No risk to the signing what so ever. This dime a dozen cap hit will mean nothing to this team even if (and that's a huge if) ferland sucks.
Confirmed with Link: Ferland Re-Signed, Two Year Deal, $825k AAV
- Thread starter Ace Rimmer
- Start date
No risk to the signing what so ever. This dime a dozen cap hit will mean nothing to this team even if (and that's a huge if) ferland sucks.
Ferland has a harder stair to climb what with being a homegrown player but it should be obvious as to why the Flames are high on him; he has the ability to add elements that are sorely lacking in the rest of the roster. It's same rationale behind bringing in someone like Wilson on a PTO over signing an all round decent but not physical Schlemko. It's the same reason why Engelland will likely be the teams sixth defensemen all season. And it's part of the reason why Ferland gets two years and why Jooris, Byron, and Shore get one.
In addition, it's a cap world. Brandishing the stick all the time will be counter productive. Sometimes, the carrot works better.
The rebuild is still in effect. Absolute worst case scenario is Ferland being gifted a spot and minutes like Colborne was in his rookie year with the hope that a consistent situation helps him improve. But I doubt that ends up being the case since Ferland is already better at a younger age. There will be times when he'll be a game changer and other times when he's invisible for stretches. That's just how it goes, especially with power forward types. But seeing as how it's still a relatively small roster lacking truculence, it's in my mind, a given that Ferland will be on the opening day lineup and will play most if not the entire season barring injuries.
In addition, it's a cap world. Brandishing the stick all the time will be counter productive. Sometimes, the carrot works better.
The rebuild is still in effect. Absolute worst case scenario is Ferland being gifted a spot and minutes like Colborne was in his rookie year with the hope that a consistent situation helps him improve. But I doubt that ends up being the case since Ferland is already better at a younger age. There will be times when he'll be a game changer and other times when he's invisible for stretches. That's just how it goes, especially with power forward types. But seeing as how it's still a relatively small roster lacking truculence, it's in my mind, a given that Ferland will be on the opening day lineup and will play most if not the entire season barring injuries.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
No one has suggested there is a lot of risk. Simply said it hasn't been earned and sets a precedent for giving unearned contracts. But people are so busy bowing down to him over 9 games that they can't accept that one might not think Ferland is all that and a bag of chips so I keep having to defend my point.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
What you're failing to do is adequately explain (or argue) why this is a poor contract offer by the Flames.
You keep mention precedent for unearned contracts. Thing is though, the precedent is already set for any player that had success in junior or college. Ferland, on top of that prior success has shown flashes that he's capable in the NHL (sometimes more than capable) as well. Flashes though, yes - not consistently. Hence the sub-$1 million, one-way deal.
There is no risk to the Calgary Flames organization with this contract. If Ferland was a one-hit wonder and goes full Glencross, he gets sent to the minors, plays there for two years (without any cap implications whatsoever to the Calgary Flames) and disappears into obscurity. If he maintains what he did last year (inconsistent regular season) okay he's ever so slightly overpaid. Then his next contract isn't offered, or is reduced, and the grand experiment failed. Worst case scenario, in either event, is "whoops".
What if he improves? What if he turns into a 10 goal scorer with physicality? I would say that this contract suddenly looks a lot better, no? Especially with the year added. Doubly so with a few big contracts coming up next summer.
Two years at that cap hit is completely no risk, all high reward. All it costs the Flames is real money. It could benefit the Flames in a number of ways, most importantly being cap management next off-season.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
An ELC cannot be a precedent because clubs have no choice how long an ELC is, it's all predetermined by the age in which they sign.
It sets a precedent because I can only think of 1 player recently that received a 2 year deal coming off their ELC that was not an established NHLer and that was Ortio who accepted close to the league minimum. Next summer we have guys like Granlund, Wotherspoon, Van Brabant, Arnold and Agostino coming up as RFAs if they have 20 some games with 9 of them good do they deserve a 2 year deal too? No, they don't.
OvermanKingGainer
#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Ferland had 9 better games than Bollig had all season. He makes 66% of what Bollig makes for the exact same period of time.
There are contracts that don't have a place on the Flames, but Ferland's is not one of them.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
There's absolutely zero downside to this though. Zip. Zilch. Nada. None.
Have you considered that it might be the new way second contracts (post ELC) are being awarded? Give slightly higher value with a bit of term and roll the dice that you might buy the player's services on the cheap for a season or two?
If next summer, any of those guys show up and prove they can be a full-time NHL player, I would absolutely have no issue giving them a multi-year contract. Particularly Granlund - who has already kind of shown that he can contribute at the NHL level.
Why not give them a two year deal under $900k if they accept it? It keeps them cost controlled for an extra year, and their salary wouldn't be applied to the cap if sent to the minors. It's not like the owners are raiding your mattress to pay for this contract.
Edit: EHRMAHGERD You're actually Kevin Bieska and have never heard of Ferland. That's the problem.
Last edited:
Mobiandi
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2015
- 21,094
- 17,561
2 years @ 825k is **** all in today's NHL. I like this deal. It shows the organization has faith in him and are willing to support him if he hits a wall this season (playing-wise) and gives him more leeway and a bit less pressure to prove himself given that the stakes are higher now.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
You start giving 2 year deals to every prospect with a decent 9 games and you will run out of contract spaces really quickly. That is most definitely a downside.There's absolutely zero downside to this though. Zip. Zilch. Nada. None.
Have you considered that it might be the new way second contracts (post ELC) are being awarded? Give slightly higher value with a bit of term and roll the dice that you might buy the player's services on the cheap for a season or two?
