What are your thoughts on Joe Colborne so far?

[Yoho]

I don't think he hurts us. If he finds a way to pot a couple the tone of this thread will change dramatically.

We are a few injuries away from fielding a full on AHL team anyway this year.

Give him a chance.

[HartAttack]

Only 50% of 1st rounders ever play steady minutes in the NHL, so how does a 4th round pick ever get considered a bad deal?

That being said, he needs to earn his ice time, and learning the Flames system may be a big part of that for Colborne. I would say Horak has already been through those growing pains and has earned those regular minutes over Colborne at this point

[FBI]

You can only use the "he's still learning the system" excuse for so many games.. Probably just a few more and then we need to see something.. Otherwise Horak is better.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Colborne is a 2008 draftee. So if we had a 2008 draftee that was unable to crack the team, would you keep him and hope he pans out or trade him for a 4th?

I think the fairer comparison for this trade is what percentage of kids, 5 years after being drafted, haven't yet cracked an NHL team but will still turn out to be good players? Compare that to your chance of finding a better player with a 4th round pick.

In your listed Flames draftees, 2 of 9 have a hope. Is the chance of finding a 5 year out reclamation project like Colborne more than 2 in 9? My gut feeling is that a fresh 4th round pick is a better bet than this type of reclamation project. Once we have a decent set of games in the Joe Colborne sample, I hope I'm very wrong.

Colborne is a 1990 baby, same as:

Cundari, Jooris, Knight and Hanowski.

Is it too late for all of them as well? Trade 'em all for picks?

[puckluck2]

The Butler of forwards.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Colborne is a 2008 draftee. So if we had a 2008 draftee that was unable to crack the team, would you keep him and hope he pans out or trade him for a 4th?

I think the fairer comparison for this trade is what percentage of kids, 5 years after being drafted, haven't yet cracked an NHL team but will still turn out to be good players? Compare that to your chance of finding a better player with a 4th round pick.

In your listed Flames draftees, 2 of 9 have a hope. Is the chance of finding a 5 year out reclamation project like Colborne more than 2 in 9? My gut feeling is that a fresh 4th round pick is a better bet than this type of reclamation project. Once we have a decent set of games in the Joe Colborne sample, I hope I'm very wrong.

A 23 year old reclamation project? Far too young for the word "reclamation" needing to be applied.

And what is your definition of "good"? First line player, top 6 forward, everyday NHLer? What are your expectations of "good" on Colborne?

[Ashasx]

It would be best for him to be sent down... Unfortunately, we can't do that.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by FBI

You can only use the "he's still learning the system" excuse for so many games.. Probably just a few more and then we need to see something.. Otherwise Horak is better.

so what you're saying is he's sill learning the system.

He didn't get training camp or pre season like everyone else. Give him time during the game and a couple of optional practices and judge him then.

[foshizzle11]

I think if after say 10 games if he hasn't done what the coaches are looking for, then he sits or gets sent down. Doubt anyone picks him up. And Horak or someone who is playing well and deserves it comes up.

Anything short of 10 games won't be enough to truly evaluate IMO.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Colborne is a 1990 baby, same as:

Cundari, Jooris, Knight and Hanowski.

Is it too late for all of them as well? Trade 'em all for picks?

That's a nicely derailed train of thought. Note that I was addressing the pick and the comforting notion that we gave up little to get Colborne. The corollary is that the other team also believes they gave up little.

Devo22 made a nice point about our past 4th rounders. I noted that the decision can then be boiled down to the % chance of a future 4th round pick paying off versus the chance of payoff from receiving a 5 year prior drafted player that another team is ready to relinquish 'cheaply.' Given our 10 year drafting history then it is possible to start playing with some percentages and see what side of the odds we made our bet on.

So not really sure how your examples relate. 2 of the players were acquired because another team valued proven vets that we had (was Colborne a part of the Iginla or Bouwmeester trades?), 1 did not like the situation / contract offered from his team who could then lose him for free (broadly similar to our situation with Erixon), and the other (corrections welcome) was a free try-out.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

It would be best for him to be sent down... Unfortunately, we can't do that.

This is truth.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

The Butler of forwards.

Damn, that's harsh!

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Colborne is a 2008 draftee. So if we had a 2008 draftee that was unable to crack the team, would you keep him and hope he pans out or trade him for a 4th?

I think the fairer comparison for this trade is what percentage of kids, 5 years after being drafted, haven't yet cracked an NHL team but will still turn out to be good players? Compare that to your chance of finding a better player with a 4th round pick.

In your listed Flames draftees, 2 of 9 have a hope. Is the chance of finding a 5 year out reclamation project like Colborne more than 2 in 9? My gut feeling is that a fresh 4th round pick is a better bet than this type of reclamation project. Once we have a decent set of games in the Joe Colborne sample, I hope I'm very wrong.

I'm afraid your gut is completely wrong.

