Is it a good time to sell high on M. Ferland? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Split98 · 02-12-2018, 09:24 AM

It would have to be a big over-payment, but I'd at least hope that Treliving is open to options like this.

I agree that his value could be at it's peak right now, but he's definitely earned it. Unless it's something silly coming the other way, I think Ferland has earned the right to be a staple on the Monahan-Gaudreau line and the team is better for it.

RoughRiderRowdy · 02-12-2018, 09:28 AM

Love ferly but he cannot create offense on his own

gvitaly · 02-12-2018, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Sure - get rid of him.

And, while you're at it, get rid of every young person in a job because mostly, they're terrible at it, even if they are fair value for the money you're paying them.

They also make lousy team players because they tend to be a bit erratic, and can't yet be trusted with the keys to the kingdom.

Sometimes they underperform. And every once in a while surprise you. Sometimes they even show up for work.

But sure - get rid of 'em all.

Smacks of millennial impatience to me. (Yup - old guy yelling at the cloud....)

Seriously: I *like* Ferland - he has his issues, but bringing "it" pretty much every game isn't one of them. He works hard, doesn't take a lot of dumb penalties, and is learning at a greater rate than I expect of a guy from whom nobody expected anything at all.

No one suggested he was doing a bad job, just that his value in a trade might be at its highest, which in turn could outweigh a year and a half of Ferland playing for the Flames. I am glad I gave you an excuse to go on a rant though.

Red_Baron · 02-12-2018, 09:38 AM

If you can package a goalie (maybe not after last night) and/or a defensive prospect and Ferland for a legit top 6 scoring winger under 29, I think you do it.

I like what he brings and he has far exceeded my expectations as an NHL player but he is far from untouchable. To get quality back in a trade, you need to give some up, we can't just package the junk that we want to get rid of and expect to land an elite player.

Classic_Sniper · 02-12-2018, 09:49 AM

Sometimes I just don't understand this place. Why are so many people on this board so keen on trading players who play on the most shallow positions on the team. The idea of trading players like TJ Brodie or Micheal Ferland is just plain foolish. Does having zero depth on right wing or left side defense make us a better team in any way?

Who's going to play these position if we ship these guys out? If TJ Brodie is traded, we are then forced to play Kulak in the top 4 and Bartkowski on the bottom pair and that just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Moving Ferland means we only have Frolik, Brouwer and a bunch of Stockton call ups as options. Trading players in a position of weakness is not formula for success in this league.

tvp2003 · 02-12-2018, 09:51 AM

As a fan, absolutely not. I'm happy/proud to cheer for a guy like Ferly and I'm glad he's on our team.

As a GM, it would have to take a significant overpayment that helps the team now (including filling his spot on the top line). I don't think he will be another Lance Bouma (circa 14/15) but his shooting percentage is unsustainably high (18.2%). Fortunately, I still think he has room to grow as a player (he's starting to show great vision as a passer), and a lot of his shot attempts miss the net (because he's trying to pick the corner with that lethal shot/release). I also don't think his goals are merely as a result of tapping in Gaudreau's filthy assists -- there's no question he has benefitted from playing on the top line but his development is exactly where we want it to be. Another productive year next year (I don't expect him to be a perennial 30 goal scorer but 20-25 goals is perfect) and you're happy to pay him for what he brings. I also think he'd be more than willing to stay at a hometown discount.

Imported_Aussie · 02-12-2018, 09:56 AM

Trade a guy playing well on the first line, on a great value contract with another year remaining, who is trending upwards, in the middle of the season whilst in playoff contention?
Give your head a shake!

The only way Ferland is moved IMO is in an offseason deal, when you have time to readjust your roster, and he is being moved as a way to address a positional need on the team. Funny thing about that though - right now he is our 1st line RW, and that position is the biggest need to address. So it would need to be a series of moves, as in at the very least something like Brodie for a RW, Ferland for a LD - basically trading him is predicated on replacing him, which would likely have to happen in a separate trade.

Is he untouchable? Absolutely not. He isn't Gaudreau, Monahan or Tkachuk. But trading him now does not make sense, and even in the offseason, only makes sense as part of a roster overhaul.

Have people been looking at the NBA and what Cleveland did to their roster and start thinking "hey, let's trade half our roster mid-season too!"

