[Signing] Avs sign Colborne (2 yrs, $2.5 mil AAV)

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Your perception is not uncommon. But Colborne is 26. Not a "kid", and his development finished years ago.

We all like to look at him as that high first rounder with size. But he's not going to be anything more than he is right now.

Dont't get fooled by play during the last 6 weeks of a season where your team is eliminated. He isn't "coming around" any more than Sven Baertschi or Joni Ortio were.

Loved Joe the human, and wish him the best, but glad we didn't move forward with him at increased rate. Our team sucked last year, and while it was mostly goaltending, clearing the chaff need sto happen too.

I'm not so sure you can say that. Despite being 26, Joe's rookie year is only 3 seasons old. He has improved each season. He is a stereotypical late bloomer, and I expect him to have yet another career year with the Avalanche.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

I'm not so sure you can say that. Despite being 26, Joe's rookie year is only 3 seasons old. He has improved each season. He is a stereotypical late bloomer, and I expect him to have yet another career year with the Avalanche.

He's 26. He doesn't get extra development time because he made it to the NHL late. He's still 26

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

A late season surge to 19 goals is still worth a heck of a lot more to me than a late season surge to 8 goals - combined - out of bouma bollig and Ferland. Or Stajan and his 6 goals.

The list of inconsistent struggling forwards to cast aside hardly starts with colborne.

Like Joe were those guys handed an opportunity after an opportunity in the top 6 playing 19-20 minutes a game? Didnt think so. Try again.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

A late season surge to 19 goals is still worth a heck of a lot more to me than a late season surge to 8 goals - combined - out of bouma bollig and Ferland. Or Stajan and his 6 goals.

The list of inconsistent struggling forwards to cast aside hardly starts with colborne.

Those guys still have contracts for next year. Colborne didn't. So what is the point of whining about those other guys until we see whether Treliving tries to re-sign them when they are in the same situation?

[bax]

Originally Posted by SebC

He's improved his points/game for three consecutive seasons.



We let go of an RFA who was better than 0.5 p/g and trending up, for nothing, and replaced him with a lower scoring, older, more expensive UFA.



Time to stop worshipping Treliving.

There's more to building a winning hockey team then looking at points.

You may not like it on paper now, but I think Brouwer will contribute a heck of a lot more to a winning team than Colborne did last year.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I agree but 2 of those players are untradeable. You can't give up on Ferland to give a roster spot to Colborne. You might get me to agree that Bouma should have been traded to make room for Colborne.

Yeah maybe. Or maybe they should have just traded colborne. My gripe is more with losing him for nothing than losing him in general.

The flames cap crunch and colborne's arbitration rights aren't surprises. To have a 'woops, we have to let him walk' moment is a bit weak from flames management. they should never have been in this position.

And they're still in it. That might bug me more.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Yeah maybe. Or maybe they should have just traded colborne. My gripe is more with losing him for nothing than losing him in general.

The flames cap crunch and colborne's arbitration rights aren't surprises. To have a 'woops, we have to let him walk' moment is a bit weak from flames management. they should never have been in this position.

And they're still in it. That might bug me more.

You're assuming someone would have given something up for him in a trade when that's by no means a given by the small salary he signed for. Odd thing to be upset about.

[JiriHrdina]

The trade deadline was feb 29. His hot streak continued past that through end of season (almost half his goals) which changed the possible arbitration outcomes. In a cap world losing players for nothing is not just expected, it is sometimes required

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Yeah maybe. Or maybe they should have just traded colborne. My gripe is more with losing him for nothing than losing him in general.

The flames cap crunch and colborne's arbitration rights aren't surprises. To have a 'woops, we have to let him walk' moment is a bit weak from flames management. they should never have been in this position.

And they're still in it. That might bug me more.

You don't think Treliving tried to trade him? I'm betting no one was interested in trading an asset for him because his season looked like an aberration and there was arbitration clouding the waters. Too risky.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The trade deadline was feb 29. His hot streak continued past that through end of season (almost half his goals) which changed the possible arbitration outcomes. In a cap world losing players for nothing is not just expected, it is sometimes required

Arbitration is a huge issue too. I'd much rather let him walk for nothing if the alternative option was getting saddled with him for 3.5+ via arbitration.

[FBI]

I'm a little confused on how some of you guys can unequivocally say that Colborne isn't going to continue to get better. He may get better, he may not. He may continue improving to be a 50pt guy, we don't know. He may continue to get more physical, he may not. Stop with the definitives. Why don't we wait to see what happens before we judge this one.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by FBI

I'm a little confused on how some of you guys can unequivocally say that Colborne isn't going to continue to get better. He may get better, he may not. He may continue improving to be a 50pt guy, we don't know. He may continue to get more physical, he may not. Stop with the definitives. Why don't we wait to see what happens before we judge this one.

At even odds, would you bet money (if you had to, say $1000) that Colborne is going to A) improve B) stay the same C) regress slightly D) regress a lot

I would bet on C because I think he's a 30-35 point 3rd line LW that got hot for a month and a half.

Fact is, a great majority of players are done developing by 26. Betting against that with Colborne seems odd to me. Players like Giordano are like unicorns, you rarely see that kind of uptick in a player once they enter their mid/late 20s. With forwards, usually by 23-24, what you see is what you get. Just because Colborne got a late start does not mean he has a better chance of being an outlier IMO.

[savardandjokinen]

I feel like 26 is the last year you really see players even get a bit better, so I think colborne can still take another step.

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think this is just the natural transition for a rebuilding team. The players we all like as people just might not be right for a team trying to make that next step.

Agreed. Colborne had a great personality and seemed like a very down to earth kid (not to mention all of the off-ice community work). I ran into him at the airport last summer and congratulated him and the team on a good season and he seemed genuinely glad to receive the praise from a fan.

But yes, all of that has to be reconciled with the reality that we can't keep every player as we move forward.

[calgaryblood]

This is the third team who has given up on Colborne. There comes a point where he's had enough chances and this is who he is.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

This is the third team who has given up on Colborne. There comes a point where he's had enough chances and this is who he is.

Given up on, like Brouwer (Chicago, Washington, St. Louis)?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The trade deadline was feb 29. His hot streak continued past that through end of season (almost half his goals) which changed the possible arbitration outcomes. In a cap world losing players for nothing is not just expected, it is sometimes required

Plus, it a team wants to improve, you can't just bring back all the same guys

[timbit]

Posted this in grade the first day of UFA. Thought it might be more appropriate here.

Some are adamant that the Flames dropped the ball in not coming up with a qualifying offer and eventually losing Joe.
The Flames were not going to arbitration. Period. Nor was he tradable under the veil of potential arbitration.
When a agreeable number could not be negotiated, the Flames went in another direction.
They signed a player who is a consistent and hard to play against 40 point player who makes the players he plays with better.
It is doubtful that many here will claim that Joe had the wear with all to become that type of player.
Great person and an asset to the community but...he put all his chips in and lost to a far better hand.
Brouwer is a proven commodity who will make a big and positive difference to the Flames and specifically their young players.
That in itself is worth a good portion of what he is being paid.

[Street Pharmacist]

Wherewithal, but generally agree. Have to say though that Brouwer is too expensive for what I think he'll bring

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by SebC

He's improved his points/game for three consecutive seasons.

We let go of an RFA who was better than 0.5 p/g and trending up, for nothing, and replaced him with a lower scoring, older, more expensive UFA.

Time to stop worshipping Treliving.

Why?

Lets pretend I agree and this was a big oops by him, does that erase the past 2 years of his amazing record?

Even if this was a mistake, I still think he is one of the top NHL GMs, aka, worshipable.