What will Colborne's new contract be?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by saillias

I don't know about the "he did it in meaningless games" argument. There are 82 games a year, playoffs or not they play all of them and are paid for all of them. Colborne didn't just choose to start scoring now.

An arbitrator would ignore that argument because 35+ points is 35+ points.

Not to mention Colborne was solid in the playoffs. Not exactly meaningless games...

[FanIn80]

The Calgary Flames need three things:

- #1 RW
- #1 G
- 1 legitimate second line forward (to play with Bennet/Frolik)

The RW and G are self-explanatory, but the addition of a "legitimate" 2nd line forward is just as important, as it will allow us to use guys like Backlund, Colborne, Ferland, Bouma, Hathaway as third line checking or fourth line energy guys instead of second line scorers.

The longer we're forced to play guys like Colborne on the second line for us, the worse it's going to get. 1, we won't get consistent second-line production and 2, we'll have to start paying them as second line players.

So, if we can't get someone to shore up the second line alongside Bennett and Frolik, then we're going to continue to be a one-line team except we'll be stuck with 3rd and 4th line players making 2nd and 3rd line money - and that's the rut we've been in since a looooong time ago.

Legit #1 RW
Legit #1 G
Legit #3-#6 forward

It doesn't matter which order; they're all important.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Are you saying we shouldn't sign Colborne because we don't have enough good top-6 forwards? Because that makes no sense. Signing a 3rd line player to 3rd line dollars has no effect on us signing or not signing a top-6 forward..

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

The Calgary Flames need three things:

- #1 RW
- #1 G
- 1 legitimate second line forward (to play with Bennet/Frolik)

The RW and G are self-explanatory, but the addition of a "legitimate" 2nd line forward is just as important, as it will allow us to use guys like Backlund, Colborne, Ferland, Bouma, Hathaway as third line checking or fourth line energy guys instead of second line scorers.

The longer we're forced to play guys like Colborne on the second line for us, the worse it's going to get. 1, we won't get consistent second-line production and 2, we'll have to start paying them as second line players.

So, if we can't get someone to shore up the second line alongside Bennett and Frolik, then we're going to continue to be a one-line team except we'll be stuck with 3rd and 4th line players making 2nd and 3rd line money - and that's the rut we've been in since a looooong time ago.

Legit #1 RW
Legit #1 G
Legit #3-#6 forward

It doesn't matter which order; they're all important.

I think it's kind of funny that with 5 good/servicable top 6 forwards (Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Frolik) we have so much trouble creating 2 working lines. I feel like it shouldn't be such a huge deal to have a couple of guys playing a notch above their level, yet most of the time the lines just don't work that well.

But yeah, I mostly agree. I would just comment that I don't think we necessarily need a "legit #1" RW, if we could just find a guy that's a good fit. As for Colborne, I think people would pretty much instantly forget to hate him if he wasn't playing above his head all the time.

(Plus I don't think you can compare the problems lack of goaltending creates with anything else. Everything else can be worked around to some extent, but bad goaltending just kills a team.)

[polak]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The only thing Colborne has really struggled with is consistency. He's been more consistent this season and the stats back it up.

You can use sh% to say he'll fall back down, but literally everything else indicates that he'll continue to trend up.

It's always a safe bet that young players get better the more time they spend in the NHL. Colborne is still young. Math checks out. Not sure why you're surprised by this.

He's 26. Firmly past the age at which you can assume he'll continue to improve.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I bet he gets a 3 year deal, north of $2.5MM per season.

Whether that is with the Flames or another club is a different matter altogether. I would give him that deal if I were Brad. He's a 30 point guy and that's the going rate.

If it is North of 2.5 he can be gone. I am fine with 2.5 or anything below.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by polak

He's 26. Firmly past the age at which you can assume he'll continue to improve.

I wonder why this is such a difficult concept for some people. There are forwards who have already been seeing a peak --> downswing around this age. Lucic, Setoguchi, Clarkson, Kessel, Raymond, Stamkos, Nyquist, . Yet somehow Colborne will progress? Even if he's playing the best hockey of his career right now, which I'll acquiesce, there is nothing to indicate it's not just a case of a small sample size abberation. The red flags on Colborne just remind me of Rene Bourque.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by polak

He's 26. Firmly past the age at which you can assume he'll continue to improve.

So 26 is the age we can expect players to regress?

Okay I'm done with this thread. I can't handle the amount of stupid in here.

[FanIn80]

This is my idea of what our depth chart is, minus the dead weight.



