Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I guess I’m just not sure of your point. Ferland is going to play hockey. Ferland stands a very good chance of playing his current brand of hockey (which isn’t bulldozing Bieksa anymore, but is still worthwhile) for years to come. Whether he does it for us, or does it for another team is ultimately the question.
Now, could those years turn into months with one bad hit? Sure, but that’s true of any player. That’s true of Crosby, who has struggled more with concussions than most active players in the league. Do you sign a guy despite knowing there’s a risk he might get hurt? Of course you do. That’s every day in the league. That’s every contract. The risk is higher for guys with concussion issues, but it’s still just a risk, not a guarantee.
And please, save the Helen Lovejoy act. You know SFA about my thought process. My post wasn’t meant to downplay the seriousness of concussions in general, but to downplay the idea that Ferland is “one hit away from being out of the league.” Yeah, lots of guys are. It’s irrelevant to the conversation of whether to sign a guy. You can’t predict the health of a player over their contract. If it doesn’t go well, LTIR exists.
You want to factor it in to how long to sign him? Sure, makes sense. But “No to this player period, he might get a concussion” is borderline ridiculous.
|
No. I'm no to Ferland period because hes not a good hockey player if he isn't fully engaged playing the hard brand of hockey that made him so popular here. If hes not playing that kind of hockey, he is a useless plug . We've all seen it, I dont know why people can't accept it.
His recent concussion history is an added concern.
You and others want Ferland back for a style of hockey he likely cannot sustain.