That is clearly not true at all.
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.
That is clearly not true at all.
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.
What you're failing to do is adequately explain (or argue) why this is a poor contract offer by the Flames.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.
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.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.
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.
There's absolutely zero downside to this though. Zip. Zilch. Nada. None.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.
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.
Now it's a contract numbers issue?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.
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.
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.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 think great is an overstatement though, he played really well but the hype over those games has reached elite levels of ridiculousness.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.