Confirmed with Link: Wings acquire Robby Fabbri for Jacob De La Rose

[The Wizard of Oz]

This is way too much discourse on a fringe 13th forward. I liked DLR this season but it’s not hard to stick out on bottom 9 as sad as ours has been. Fabbri has more potential and that’s the best asset for the team right now.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

You can't judge things based on actual results? WHAT?

not before they happen

 

[Disappointed EP40]

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.

You're missing the big point;

The CHANCE at the deal being good is worth the trade, therefore, it will always have value and is worth doing.

A 10% chance at a 1000% return on investment is always, definitely, without a doubt, a good deal. Even if the outcome is nothing.

 

[HisNoodliness]

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?

Yours is a hot take because generally it's an unfair way to judge a move. First I'll say that the purpose IMO of judging a decision is deciding whether to follow the same course of action again. If your reasoning for judging moves is different, you may see the merits of a different system but I'll judge the systems based on that goal.

Then there's two systems being proposed here:
1: you judge a move based upon the perceived value of what went in and out at the time of the move, not the actual results which you cannot predict at that time.

2: you judge a move based upon the results sometime later.

Let's analyze these schools of thought with dice. Say that I propose a trade to you, I'll trade one roll on my 20 sided die for 1 roll on your 10 sided die. This seems like a great trade for you, you get an average roll of 10.5 instead of 5.5 and have the potential to do better than is even possible on a 10 sided die. So you take the trade, we roll and you get a 1 on your 20, and I get a 10 on my 10 sided die. Based upon system 2 you would then argue that you made a bad trade. I got the better result than you did.

However if immediately afterwards I offer you the same trade (a 20 sided roll for a 10 sided roll) if you are a follower of system 2 you'll foolishly decide to keep the 10 sided die. A follower of system 1 will recognize that the first time they made the correct decision despite the unlucky result and choose to take the 20 sided dice again.

Now if we consider hockey we have to recognize that you can't use either of these exclusively. You always judge a decision based upon the information you had at that time. However you can judge the information you had based upon the results. For example let's assume Edmonton crazily offers McDavid for Christoffer Ehn. I claim that trading Christopher Ehn for Connor McDavid is a bad idea because I think that Ehn is a better hockey player with more potential. When McDavid has an amazing career and Ehn becomes a journeyman based upon system 1 I may say "I thought Ehn had more potential and thus I made the correct trade. I just got unlucky with the result." However I have to consider that maybe I evaluated them poorly and it wasn't just the case of Ehn minimizing his potential and McDavid maximizing his. Next time I'll still choose to take whoever I think the better player is but hopefully the first trade taught me that players like McDavid are better than players like Ehn. I evaluate the results in this case to judge my ability to rank players. It was obviously tremendously flawed. My trade based upon the information that I had "Ehn is better than McDavid" was still correct. I just had bad info.

So what this chat boils down to is how you value DLR and Fabbri. Personally I'd argue that DLR is like a guaranteed 4 and Fabbri is a 20 sided die. Sure we may roll a 1-3 in which case the guaranteed 4 was better, but I'd still take Fabbri because on average he should be much better than DLR. If DLR scores 50 goals this season, then I'll have to reevaluate the way I judged him. I thought he was a guaranteed 4 but he rolled a 19 so he must have also been at least a 19 sided die. I'd still take the player I judge to be a 20 sided die over the one I consider to be a guaranteed 4 though.

 

[izlez]

not before they happen

Cool. This entire discussion is based around the comment:
"Even if it doesn't work out in the future it was still a good move."

 

[izlez]

Yours is a hot take because generally it's an unfair way to judge a move. First I'll say that the purpose IMO of judging a decision is deciding whether to follow the same course of action again. If your reasoning for judging moves is different, you may see the merits of a different system but I'll judge the systems based on that goal.

Then there's two systems being proposed here:
1: you judge a move based upon the perceived value of what went in and out at the time of the move, not the actual results which you cannot predict at that time.

2: you judge a move based upon the results sometime later.

Let's analyze these schools of thought with dice. Say that I propose a trade to you, I'll trade one roll on my 20 sided die for 1 roll on your 10 sided die. This seems like a great trade for you, you get an average roll of 10.5 instead of 5.5 and have the potential to do better than is even possible on a 10 sided die. So you take the trade, we roll and you get a 1 on your 20, and I get a 10 on my 10 sided die. Based upon system 2 you would then argue that you made a bad trade. I got the better result than you did.