I made this in Excel to illustrate my point a little better. I think Colborne is a very good 3rd line checker, and I think the sooner we fill the hole on the 2nd line and get Colborne playing on the 3rd line, the better off we'll be.

Players are (generally) paid and judged according to their role on a team. Right now, Colborne is in a top-six role, but he isn't a top-six player. This means we have a 3rd line checker being judged against top-six results. Worse, going into contract negotiations, he can make the claim that in Calgary, he's a top-six forward, and should be paid as such. The problem is that if we can't add that top-six F we're missing (not counting the #1 RW), then we'll most likely have to suck it up and sign him anyway - which means we'll not only have a 3rd line player in a top-six role, but we'll also be paying a 3rd line player top-six dollars.

This is the cycle we've been in since the early 90s, and it's the one thing I want Treliving to snap us out of more than anything else.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by polak

He's 26. Firmly past the age at which you can assume he'll continue to improve.

I agree when it comes to offense, but there isn't really anything wrong with Colbornes production right now, as long as you're not overpaying for it. Even if we get a couple of wingers to push Colborne out of the top 6, he'd probably still be playing with Backlund and getting essentially the same EV minutes. It's not like he's been padding his points on the PP as we know all too well

Many players do become incrementally better defensively all through their careers really, unless they become lazy. Obviously it's unlikely Colborne will ever be a Selke winner, but it's not unreasonable to think he could still round out that part of his game.

If Colborne can put up 12-15 goals and 30 points playing with Backlund in the 3rd line, that's solid depth scoring that's worth money and a contract. Not huge piles of money, but some money anyway.

EDIT: Pretty much what FanIn80 said

[PsYcNeT]

Shot out of a cannon into the sun/149.6 million KM @ 200m/s or ~23.71 years assuming he leaves the atmosphere at the same speed he was shot from the cannon.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

So 26 is the age we can expect players to regress?

Okay I'm done with this thread. I can't handle the amount of stupid in here.

Did I say that? No. I said that it's definitely the age where you can't just assume they will get better, especially when you're talking contracts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Are you saying we shouldn't sign Colborne because we don't have enough good top-6 forwards? Because that makes no sense. Signing a 3rd line player to 3rd line dollars has no effect on us signing or not signing a top-6 forward..

The problem is that you don't know what 3rd line dollars are.

Almost all teams have, at most, one 3rd liner making OVER 2 million. You want to pay Colborne 2.5 when we already have Backlund at 3.5.

Sorry, I'm going to say goodbye to Colborne, pay someone 1.5 to replace him, and keep overpaying Backlund if it's up to me (yes, it's not).

[polak]

Originally Posted by Itse

I agree when it comes to offense, but there isn't really anything wrong with Colbornes production right now, as long as you're not overpaying for it. Even if we get a couple of wingers to push Colborne out of the top 6, he'd probably still be playing with Backlund and getting essentially the same EV minutes. It's not like he's been padding his points on the PP as we know all too well

Many players do become incrementally better defensively all through their careers really, unless they become lazy. Obviously it's unlikely Colborne will ever be a Selke winner, but it's not unreasonable to think he could still round out that part of his game.

If Colborne can put up 12-15 goals and 30 points playing with Backlund in the 3rd line, that's solid depth scoring that's worth money and a contract. Not huge piles of money, but some money anyway.

EDIT: Pretty much what FanIn80 said

Offensively, sure I can admit that he is capable of producing enough to justify a bottom 6 role but I do worry about how much will his production fall once his Tanguay-esque SH% levels out and if he no longer gets top 6 ice time on a regular basis?

Defensively is where I think he's not even good enough to play in this league. He makes too many mistakes and is too soft on the puck. Almost every time he goes into a battle along the boards he loses the puck. I don't see how that makes him an effective 3rd liner.

I swear people are just looking at his scoring, thinking "hell that's almost 2nd line production! Clearly he can play on the 3rd line then" when realistically, he can't because his defensive play is poor and so is his possession.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by polak

Did I say that? No. I said that it's definitely the age where you can't just assume they will get better, especially when you're talking contracts.

It's also not the age where you can assume they have peaked. Maybe a 26 year old who has been in the NHL since he was 19 or 20. Colborne is a late bloomer and has only been an NHLer for a few seasons.

- Backlund is having a career year offensively at 27.
- Hudler had a career year last year at 31.
- Wideman had a career year last year at 32.
- Russell had a career year last year at 27.
- Gio is an example of a late bloomer (LIKE COLBORNE) who has been having career years from 28-31.

This is JUST the Flames in JUST the span of two years on a team full of young players who don't even qualify for this assessment.

