Value of: Dante Fabbro

[biturbo19]

He absolutely did not have more mobility. Fabbro’s biggest asset is his skating

And Hamhuis biggest asset was his skating as well. And it was a better asset than Fabbro. Not that Fabbro is slow or anything, but Hamhuis had absolutely top level, easy 4-way mobility. Combined with an extremely good hockey brain that made him super efficient defensively.

He's not there yet, but I think Fabbro can reach that level. I remember Dan well. He was a good pred for us that should've been here longer.

I'm not sure i'd count on Fabbro ever reaching that level. He's 25 years old at this point, he pretty much is what he is. Hamhuis was a weird situation where the Preds happened to have a 3rd "top pairing" caliber defenceman hidden away behind a pair of Norris caliber guys in Weber and Suter. There's a reason that when Hamhuis hit the UFA market, there was a line halfway around the block to secure his services...where ultimately, the "hometown" draw of going to play back in BC won out (fortunately for the Canucks).

Teams could see that he was realistically, being significantly underutilized in Nashville. Whereas with Fabbro, when he's looked at his best...maybe he comes somewhere near the "underutilized Hamhuis" level. Maybe.

I'd certainly go for a redux of the Hamhuis storyline. BC kid comes home, when Fabbro hits UFA. He'd be a solid partner for a guy like Hughes. But i haven't seen anything from Fabbro that makes me think he's suddenly going to emerge as the top defenceman on a dominant, record setting regular season team that was 1 win away from the Stanley Cup. I don't think Fabbro has shown that sort of upside...certainly not with his recent struggles.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

And Hamhuis biggest asset was his skating as well. And it was a better asset than Fabbro. Not that Fabbro is slow or anything, but Hamhuis had absolutely top level, easy 4-way mobility. Combined with an extremely good hockey brain that made him super efficient defensively.



I'm not sure i'd count on Fabbro ever reaching that level. He's 25 years old at this point, he pretty much is what he is. Hamhuis was a weird situation where the Preds happened to have a 3rd "top pairing" caliber defenceman hidden away behind a pair of Norris caliber guys in Weber and Suter. There's a reason that when Hamhuis hit the UFA market, there was a line halfway around the block to secure his services...where ultimately, the "hometown" draw of going to play back in BC won out (fortunately for the Canucks).

Teams could see that he was realistically, being significantly underutilized in Nashville. Whereas with Fabbro, when he's looked at his best...maybe he comes somewhere near the "underutilized Hamhuis" level. Maybe.

I'd certainly go for a redux of the Hamhuis storyline. BC kid comes home, when Fabbro hits UFA. He'd be a solid partner for a guy like Hughes. But i haven't seen anything from Fabbro that makes me think he's suddenly going to emerge as the top defenceman on a dominant, record setting regular season team that was 1 win away from the Stanley Cup. I don't think Fabbro has shown that sort of upside...certainly not with his recent struggles.

I think Hamhuis lite has been a common comparison for him for several years from our board.

Edit: cut myself short. I think there's a lot of guys that are usage dependent who aren't in that upper level. Fabbro will fall into this category. I agree he's probably not going to top out as good as Hamhuis, but stylistically I do think there's similarities there and he can be much better than he's been to this point even in his good years.

 

[biturbo19]

I think Hamhuis lite has been a common comparison for him for seversl years.

Hamhuis "lite" i can definitely get behind more as a comparison. Though i find that often ends up being a catch-all comparable for a whole swath of quiet, defensively responsible sort of defencemen.


In terms of "style" of player, i guess it generally makes sense. But there's a definitely "lite" element to what Fabbro does, compared to Hamhuis. Hamhuis was a guy who completely transformed the Canucks blueline. I don't see Fabbro as having anywhere near that sort of clout as a player. He's much more of a "supporting role" player.

 

[triggrman]

Hamhuis "lite" i can definitely get behind more as a comparison. Though i find that often ends up being a catch-all comparable for a whole swath of quiet, defensively responsible sort of defencemen.


In terms of "style" of player, i guess it generally makes sense. But there's a definitely "lite" element to what Fabbro does, compared to Hamhuis. Hamhuis was a guy who completely transformed the Canucks blueline. I don't see Fabbro as having anywhere near that sort of clout as a player. He's much more of a "supporting role" player.

We will see. Hamhuis had Trotz, not Hynes