However if immediately afterwards I offer you the same trade (a 20 sided roll for a 10 sided roll) if you are a follower of system 2 you'll foolishly decide to keep the 10 sided die. A follower of system 1 will recognize that the first time they made the correct decision despite the unlucky result and choose to take the 20 sided dice again.

Now if we consider hockey we have to recognize that you can't use either of these exclusively. You always judge a decision based upon the information you had at that time. However you can judge the information you had based upon the results. For example let's assume Edmonton crazily offers McDavid for Christoffer Ehn. I claim that trading Christopher Ehn for Connor McDavid is a bad idea because I think that Ehn is a better hockey player with more potential. When McDavid has an amazing career and Ehn becomes a journeyman based upon system 1 I may say "I thought Ehn had more potential and thus I made the correct trade. I just got unlucky with the result." However I have to consider that maybe I evaluated them poorly and it wasn't just the case of Ehn minimizing his potential and McDavid maximizing his. Next time I'll still choose to take whoever I think the better player is but hopefully the first trade taught me that players like McDavid are better than players like Ehn. I evaluate the results in this case to judge my ability to rank players. It was obviously tremendously flawed. My trade based upon the information that I had "Ehn is better than McDavid" was still correct. I just had bad info.

So what this chat boils down to is how you value DLR and Fabbri. Personally I'd argue that DLR is like a guaranteed 4 and Fabbri is a 20 sided die. Sure we may roll a 1-3 in which case the guaranteed 4 was better, but I'd still take Fabbri because on average he should be much better than DLR. If DLR scores 50 goals this season, then I'll have to reevaluate the way I judged him. I thought he was a guaranteed 4 but he rolled a 19 so he must have also been at least a 19 sided die. I'd still take the player I judge to be a 20 sided die over the one I consider to be a guaranteed 4 though.

You kind of hit on it... but this just simplifies things to randomness and sets you up for never admitting you were wrong.

If DLR ends up the better player, perhaps your evaluation of the players' dice was wrong? Maybe you missed something?

This is a hypothetical conversation, but specifically in this situation, if we find out that 5 different doctors all said that Fabbri's knees were toast and he'd never finish another season of hockey AND Yzerman knew that... Then you're evaluation of the dice would be off.

And all that being said, we hire a GM and scouts to identify whether or not he will be any good. I sure hope Yzerman has real reasons to want him, not a roll of the dice



This is just like the argument that Zadina was the right pick even if he's a MASSIVE bust and Rasmussen was the wrong pick even if he's inducted into the hall of fame. Maybe I'm actually on an island on that one too

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Cool. This entire discussion is based around the comment:
"Even if it doesn't work out in the future it was still a good move."

Because it was. The "risk" that DLR breaks out is miniscule. DLR was a good, journeyman guy. He was a nice player. But he did not have some massive untapped potential. He's been in the league 6 years. He's played almost 200 games. He ain't flashing huge offensive upside and while he is a defensively responsible guy who did a good job in his role... his role is the most replaceable piece in hockey.

He's not Michael Peca. He's not Kris Draper. We have to be careful not to slag DLR because he wasn't a bad player. We should equally be worried about glorifying him. He was not a special player. He had a role, he managed to play that role at an acceptable level. He didn't have massive potential above what he was.

Even if this one doesn't work, it's a trade you make 100 times out of 100. And in my estimation, that's a good trade. Your evaluation of "good trade" is that it's not a good trade unless it's highway ****ing robbery, which I don't know how you are unable to see that as a hot take. DLR was not a difference maker and the Wings will not regret years down the line trading him away. Fabbri, if his injuries are done, COULD be a difference maker.

 

[Gniwder]

Cool. This entire discussion is based around the comment:
"Even if it doesn't work out in the future it was still a good move."

He made 2 games exciting to watch, which is more than I can say about any player on the team aside from the top line. So that's a win.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You kind of hit on it... but this just simplifies things to randomness and sets you up for never admitting you were wrong.

If DLR ends up the better player, perhaps your evaluation of the players' dice was wrong? Maybe you missed something?

This is a hypothetical conversation, but specifically in this situation, if we find out that 5 different doctors all said that Fabbri's knees were toast and he'd never finish another season of hockey AND Yzerman knew that... Then you're evaluation of the dice would be off.