I did a little project over the summer where I looked at the chances of a draft pick becoming an NHL player. From 1990 to 2004 only 65 players picked from 91 to 120 (the modern equivalent of a 4th round pick) played more than 300 games in the NHL. That equates to a 10% chance of a 4th rounder becoming an NHL player. In '94, '97 and '03 only ONE player in the entire 4th round of each year played more than 300 games.

And keep in mind that the 300 game threshold that I used doesn't mean they were spectacular players either. Guys like Oleg Saprykin played more than 300 games in the NHL.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

A 23 year old reclamation project? Far too young for the word "reclamation" needing to be applied.

And what is your definition of "good"? First line player, top 6 forward, everyday NHLer? What are your expectations of "good" on Colborne?

The Leafs have him for 2 years and decide that their chances of drafting an equal or better player in the 4th round is higher than keeping Colborne and attempting to develop him into an NHLer.

I admit "reclamation" is not the best word here in that he's never been an NHLer. But his stock has clearly fallen from the time of his draft, to the point where he was valued as being a 4th rounder. This isn't controversial and doesn't mean he won't develop into a player here in Calgary. But let's be clear about the implicit message when a team accepts a 4th round pick for someone that's been in their organization for 2 years.

I said "good" because the 2 useful 4th rounders in our recent history were Brodie and Gaudreau. Both aren't NHL players right now, but one is and the other is a top 3 prospect in the organization... I used "good" but you can substitute your word of choice.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I'm afraid your gut is completely wrong.

I did a little project over the summer where I looked at the chances of a draft pick becoming an NHL player. From 1990 to 2004 only 65 players picked from 91 to 120 (the modern equivalent of a 4th round pick) played more than 300 games in the NHL. That equates to a 10% chance of a 4th rounder becoming an NHL player. In '94, '97 and '03 only ONE player in the entire 4th round of each year played more than 300 games.

And keep in mind that the 300 game threshold that I used doesn't mean they were spectacular players either. Guys like Oleg Saprykin played more than 300 games in the NHL.

Those are great data.

So trading Colborne for a 4th then implicitly says the Flames think he's equal to or better than a 1 in 10 bet to turn into an NHLer.

Faint praise indeed.

Edit: But note again that the fair comparison is comparing the chances of a future 4th rounder of making it to the NHL versus a player who has not yet made it and was drafted 5 years ago.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The Leafs have him for 2 years and decide that their chances of drafting an equal or better player in the 4th round is higher than keeping Colborne and attempting to develop him into an NHLer.

I admit "reclamation" is not the best word here in that he's never been an NHLer. But his stock has clearly fallen from the time of his draft, to the point where he was valued as being a 4th rounder. This isn't controversial and doesn't mean he won't develop into a player here in Calgary. But let's be clear about the implicit message when a team accepts a 4th round pick for someone that's been in their organization for 2 years.

I said "good" because the 2 useful 4th rounders in our recent history were Brodie and Gaudreau. Both aren't NHL players right now, but one is and the other is a top 3 prospect in the organization... I used "good" but you can substitute your word of choice.

Someone else posted a far more articulate and scientific post the I could ever dream of in regards to likely hood of a 4th round pick making and succeeded in the NHL, so I'll leave that to stand on it's own. Th fact that the Flames have found a gem in Brodie in the 4th round (still very un-proven) and we all think that Gaudreau will become the next St.Louis (again, the guy has still never played in the NHL) is not really the bench mark to be using. Statistacilly, even making the assumption both Brodie and Gaudreau pan out, they are outliers, not the norm for 4th round picks.

But I agree, Colborne should not be considered by anyone here as "1st round pick" we acquired for a 4th. Agreed he should no longer be evaluated or have expectations of a legit 1st rounder, if he did, he would not be here with us right now, he'd have stuck with one of the two organizations he was with before us. That's why I asked what would "good" mean to you. To me, if he becomes an NHL regular, even on the 4th line for a 5 year career, he'd more than warrant the value given up because chances are we wouldn't have drafted a player that would become that with the pick we gave up.

Also, your thought on him being worth only a 4th isn't entirely accurate because of his situation. His value in that trade was impacted by the fact that everyone new Toronto had to pass him through waivers and would lose him for nothing, which meant they likely accepted less for him than they would have done in normal circumstances. Doesn't change the fact like you said that Toronto obviously didn't value him enough to keep him on the NHL roster, but it also doesn't mean that a 4th rounder is his pure value at this point.

[Imported_Aussie]

He is a project. He is learning the system and being told by coaching and management staff that he needs to make changes to his game to be better on the defensive side of the puck. These changes take time. Worst case, he goes on waivers and is picked up, but if he is that behind the pace, he isn't likely to be picked up

[TheDebaser]

Give him at the very least 25 games before we send him through waivers. Jesus have some ####ing patience guys.

[thymebalm]

I am disappoint. I expect that to change. so there's hope!

[cannon7]

Hartley isn't using him much, he's getting McGrattan type ice-time -- it's tough to make an impact with those kinds of minutes without fighting.