06-27-2016, 07:02 PM
|
#21
|
|
Franchise Player
|
I love the people here. Someone asks if this could be a Colborne comparable and everyone jumps all over the poster when he is 100% right. Shaw is very much a comparable for Colborne when it comes to contract negotiations whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:09 PM
|
#22
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
They need to pay the Montreal premium though due to taxes, despite that I do agree it's a bit high still even with that factored in
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:14 PM
|
#23
|
|
Ass Handler
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Okotoks, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
I love the people here. Someone asks if this could be a Colborne comparable and everyone jumps all over the poster when he is 100% right. Shaw is very much a comparable for Colborne when it comes to contract negotiations whether you like it or not.
|
Yup.
Shaw
24 years old
.425 points per game over 322 games (regular season)
Colborne
26 years old
.454 points per game over 233 games (regular season)
Colborne has better offensive totals, though Shaw has played far more games at this stage of his career. The big difference though, is playoffs.
Shaw
.522 points per game over 67 games.
Colborne
.230 points per game over 13 games.
Last edited by StrykerSteve; 06-27-2016 at 07:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to StrykerSteve For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:15 PM
|
#24
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
I love the people here. Someone asks if this could be a Colborne comparable and everyone jumps all over the poster when he is 100% right. Shaw is very much a comparable for Colborne when it comes to contract negotiations whether you like it or not.
|
If this was a comparable situation to Colborne why would they not qualify Colborne? And a team actually gave two second round picks to Chicago for Shaw. Do you think if Treliving had anything close to that at the draft that he'd not have taken it especially knowing he wasn't going to qualify him?
Calgary could have qualified him and at the very worst paid him Andrew Shaw money for only one year. And they passed.
Again, how is this comparable?
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:18 PM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. George's, Grenada
|
I think it's definitely comparable in the sense that it's likely what Colborne would have been looking for, although not nessesarily what he deserves
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:18 PM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
If this was a comparable situation to Colborne why would they not qualify Colborne? And a team actually gave two second round picks to Chicago for Shaw. Do you think if Treliving had anything close to that at the draft that he'd not have taken it especially knowing he wasn't going to qualify him?
Calgary could have qualified him and at the very worst paid him Andrew Shaw money for only one year. And they passed.
Again, how is this comparable?
|
If you cannot understand how they are comparable then you will never understand, but just a hint look up a post.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:21 PM
|
#27
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
If you cannot understand how they are comparable then you will never understand, but just a hint look up a post.
|
No I'll never understand cause it makes zero sense.
Let's go over this again.
Calgary passed at one year and the very worst what Andrew Shaw will make every year for 6 years.
Calgary could have had Colborne for one year and they still passed on him. What does that tell you about his value?
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to calgaryblood For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:25 PM
|
#28
|
|
RANDOM USER TITLE CHANGE
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Calgary
|
Chicago does this with every player who isn't a core piece. Had a good season? We just earned you a huge payday. Won the cup? Still trading you, we already have our core.
The Flames are finally starting to configure themselves this way. Stajan, Raymond, Wideman, and Smid's salary could more than cover Stamkos or Lucic.
I hate the Blackhawks.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:27 PM
|
#29
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern Crater
|
They are comparable, but that doesn't mean Shaw is worth his new contract. Luckily we have a smart GM.
Shaw should be happy that he was drafted by the Blackhawks. Had he been drafted by an also ran, this contract negotiation would've gone down quite differently. I would sign a guy like this for 3 years 2.5m aav but no higher. And I would only do that if the bottom 6 wasn't plugged up with fat contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 07:31 PM
|
#30
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern Crater
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
No I'll never understand cause it makes zero sense.
Let's go over this again.
Calgary passed at one year and the very worst what Andrew Shaw will make every year for 6 years.
Calgary could have had Colborne for one year and they still passed on him. What does that tell you about his value?
|
It tells you that bad GMs sometimes place too much value on average players who happen to play on Cup winning teams.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire of the Phoenix For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:01 PM
|
#31
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Pretty bad contract... Canadiens continue to be a badly run organization. They seem to be obsessed with competing with the Bruins at all things, including incompetence (Bruins are winning)
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:03 PM
|
#32
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
|
Wow...that is a bad contract.
As much as I would dislike it were Colborne to leave after not being qualified, I'm in no way prepared to offer him a contract like this, even if they aren't exactly comparable players.
This is why I'm willing to let Treliving do his job, even if it looks like he'll lose an asset for nothing. Going the other route of the Bergevins of the league is unacceptable.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:11 PM
|
#33
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Guess who's cheaper?
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:17 PM
|
#34
|
|
RANDOM USER TITLE CHANGE
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Guess who's cheaper?
|
The more expensive (currently) player helped his team win a cup though.
The Habs already have two Gallagher's anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:23 PM
|
#35
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
If this was a comparable situation to Colborne why would they not qualify Colborne? And a team actually gave two second round picks to Chicago for Shaw. Do you think if Treliving had anything close to that at the draft that he'd not have taken it especially knowing he wasn't going to qualify him?
Calgary could have qualified him and at the very worst paid him Andrew Shaw money for only one year. And they passed.
Again, how is this comparable?
|
And Colborne would then file for arbitration and use the contract and career stats as his argument, and the arbitrator could have decided on 2 years. The arbitrator would have no real option than to give him the money. Flames decided to not qualify and hopefully negotiate a more fair deal in free agency and if Colborne won't sign then let him walk.
Arbitration is the problem in the whole equation. If a player has 1 or 2 good years he can cash in.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Beatle17 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 08:57 PM
|
#36
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17
And Colborne would then file for arbitration and use the contract and career stats as his argument, and the arbitrator could have decided on 2 years. The arbitrator would have no real option than to give him the money. Flames decided to not qualify and hopefully negotiate a more fair deal in free agency and if Colborne won't sign then let him walk.
Arbitration is the problem in the whole equation. If a player has 1 or 2 good years he can cash in.
|
The arbitrator doesn't get to choose the length. If it's a player elected arbitration the team can decide on one year or two.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 09:02 PM
|
#37
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: I will never cheer for losses
|
Wow! The money isn't awful, bit 6 years is way too much to give a guy like Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 09:02 PM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Six years is way too long for this type of player. Bad contract.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 09:03 PM
|
#39
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
The arbitrator doesn't get to choose the length. If it's a player elected arbitration the team can decide on one year or two.
|
But then his qualifying offer the next season is over $4M, so the team loses either way.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2016, 09:04 PM
|
#40
|
|
Franchise Player
|
When's the last time the Habs had a competent GM?
__________________
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. I love power.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 PM.
|
|