And all that being said, we hire a GM and scouts to identify whether or not he will be any good. I sure hope Yzerman has real reasons to want him, not a roll of the dice



This is just like the argument that Zadina was the right pick even if he's a MASSIVE bust and Rasmussen was the wrong pick even if he's inducted into the hall of fame. Maybe I'm actually on an island on that one too

Are you kidding? "If we found out that 5 doctors said his knees were toast?" If that was the case, he would have failed the physical and the trade wouldn't have happened. Jesus, If this thing that stands a less than 10% chance of happening (DLR breaking out magically after 6 years of being a non-entity offensively and this other thing happens that stands a 0% chance of happening (Fabbri's knees being completely dead to where *5* physicians opinions would say that his knees were irreparably screwed up and he somehow made it through the pre-trade physical), it would be a bad trade.

Yzerman has real reasons to want him. You saw them in the two games since he's been here. The roll of the dice is that Fabbri gets back to being the guy he was drafted as. They didn't just randomly land on Robby Fabbri as a trade target. They identified a guy who was risky in terms of coming off injury so they could get him very cheap who had a TON of tools that would help them.

And on Zadina you are. Rasmussen, there is debate on whether he was the right pick. But with Zadina, he was a consensus 3OA pick in the vast majority of the scouting reports. Him being slower to develop doesn't change that.

 

[HisNoodliness]

You kind of hit on it... but this just simplifies things to randomness and sets you up for never admitting you were wrong.

If DLR ends up the better player, perhaps your evaluation of the players' dice was wrong? Maybe you missed something?

This is a hypothetical conversation, but specifically in this situation, if we find out that 5 different doctors all said that Fabbri's knees were toast and he'd never finish another season of hockey AND Yzerman knew that... Then you're evaluation of the dice would be off.

And all that being said, we hire a GM and scouts to identify whether or not he will be any good. I sure hope Yzerman has real reasons to want him, not a roll of the dice



This is just like the argument that Zadina was the right pick even if he's a MASSIVE bust and Rasmussen was the wrong pick even if he's inducted into the hall of fame. Maybe I'm actually on an island on that one too

Yeah you have to always evaluate whether you misjudged players at the time or not. Yzerman has more information than us and if I had the same info I might decide that it was a poor trade right now. But life is super bloody random so it's important to always remember that you can make all of the correct decisions and get poor resultas while someone else gets great results making all the wrong decisions.

Despite having more information GMs are absolutely just trading for dice rolls. Drafting is acquiring dice rolls. Everything is probabilistic. A good GM is the one who maximizes your probability of getting good rolls.

Holland thought that Stralman was no better than Kindl. That was a clearly misjudged player. We all thought that at the time. He also got unlucky that Kindl never capitalized on his potential.

I'd argue based upon what I knew of Zadina that he was the correct pick at 6 and Rasmussen was the wrong pick at 9 regardless of the result. If Ras becomes a HoFer amd Zadina a bust, perhaps I'll have to reconsider the way I evaluate prospects, but not necessarily. It's always a game of deciding whether you were wrong because of bad luck or because you misjudged things. It's usually some of both.

 

[izlez]

I'd argue based upon what I knew of Zadina that he was the correct pick at 6 and Rasmussen was the wrong pick at 9 regardless of the result. If Ras becomes a HoFer amd Zadina a bust, perhaps I'll have to reconsider the way I evaluate prospects, but not necessarily. It's always a game of deciding whether you were wrong because of bad luck or because you misjudged things. It's usually some of both.

Ok cool. Even specifically in the hypothetical future where YOU ARE WRONG, you are still right.

I guess I don't live in the same world and we are not going to agree on these issues

 

[Hen Kolland]

Ok cool. Even specifically in the hypothetical future where YOU ARE WRONG, you are still right.

I guess I don't live in the same world and we are not going to agree on these issues

So unless every decision you make works out perfectly, it was the wrong decision. I'm glad you can be the only willing test subject to exist in a perpetual state of nothingness. Can't eat, drink, sleep, get up, work, exercise, love, breathe, walk, talk. Never know what the future may hold, and therefore any and all actions cannot be guaranteed to be right, so the decision to do them are inherently wrong.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Ok cool. Even specifically in the hypothetical future where YOU ARE WRONG, you are still right.

I guess I don't live in the same world and we are not going to agree on these issues

What exactly do you have against Fabbri? Seems like a grudge to me

 

[Gniwder]

What exactly do you have against Fabbri? Seems like a grudge to me

Maybe he bought a DLR or Hirose jersey, lol.

 

[izlez]

What exactly do you have against Fabbri? Seems like a grudge to me

Well, I've never been the biggest Fabbri fan and am a bit skeptical if he "works out" here...

But that has nothing to do with what has been discussed over the past 2 pages. I have an issue with the idea that "it's a good trade even if it's a bad trade"

 

[kliq]

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.

