either Edmundson or Dunn in 2020

More expensive deal in 2020 for Ed or Might lose him to FA

Given Ed's like for the team, the role for him next to Petro, his bromance with Fabbri, and the Blues having the cap to sign him in 2020 (if we lose any of Steen, Bozak, or Perron to ED), I don't think we have much of a danger of him walking. I think the threat of him being taken by Vegas is more likely, given that he will more than likely be the best player available from STL, and he will most likely be on a very fair deal if we sign him long-term this or next year, than Ed walking in FA. Plus, if he is taken by Vegas we will not be able to easily shed Steen, Bozak, or Perron - which frees up some space for Schenn and Pietrangelo's extensions. In this scenario we could protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, Schwartz, Tarasenko, O'Reilly, Schenn, Fabbri, Barbashev, and Perron, and leave Vegas a choice between

Steen or Bozak, or a player like Soshnikov, Schmaltz, or Walman.
I'm not saying it's silly to disagree with me, but I think it might be a safer bet to bet on Ed's loyalty than it is to bet on Mikkola or Walman making Ed an easy casualty.
Minor quibble, but you would honestly protect Perron over Steen or Bozak?
 

David Dennison

I'm a tariff, man.
Jul 5, 2007
5,940
1,444
Grenyarnia
Why couldn't we protect both Edmundson and Dunn? I thought there was an option to protect 4 defenseman. This is what Nashville did in the last ED, and I think we should do that too.
Like others have said in the Edmudnson thread, going 8+1, you would probably be protecting ROR, Vlad, Schwartz, Schenn (UFA that year, but trending towards a key player who we should re-sign and protect), and then the 4 D.

So it mainly comes down to how Fabbri plays (or if he can stay healthy) the next two seasons, with Perron, Barbashev, Shosh, Jaskin, Blais and Sanford being potential considerations, versus keeping Edmundson. Bottom line is we can only lose one of them, but in two years, if we value anyone on that list more than Edmundson, you go 7+3+1. Probably not the case at the moment, but a lot of things can change in two years.

The older guys like Bozak, Steen, etc are probably of very little interest to an expansion team.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->