Confirmed with Link: Ferland Re-Signed, Two Year Deal, $825k AAV
- Thread starter Ace Rimmer
- Start date
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Rangediddy
The puck was in
- Oct 28, 2011
- 3,710
- 809
Brian McGrattan says hi. Wow. I can't believe that's how you view a situation like this. Well, actually I can believe it.
The guy would have worked his ass off to go from an alcoholic with anger issues to earn his way onto an NHL roster. You're looking at his 30 game body of work as the end all be all of what he can be as a player. Management sees a kid who works hard to make himself better and is rewarding his stellar playoff performance and work ethic off the ice. There are bigger problem contracts on this roster than a sub-$900k for one year.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Me neither, but it's not horribly bad as he'd be the lowest paid guy on the team. It doesn't handcuff the team in any event (from a cap standpoint) and it ain't my money so I give no ****s.
The contract is also back-loaded, meaning his QO after this contract is up is based on the $900,000 salary he'd be making next season.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
a situation like this? C'mon man, he chose to start drinking, he chose to get into a bar fight. He should not be handed something because he pulled it together. And I am basing my opinion on Ferland on what I have seen in 2+ years. He has shown zero consistency as a professional.
I applaud him for getting his life in order, I just think using it as a reason to give him a contract he hasn't earned is a farce. I have dependencies on food, should my boss give me a raise because I lose weight? No, I didn't think so.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
The NHL's substance abuse policy protects teams from that exact scenario. If he backslides, he is suspended without pay and goes into the program to clean up.
He's clean and sober right now, and has been for a while as far as I know. Why not reward him for that?
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
It's the principle. The first year is okay @ 750k, but 900k next year and a QO offer of 945k the following year haven't been earned.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Honestly, if he hasn't *earned* the $945k qualifying offer (if that salary even needs to be qualified, not sure what next year's cutoff is) then don't extend a QO, it's really that simple.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Why should someone be rewarded for doing something he should have already been doing? I'm not saying turn our back on him because he deserves credit but someone claiming sobering up is a reason to give him a two year deal is a joke. My boss won't give me a raise if I lose weight. Will a boss give an employee a raise if they quit gambling or smoking? No. Why should this be different.
Dertell
Registered User
- Jul 14, 2015
- 2,923
- 474
-continuing from the other thread-
If anything he's more likely to take a big step forward. But let's say Ferland is bad next year. So bad it's unlikely he grows his game enough to be even worth 825k. Then waive him. His AAV is low enough to be completely buried in the AHL, meaning 0$ of cap space taken.
If anything it's probably his side who wanted a one-year term to be eligible for arbitration earlier.
If anything he's more likely to take a big step forward. But let's say Ferland is bad next year. So bad it's unlikely he grows his game enough to be even worth 825k. Then waive him. His AAV is low enough to be completely buried in the AHL, meaning 0$ of cap space taken.
If anything it's probably his side who wanted a one-year term to be eligible for arbitration earlier.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Well for starters, you're not a public figure / role model last time I checked. I may be wrong and you may have fans & groupies that I don't know about either, what do I know. Besides, if you smoke/gamble/overeat and it doesn't affect your job, I couldn't care less if you did those things. If you quit those things and your job performance improved, I'd reward you too - for improved job performance not for quitting the dastardly thing. Ferland did improve enough last year to find his way onto the NHL squad. Yes it's the old "defer to authority" argument but I can't see the Flames saying "hey, he's been trying really hard to clean up his personal life, let's see if he's good at hockey in the NHL" can you? No, he played better than an established player, and earned a roster spot. Sure the giving him this contract isn't necessarily a reward for being sober. I can almost guarantee you that if he wasn't clean & sober he wouldn't have gotten a contract.
Yes they are, at his salary he can be re-assigned to Stockton without any cap implications.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Exactly Ace..... Reward for improved results. Ferland didn't really improve except against the Canucks and let's be honest if Bieksa wasn't a caveman will no intelligence and little discipline then Ferland wouldn't have been half as effective. Against the Ducks he wasn't half as good because they are a smarter team.