I think we are getting into a situation where its a matter of playing with words here on all accounts.

Yes, if Fabbri sucks and JDR ends up being good, you can look back in hindsight and say that the trade ended up being a bad one based on the result.

However, I dont think you can criticize Yzerman for the move in hindsight, because Yzerman made a move that that had higher probability of working out then not working out.

As far as my football trade, I stand by that being a good trade. I knew the guy had red flags, but there is no way I could have seen a sexual assault charge coming. Not that anyone cares about this though lol.

 

[ricky0034]

Well, I've never been the biggest Fabbri fan and am a bit skeptical if he "works out" here...

But that has nothing to do with what has been discussed over the past 2 pages. I have an issue with the idea that "it's a good trade even if it's a bad trade"

so if Holland calls Yzerman tomorrow and offers him Mcdavid AND Draisaitl for Abdelkader but they both have career ending injuries immediately afterwards was it a bad trade for the Wings?

 

[The Flying Octopus]

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.

wait a minute, who bad mouthed him. Fabbri is better, which doesn’t mean people are bad mouthing him.

 

[izlez]

so if Holland calls Yzerman tomorrow and offers him Mcdavid AND Draisaitl for Abdelkader but they both have career ending injuries immediately afterwards was it a bad trade for the Wings?

I mean, I think non-preexisiting injuries are a different thing. But if Abdelkader goes on to have 300 points a year and break all of Gretzky's records while Mcdavid and Draisaitl never put up 10 points in a season...then yeah, that's a bad trade

 

[Gniwder]

wait a minute, who bad mouthed him. Fabbri is better, which doesn’t mean people are bad mouthing him.

Comments such as black hole and 4th line plugs aren't really flattering. It also appears that most people aren't watching games. DLR was solid, made a lot of good passes that Helm and Abby didn't finish. Seems to have more offensive awareness than he's given credit for, has a hard shot but he needs to learn to bring it down a bit. Given the right linemates, I think he'll wind up being a 3C. Just because we got him for nothing, it doesn't mean he doesn't have value or isn't a good player. For example, Dan Cleary joined the team on a PTO.

Based on the small sample size we have so far, I'd trade an established 3C (and Cleary, lol) for Fabbri though.

 

[Lil Bert]

I'm gonna put this convo on mute hahaha how are you people debating on whether this was a good trade or not?
DLR was a good player. We have 10 DLR's. We trade him for a guy who might be able to score. Simple as that

 

[newfy]

Comments such as black hole and 4th line plugs aren't really flattering. It also appears that most people aren't watching games. DLR was solid, made a lot of good passes that Helm and Abby didn't finish. Seems to have more offensive awareness than he's given credit for, has a hard shot but he needs to learn to bring it down a bit. Given the right linemates, I think he'll wind up being a 3C. Just because we got him for nothing, it doesn't mean he doesn't have value or isn't a good player. For example, Dan Cleary joined the team on a PTO.

Based on the small sample size we have so far, I'd trade an established 3C (and Cleary, lol) for Fabbri though.

Blaming Helm and Abdelkader for DLRs lack of offense is pretty ridiculous. The guy has 12 goals, 32 points in a 200 game career. Helm alone has 7 seasons where hes scored 12 or been on pace for more than 12. Abby has 5.

They arent great anymore but DLR is/was no better and doesnt have anything to fall back on saying that he could be that guy. His lack of offensive ability is just as much to blame for Helm and Abdelkaders lack of offense this year. DLR is so far off from being a three C because hes an offensive black hole. I would be extremely surprised if that ever happened

 

[Gniwder]

Blaming Helm and Abdelkader for DLRs lack of offense is pretty ridiculous. The guy has 12 goals, 32 points in a 200 game career. Helm alone has 7 seasons where hes scored 12 or been on pace for more than 12. Abby has 5.

They arent great anymore but DLR is/was no better and doesnt have anything to fall back on saying that he could be that guy. His lack of offensive ability is just as much to blame for Helm and Abdelkaders lack of offense this year. DLR is so far off from being a three C because hes an offensive black hole. I would be extremely surprised if that ever happened

DLR set up Helm and Abby countless times this season only to watch Helm and Abby flub the puck. DLR isn't much of a scorer but he's had some surprisingly good heads up play and passes.

I know you've been watching games, base it on what you see and not some past stats. Abby isn't going to score double digits anymore and Helm managed to score one goal on the top 2 lines. Even Blash gave up on Helm, he got the least ice time 2 games in a row.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Twitter

 

[Bench]

Always been a pretty big Armstrong fan. He did right by Fabbri.