Even if he's hit his peak and 'only' get's 40 points the next few seasons on the 3rd line, that's great.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The problem is that you don't know what 3rd line dollars are.

Almost all teams have, at most, one 3rd liner making OVER 2 million. You want to pay Colborne 2.5 when we already have Backlund at 3.5.

Sorry, I'm going to say goodbye to Colborne, pay someone 1.5 to replace him, and keep overpaying Backlund if it's up to me (yes, it's not).

I have no clue what Colborne will be seeking in compensation, but I'm curious who is the player you replaced Colborne for @ 1.5?

I'm guessing this was in NHL16?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The problem is that you don't know what 3rd line dollars are.

Teams have, at most, one 3rd liner making OVER 2 million. You want to pay Colborne 2.5 when we already have Backlund at 3.5.

Had to look this up, even though post-deadline it's a bit tilted. Still interesting I think, plus a worthwhile argument to look at.


Toronto has 10 forwards making over 2M
Islanders and Blues have 9.
8 teams have 8.
6 teams have 7
10 teams have 6.
Jets have 5
Flames have 4
Hurricanes have only 3.


Next season we're looking at 6 forwards at 2M+, with Gaudreau, Monahan, Frolik, Backlund, Bouma and Stajan. Colborne would make that 7, which would be normal, but starting to be a concern since we're trying to find more guys for the top 6.

Of course it really comes down to actual dollars, and there's the possibility of filling out the top 6 with prospects (Laine or Puljujärvi for the 1st line, and/or Shinkaruk for the 2nd line?), or replacing Stajan and/or Bouma with cheaper options.

Still, I agree with you that it's worth considering in the negotiations. Kind of what FanIn80 said actually. You can't be paying Colborne top 6 money just because he's playing a top 6 role right now. But I believe this is something Colborne gets. It's just a hunch, but I think if Treliving lays this out, Colborne is the kind of guy that will take the safe choice of signing with the Flames for a very reasonable figure.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to check the IR. Lots of teams have guys there, some have several. I corrected the list. Doesn't change the point that much, but it does make it somewhat less of a worry.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The problem is that you don't know what 3rd line dollars are.

Almost all teams have, at most, one 3rd liner making OVER 2 million. You want to pay Colborne 2.5 when we already have Backlund at 3.5.

Sorry, I'm going to say goodbye to Colborne, pay someone 1.5 to replace him, and keep overpaying Backlund if it's up to me (yes, it's not).

Thats rich coming from the poster who gets called out on just about every little thing he posts.

I assume you have some facts to back this up? Why don't you show me 5 teams that only have 1 3rd-4th line player making 2mil+.

In the bottom-6 the Flames ALSO have Stajan at 3.25 and Bouma at 2.2. Not to mention Raymond making 3 mil to play in the AHL.

Nice try, come back with a stronger argument please.

Edit: looks like someone else did the hard work for you as usual.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

It's also not the age where you can assume they have peaked. Maybe a 26 year old who has been in the NHL since he was 19 or 20. Colborne is a late bloomer and has only been an NHLer for a few seasons.



- Backlund is having a career year offensively at 27.

- Hudler had a career year last year at 31.

- Wideman had a career year last year at 32.

- Russell had a career year last year at 27.

- Gio is an example of a late bloomer (LIKE COLBORNE) who has been having career years from 28-31.



This is JUST the Flames in JUST the span of two years on a team full of young players who don't even qualify for this assessment.



Even if he's hit his peak and 'only' get's 40 points the next few seasons on the 3rd line, that's great.

Colborne entered the league at 20, and was a full time player at 22.

Three full seasons is enough time to reach peak production.

Backlund did it, hitting 0.5 PPG during his third full time year (he hasn't eclipsed that mark since, even this career year).

Hudler did it, hitting 0.7 PPG during his third year (eclipsing it once in the 6 years since).

Russell, Wideman, and Gio are all defencemen who peak late and stay at peak for longer.
Do you think he will be more like the 'exception' forwards you named? Or more like the defencemen?

I'm not saying he can't be better but I'm saying it should be viewed as unlikely.

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I have no clue what Colborne will be seeking in compensation, but I'm curious who is the player you replaced Colborne for @ 1.5?



I'm guessing this was in NHL16?

Yeah, had to clean the cheeto dust off my controller and throw in a no-trade clause, but I got Matt Bjorkstrand!

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Itse that's very well written, good on you for taking the time.

It really doesn't tell the whole story though. Every team has top-6 players making under 2 mil as well due to entry level contracts.

4 of the 5 forwards making more than 2mil either play bottom-6 or AHL.