Discussion in 'Detroit Red Wings' started by lhsgolf19, Nov 6, 2019.
If he can stay healthy, I love this deal.
If not, meh. Low risk, high reward scenario.
We're forced to sound critical when people say things like this.
It's a good move if it works. It's not a good move if it hurts us in both the sort term and the long term.
No, if it hurts us in the short and/or long term, it was a good chance to take that didn't work out. The result of the trade can't be used to assess whether the move was good or bad, because it's information that we didn't have available at the time of the decision.
Don't try to weasel a loop hole into this.
how does it hurt us in the short term? The last week before we made the trade with DLR, we came off a string of very uninspired performances and were giving up about 5 GA. Clearly a defensive specialist was not doing much for us.
How does it hurt us in the long term? DLR was not likely to be tendered a new contract with guys like Rasmussen and Veleno and Zadina banging on the door.
Jacob De La Rose was as extraneous an asset as you could ever hope to have
E: that doesn’t mean he is bad. Just that he brings something that you can replace.
The problem with this is that it's hindsight reasoning. You have to judge the moved based on the information available at the time. Now that's not to say results don't matter but when dealing in assets you have to gauge potential value over time. DLR is a known commodity, his worth to the team is established and fixed. Fabbri on the other hand was 100% worth the investment even if it does not work out long term. Fabbris value has the potential to exceed DLRs fixed value. So the gamble is dealing a known quantity with low value for a potential return on investment that greatly exceeds payment.
Say you have $100.00 in your pocket and DLR = $1.oo. Someone offers you Fabbri who equals anywhere from $0.00 up to $10.00 and all you have to do to find out is give up the $1.00, you do it. The potential return on investment greatly exceeds the risk. Is it a gamble? Sure, but sports deal in chance. It's the nature of all trades and Drafts.
Do people remember that DLR was picked up off waivers?
I liked how he was playing for the Wings but as many have mentioned, players like him are pretty easy to replace.
If Fabbri bombs and we lose more games without the defensive play of DLR then the wings have better odds for a good draft pick and only lost an easily replaceable asset they got for nothing.
"A move that I philosophically agree with and am very hopeful it has upside and was worth gambling on" does not equal a "good move"
De La Rose COULD break out. Fabbri COULD be -30 in the next 15 games. He COULD be ok and earn a new contract and never score another point.
The results and outcome matter. You can't just say it's a good move no matter what because you personally agree with the philosophy
You can't assess the move today based on the result that we will learn in some undisclosed time period in the future. That's not how life works.
Stellar as a shutdown guy? On a team that has been blown out by 3-5 goals, night in and night out? This team, with DLR, was approaching dead wings era bad.....
This is a trade I make all day, every day, and twice on sunday. At his best, DLR is a replacement level player. Fabbri was clearly more than that before the injuries, and if the injuries are behind him, he could be more than that again. The kid has come in and contributed in two straight wins after his trade and the team is clearly playing better with him in the lineup over DLR. The kid barely knows the players and system and yet has contributed. adding skill is never a bad thing. It seems as if Bert and Fabbri still have good chemistry too. This could be the basis for another legit scoring line. As of now, we've only had one line capable of scoring on a nightly basis.
The wings, over the last few seasons have gotten way to heavy with defensive plug type players.... Players that are defensive first, offense second, or not at all. Players exactly like DLR, and Ehn, Abby, Glenny, Neilson, Fil, Erne, even Helm, and all of our D-men not numbered 17/21, etc... We have a team of low skill defensive plugs and we have trouble moving the puck and generating offense because of it. With all these defensive first players, we are in our own zone most of the game and by the time we get the puck out of our zone, the players are ready for a line change and can't sustain any offense. We had one line, the top line, that was able to score. when they didn't score, the team didn't score. Adding more top 6 skill will only help this team. This team needs to get more skillful and more offensive in order to not be so bad defensively. When the puck isn't stuck in our own end most of the game, it won't find itself in the back of our net as often.
What the heck is going on here.
Is he an upgrade over DLR ? YUPP
so ? Again wtf is going on here going back and forth about a topic that’s going around in circles. Team was / is a defensive pooper. DLR is a defensive specialist. What did he do defensively?
Take Robbi alllll day over DLR and it’s not even debatable.
You can't judge things based on actual results? WHAT?
And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
ANY trade may end up bad. Even if this trade doesn’t work out it was a low risk move worth making.
but I guess you withhold your opinion on any move until years later? I anxiously await your opinion on the Primeau trade.
Right. And if it ends up bad... then its bad.
Good = Good
Bad = Bad
How am I the one considered to have a "hot take" here?
You clearly did not read the post I made. Don't reply to me at all if you're not going to even rebut any of my points.
He was a plus player on a team with -31 goal differential. Just because Fabbri is better for the team doesn't mean DLR was poop.
