Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
And if Ferland then gets $4 million a year from his new team and the Flames wind up with a first-round pick on the deal, will you then plead guilty to assault?
If a GM deserved a punch in the face every time he traded a player for cap reasons, Stan Bowman would have no face left. But he'd still have three Stanley Cup rings.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Colborne scored 20ish and you support him letting him walk way with no return. Treliving needs to take care of the top 6 core. The rest have to fit or be replaced with a cheaper guy.
|
I like Ferland more than Colborne, I guess is what it comes down to. If, in hypothetical land, Ferland put up almost half of his points in the last quarter, I would be just as skeptical as I am with Joe.... but I wasn't really thinking of it that deeply when I wrote what I did.
Had Colborne put up a consistent 44 point year, my tune would be different. What I saw was a player who was mostly ineffective for 2.5 seasons suddenly turn into Jamie Benn production-wise of 1/4 of a season when the Flames were out of it and the pressure was off. I'm just not convinced. But it is hard for me to compare that to Ferland's would-be 20 goal season when I already like him better.
Besides, I don't think Ferland gets $4m as an RFA, even after after a 20 goal year, not after his disappointing (production-wise) 15/16. He is younger than Colborne, and doesn't have the same past production to warrant a big deal in that situation IMO... but I still like him as a player more.
To be crystal clear... I would be perfectly fine giving Colborne 3 x3m were it not for our collection of bad contracts. I just feel signing him to a deal like that is too risky given that. We should be consolidating cap space, not spreading it out on depth players.