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2011
- 10,959
- 653
Someone on another site made a good point that at least he's cost controlled for another year. If he did end up breaking out next season, it would suck to have to give him a raise in the same year Gio, Monahan, and Gaudreau's new contracts will all take effect. Having the extra year staggers the re-signings a little, and allows some of the other Flames contracts to expire before worrying about Ferland.
Absolute worst case scenario, if he's somehow not worth 825k, they just put him on waivers and he gets picked up or buried at no cap cost.
Rangediddy
The puck was in
- Oct 28, 2011
- 3,710
- 809
His performance to finish the season along with his work ethic, which is emphasized by him overcoming addition is what earned him a contract.
If you were a big, fat, crappy employee who decided to lose weight and become a good employee, then yes, you deserve a raise.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
I'm not saying that it's a contract that will **** us or anything but it does set a precedent for a guy being mediocre for over half his pro career getting a 2 year deal because he was able to get under the geico cave and skin for a few games
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Well he improved enough to go from not making the team in training camp to being one of the callups at the end of the regular season, so he was doing enough right things.
Against the Ducks he didn't improve because in Game 1 he ran into someone bigger than him who caught his jaw. Wasn't himself in that series after that.
I don't think you're fairly assessing his play after his call-up in February. He was better defensively and more importantly wasn't putting himself out of position in order to do something stupid. For all we know the coaching staff told him "start doing this" and he did - that alone might have been enough to earn the one-way deal.
Last edited:
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Ferland didn't improve once he was sober though, in fact other than the Vancouver series I'd say he was worse this year. His stretch after beiges the down was almost as bad as his first attempt at being a pro, he was terrible and contributed nothing.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
He didn't improve though. This time he got the call originally because Wolf was hurt, last year he was in line former he call up and then he was hurt. He was only called up this year because he was the only healthy physical player.
And his issue against the Ducks was a stomach muscle, we just assumed it was a concussion. But he had the same injury against the Canucks too. The difference was the fact that none of the Ducks were as stupid as Bieksa and they move the puck twice as fast so Ferland couldn't take runs at them.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
We weren't watching the same player then. I agree he was crap (not really the right word, he was all over the place and a total mess) in his first call up (November?) and was sent back down for obvious reasons. I don't know exactly what the difference was, but he was clearly better the second call-up. I thought he was generally better positionally, and became a whirling dervish in the ploffs.
Maybe one of the advanced stats guys can roll out one of those things that shows if it was a better quality of linemate or something.
HighLifeMan
#SnowyStrong
- Feb 26, 2009
- 7,297
- 2,468
He was initially called up at the start of the season because he was the best player in Adirondack by a mile, and the stats back that up. After returning he struggled immensely for roughly 10-15 games but was beginning to turn it around upon his second recall. Inconsistencies are to be expected in all young players.
Ferland absolutely has improved otherwise he would not have stuck on this roster for 26 games during the regular season, and certainly would not have been given a chance in the playoffs either.
Ferland has come a long ways in the past two years both on and off the ice. It's nice to see him rewarded for turning things around.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Sorry I was thinking about the second recall. He was playing like an Oilers reject when he got the second recall. He did have a good start and earned that recall, but that was the same as he played before being injured the year before
Happy for Ferland 
As for the drinking aspect, the dude worked so hard to achieve sobriety so I'm guessing the Flames are telling him tow rom just as hard at hockey.
As for the drinking aspect, the dude worked so hard to achieve sobriety so I'm guessing the Flames are telling him tow rom just as hard at hockey.
HighLifeMan
#SnowyStrong
- Feb 26, 2009
- 7,297
- 2,468
Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from. Ferland has absolutely been consistently inconsistent to this point in his career, and realistically has not "earned" that second year, but that's how the business works. Best case scenario we are all extremely happy Flames fans this time next year.. worst case...nothing is really lost.
It's a great contract for both sides, whether or not Ferland has done enough to date to justify the assurance of a second year.
