That would be a no from Detroit. Not worth it to drop that many places, even if it is just a few.

A move like this should be right up CHI's alley.

that's a pretty cruddy return for dropping 6 places

There is no incentive for Detroit to do this. They quite easily pass.

Why would DET trade down for a worse player?

I assume they want to open up his cap space, I have seen Fabbri to Chicago for a 4th rounder pop up rather often. Chicago would be looking for this type of return more than likely. It’s not something worth extensively debating if Detroit isn’t up for it.

This is essentially what Detroit paid to dump Datsyuk's contract...

... Except Datsyuk was paid way more and wasn't playing at all.

Fabbri has 18 goals and 31 points in 61 games. Only 2 players on Chicago have more goals. Realistically they aren't giving up that much to move him.

There are 2 things that CapFriendly users get wrong all the time.

1. The value of retaining salary.

2. The value of a cap dump.

If you look what users thought it would cost to retain and what it actually cost at the TDL. It was and is a lot lower than what we predict.

It’s understandable for the acquiring team to “overestimate” the “negative value” of the player especially in the context presented here.

When discussing the cost of moving a player at the time it is done has significant implications.

In my opinion the best times to take on a contract are before the draft and free agency OR right before the season starts for a team with low flexibility. The reasons should be rather obvious as to why these values are different to during the deadline.

Again, if Detroit isn’t interested in moving him, or at least not in this specific trade, that’s fine. I don’t think a 4th round pick will get it done either and Chicago is really in a quality vs quantity debate right now. Maybe a team like Nashville would even pay Detroit for Fabbri.

My proposal is based heavily on the draft pick value calculator from puckpedia. Sure, it takes out contextual information like the usefulness of a player like Fabbri, but in the context of moving a 4 million dollar man it says it costs an early 2nd historically. The difference between Tampas and Detroits pick as presented is calculated as a mid-late 2nd (Rd 2 #46). In that case, Detroit comes out slightly ahead in historical value to account for the usefulness of a player like Fabbri. I still think it’s a fair trade, but it depends on who has the appetite to do it.

I'm not sure what you consider significant implications but you have 2 players with 21 goals and Fabbri has 18 goals. Fabbri's ppg .50 and Chicago has 3 players with a better ppg not a big deal until you look at TOI Bedard is the only player with a higher p/60 with a 2.9 and Fabbri's p/60 is 2.3 and is tied with Kurashev for 2nd. People on here don't like certain players for a number of reasons but the simple truth is Fabbri would make Chicago better not a lot better but at least a 4th or a 5th better. He is out producing your #2C despite playing 3min less a game. So thinking Detroit is going to move back out of the lottery to move a $4M contract just isn't very logical.

The draft pick value chart is a guideline at best and people on this site put way too much stock in to it. If you're trading a pick for a pick or a pick for a couple of picks then yeah that draft pick chart is useful but you aren't doing that in this situation. There just isn't a way to apply set of guide lines to a trade like this you really can't even compare other trades like this to one another. There are just too many factors to consider and those factors change deal to deal.