We're forced to sound critical when people say things like this.De Le Rose has nevee in his career been a scorer. Not in the SHL, AHL or NHL.
I like De Le Rose he is dependable 4th line guy. But the league is full of them.
To take a chance on Fabbri was smart. Even if it doesn't work out in the future it was still a good move.
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.
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.
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.
"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
I'm one of those fans. Its not really that stunning. Prior to the trade Fabbri was playing terrible and had missed 2 full seasons because of leg injuries. De la Rose had been stellar as a 4th line shut down guy.
You can't judge things based on actual results? WHAT?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.
And monkeys might fly out of my butt."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
Right. And if it ends up bad... then its bad.ANY trade may end up bad.
"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
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.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.
Because this is a low risk trade that even if it goes “bad” has little to no impact on the rebuild.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?
Sorry, I got hit with 3 long posts and tried to consolidate.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.
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.
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.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.
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 funnyWhat 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?
"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
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.
This is a pretty decent example...albeit fantasy football.In my fantasy football league I traded Calvin Ridley and Kenyon Drake for Antonio Brown. Two days later the AB **** show went into full swing. I don’t think it’s fair to now say I made a bad move at the time.
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.
Honestly, I didn't think saying "bad trades are bad" was such a controversial opinion that would need to be defended.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.