If next summer, any of those guys show up and prove they can be a full-time NHL player, I would absolutely have no issue giving them a multi-year contract. Particularly Granlund - who has already kind of shown that he can contribute at the NHL level.
Why not give them a two year deal under $900k if they accept it? It keeps them cost controlled for an extra year, and their salary wouldn't be applied to the cap if sent to the minors. It's not like the owners are raiding your mattress to pay for this contract.
Edit: EHRMAHGERD You're actually Kevin Bieska and have never heard of Ferland. That's the problem.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Now it's a contract numbers issue?
If it was every prospect then I would agree with you, but this is hardly a trend. It is one contract. One given to a player that the Flames think that has upside. He also had more than nine "decent" games. He had nine great games though.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
So you were advocating not signing him? Or not signing other players who show the same upside? I'm not on board with either.
I don't think a 825k two-year contract is going to affect anything long term or the short term, tbh
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
I said no such thing, from the beginning I said he deserved no more than 1 year because that is what he has earned. I've never suggested not signing him unless he was asking for over a million.
And this "big upside" of Ferland is something I believe to be nothing more than than a media fueled fallacy based on the playoffs. When GMs talk about how great players are and how regarded they are league wide, I take it with a grain of salt because part of their job is getting the most for any player if they trade them. Comments like "the player we got the most called about at the deadline was Shore" and "One opposition scout said Ferland was the best prospect in the AHL" are clearly over the top statements that Treliving has regurgitated about the value of these guys regarding their value. Frankly any scout suggesting Ferland is a better prospect than Poirier shouldn't be a scout and I didn't even have to look off our farm club to find a better prospect, league wide I could have found a lot of examples.
Ferland over the course of his ELC has been terrible as often as he has been great. If it was a case where he had showed steady improvement it would be different, but that isn't the case. He has wild swings back and forth. Originally he was a healthy scratch in the AHL before going to the ECHL, where he was also a healthy scratch before being sent to junior as an over age player. In the WHL he managed to be a point per game played over 30 games, which for a 20 year old that was pushing 100 points the year before is not all impressive.
The next year he comes to the AHL and was bad to start the year with not a single point in his first dozen games. Then he gets hot with 18 points in 13 games (which I don't consider to be exceptional because at that time the Heat were scoring a ton and his linemates and teammates were also scoring a ton). Then he gets hurt and is out the year, this is also when he chooses to seek sobriety.
Fast forward to this past season and he starts well, he was not "the best forwards on the team" like HLF tried claiming but he was decent with 9 in 9 before being called up, however 5 of those were in his final 2 before the recall. He gets hurt in his first NHL game, comes back a few weeks later and IMO did not look all that great, he was adequate at best. Then he goes back down and he manages 6 points in 23 games, during this time he often lacked physicality, never drove to the net and honestly it didn't seem like he was working hard. Then injuries happen in the NHL and AHL, sending Ferland back to the NHL (this is where I am certain Wolf would have gotten the call-up instead had he been healthy because he had been playing very well). He was better than his first stint, he actually played hard and physical but didn't show any really offensive flair, but looked like a solid 4th liner. Then the playoffs come and he is very good for 9 games.
I'm sorry but in no way does that stand out as a player who has this big upside like everyone like to say, it doesn't stand out as a guy who's so important that you have to deviate from the norm and give a 2 year, one-way deal to. Maybe I am more jaded because he has disappointed me more because I have seen him play outside the NHL. But 9 very good NHL games and less than 30 really good AHL games is not earning that contract. Everything about Ferland's career outside of the playoffs is mediocre, a guy you throw 1 year, 600k two-way deal at and make him earn his next contract.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
I think great is an overstatement though, he played really well but the hype over those games has reached elite levels of ridiculousness.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
But what you said was that the way we dealt with Ferland sets a precedent that could cause us to run out of contract spots. The only alternative to adding to our contracts numbers is to not sign players.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
That's not true. By signing guys who have been so up and down to 2 years deal it eliminates the possibility of walking away if they don't continue developing. Over the last few years if we had given 2 year deals to guys like Blair Jones and Chad Billins we'd now be almost out of roster spots right now.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Blair Jones and Chad Billins didn't show big-league effectiveness over any sample size, so that's not a fair comparison. At best, Jones showed that he could potentially be an effective pest, but before the season ended in his contract year, he'd eroded that hope.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
I literally just threw 2 names out. But frankly outside of the playoffs Ferland hasn't showed anymore than than either of them. His sample size of effectiveness as a professional is less than 50 games.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Why cut that out of the analysis, though? He didn't just look like he belonged in the playoffs- he was one of the biggest contributors to a series win.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,255
- 8,385
That's why I'd give him a 1 year deal instead of walking away from him. Without the playoff I would have been fine if he wasn't given a qualifying offer.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,680
- 6,817
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,680
- 6,817
yeah... but what if he has a great year. like 20 G 20 A while crushing the opposition. And then some team signs him to an offer sheet and we lose him for a late second rounder. because the rest of our cap is going to be spent on Johnny Hockey and Sean Monahan. Greatttt asset management.
This gives us 2 years of cost control, to see what we have in a potential Lucic type player. No risk. Contract spots? come'on. Ferland is worth one of 50 contract spots for 2 years. You just don't like the guy.
SickHandsNoShot
Registered User
- May 7, 2012
- 413
- 0
You cant be serious... It's not like he has not shown promise in the past. Heck, management said part ways through the season, they felt like they had to make a spot for him. Which likely was the Glencross trade.
And even without that, there is no one else in the organization that can do what he can do, at the level he can do it. No one else has the pedigree. No one else has the skill combination, to go with the grit. Letting him walk would have been ridiculous.. even without the playoff performance.