I wasn't big on DLR last season, but his play this year was pretty good considering his role. Just because we got a nifty little player in the deal, doesn't mean we need to bust on DLR. He played well. Let's just thank him for his effort and move on. Really no need to bad mouth a guy that got traded.
In terms of assets, yeah he was free, so to get a guy like Fabbri in return for a free asset.... well that's just awesome.
Because this is a low risk trade that even if it goes “bad” has little to no impact on the rebuild.
For this to actually be bad Fabbri will have to be a bust and DLR would have to turn into a player that is very difficult to replace. The latter is EXTREMELY unlikely.
so it’s a trade with little to no risk that has a lot of potential upside = good trade.
Yet you seem to think we can’t comment on the move until several years from now.
Sorry, I got hit with 3 long posts and tried to consolidate.
Of course it's hindsight. The original post I quoted was talking about evaluating after the we know the results.
To take your analogy. You have $100.00 in your pocket. You think DLR = $1.00 and you have Fabbri is equal from $0 to $10. You can take a gamble.
BUT, if 5 years from now, it turns out Fabbri is worth $0.... AND you happened to misread that DLR dollar bill and it turns out it ACTUALLY said $100... Then it was a bad trade.
It's possible you misevaluated DLR. It's possible you misevaluated Fabbri. IF (IF) 5 years from now, DLR is way better than Fabbri, I think you should go back and question why you didn't see that coming...and accept that it was a bad trade.
I think DLR is highly underrated here, but at the same time I see his potential as a decent 3C at best. Even if Fabbri does get injured, it's a risk this team needed to take just to turn around this losing streak. As far as I'm concerned, it's already a win.
DLR is the type of guy that can keep your team in the game, Fabbri is the type of player that can win the game for the team. The Wings need the latter.
… and note, I liked the way DLR was playing this season.
Im convinced the people against this trade are trolling. There’s just no way. I’ll take Fabbri’s hockey sense over anything DLR has or does any day of the week.This shit is actually funny
The poster has a point, it’s results oriented thinking. To give you an extreme, it’s like saying if Yzerman traded Abby for McDavid (obviously a good trade for us on paper) then McDavid all of a sudden went to shit, and Abby turned it around, it would be ridicules to say Yzerman made a bad move.
In my fantasy football league I traded Calvin Ridley and Kenyon Drake for Antonio Brown. Two days later the AB shit show went into full swing. I don’t think it’s fair to now say I made a bad move at the time.
Now of course the McDavid/Abby trade would never happen, and I admit this is an extreme example, but the point is that when a GM makes a move, he doesn’t have a crystal ball, all he can do is make the move that gives him team the highest probability of success.
The only flaw in the argument IMO, is that we as fans don’t always have all the information that the GM did when making the move. I don’t think this moves applies to this, this was IMO a pretty huge win for us.
I hate to disappoint you bud, but DLR ain't breakin' out. He is what he is(just like he's been his entire career) and he was redundant on this team. Playing "what if" with 4th liners is actually just a waste of time. Ehn can do everything DLR did and I've actually enjoyed that Helm-Ehn-Gator line the past few games.
I understand your thought process here. If years from now DLR become a 3C (or just does well) and Fabbri busts you'll consider this a bad trade.
I disagree based on current values and future potential of each player based on information we have today.
Today, DLR was a 4C on the last place team that has serious lack of C depth. He was traded for a highly rated prospect that had reduced value do to injuries and playing behind a deep depth chart in STL. Fabbri at the time of the trade still had middle to top 6 potential (albeit harder to realize). You have to give to get in this league. We gave a 4th liner (who was a free asset to boot) for the potential of a top 6 player. That's a win. The 4th line is the easiest place to replace a player in the NHL.
A good backup goalie is harder to get than a decent 4th liner.
Let's not forget DLR also has health issues (heart) that could flare up at any time. He was also given opportunity to move up our depth chart but it never happened. Basically, DLR was a 4th liner on DET. That's all he was going to be.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one because I consider this trade a big win for Yzerman.
This is a pretty decent example...albeit fantasy football.
Antonio Brown had red flags, the steelers let him go for a reason. Since it didn't work out, don't you look at yourself and think, "maybe I misread the situation. Or should have taken a closer look. Or maybe I shouldve done some more research (...obviously you can only do so much in Fantasy sports as your not a real GM with real access to the player)"? Or do you just put your fingers in your ears and celebrate yourself as a great manager for making a great move?
Robbi Fabbri COULD retire next week. DLR COULD score 20 goals this season. If those things happen, its a bad trade. I'm just arguing against the ridiculous idea that it's a good trade no matter what the outcome.
The move was a good trade based on what we know. The results could be bad. That's the nature of trades; are you just trying to get people to say "sometimes trades don't work out"? Because nobody is denying that fact. At this point I'm pretty sure you get all warm and fuzzy from being difficult.
Honestly, I didn't think saying "bad trades are bad" was such a controversial opinion that would need to be defended.
Separate names with a comma.