Erick Estrada · 02-12-2018, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corral

Threads like this make me realize that most fans are only interested in trades for the sake of trades because it gives them something to talk about it. Trade deadline day must be Christmas morning for many of you.

No other fans in professional sports are more obsessed about trades than NHL fans. It's the only sport that has dedicated trade deadline shows. I think there is more movement in the NHL than other sports in regards to trades but there is definitely a large portion of fans that like to see trades just for the sake of trades happening.

gvitaly · 02-12-2018, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Sometimes I just don't understand this place. Why are so many people on this board so keen on trading players who play on the most shallow positions on the team. The idea of trading players like TJ Brodie or Micheal Ferland is just plain foolish. Does having zero depth on right wing or left side defense make us a better team in any way?

Who's going to play these position if we ship these guys out? If TJ Brodie is traded, we are then forced to play Kulak in the top 4 and Bartkowski on the bottom pair and that just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Moving Ferland means we only have Frolik, Brouwer and a bunch of Stockton call ups as options. Trading players in a position of weakness is not formula for success in this league.

Wouldn’t the depth depend on who you will be getting back in said trade? Also Ferland is a LW playing RW, so if you get a 1st line RW instead that would improve your RW depth. As for Brodie some posters see this team as having 5 top 4 D, so Stone would slot into the top 4(a pairing with two righties). At the same time it would address a need on the wing and open a spot for a prospect on the 3rd pairing. I can see the reasoning behind both.

taxbuster · 02-12-2018, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvitaly

No one suggested he was doing a bad job, just that his value in a trade might be at its highest, which in turn could outweigh a year and a half of Ferland playing for the Flames. I am glad I gave you an excuse to go on a rant though.

The point was patience.

Why trade a known - and developing nicely - quantity for an unknown one? Chemistry with Mono and Johnny would be a crapshoot.

Patience to let him, and the line, develop. Ferly is creating space for the other two to do their thing. How would you "outweigh a year and a half of Ferland playing for the Flames"? You'd have to overpay for someone else....not sure that is a bargain.

Classic_Sniper · 02-12-2018, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Wouldn’t the depth depend on who you will be getting back in said trade? Also Ferland is a LW playing RW, so if you get a 1st line RW instead that would improve your RW depth. As for Brodie some posters see this team as having 5 top 4 D, so Stone would slot into the top 4(a pairing with two righties). At the same time it would address a need on the wing and open a spot for a prospect on the 3rd pairing. I can see the reasoning behind both.

A lateral trade at best would be extremely risky because what if said right winger has no chemistry with Monahan and Gaudreau? They've tried other guys with these 2 and Ferland was the best option. Not to mentioned the cheapest option as well which is very much a factor.

I have zero interest in playing Stone on the left hand side. It's untested and could end up disastrous. Also, how many points have Stone and Hamonic combine for this season? This pairing would be a blackhole for offense. I'm not understanding the logic to these trades at all. I would trade a right handed defenseman, defense prospect or goaltending prospect before I would trade Brodie or Ferland right now.

the2bears · 02-12-2018, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

Love ferly but he cannot create offense on his own

Do you think he needs to?

IgiTang · 02-12-2018, 10:34 AM

There have been games where Ferland was the one going on that line and dragged Johnny and Monny along with him. And that was only a weeks agai IIRC. Ferland can’t generate offence on his own? Yes he certainly can.

Mattman · 02-12-2018, 10:40 AM

Ferlands value to the Flames > Value he equates in a trade

One of my favorite Flames. Keep him.

Heavy Jack · 02-12-2018, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

Love ferly but he cannot create offense on his own

So? This line of thinking is getting so tired - can Ferly drive offense for a line like Gaudreau can? No - but can he augment a line and help improve overall line production - yes and has proven so.

The guy has 20 goals already this year and while a lot of that can be attributed to linemates some credit had to be given to Ferland who is creating space and opportunity out there for Johnny/Mony to shine.

All this said and I think back to the pass that Ferly gave to Johnny against the Rangers last week or the Goal he potted against Detroit earlier in the year and makes this whole ‘Ferland is 4th line fodder’ if he wasn’t on the top line crap just that. Crap.

Can’t we be happy we have a 5th round pick developing into what we need?

GioforPM · 02-12-2018, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattman

Ferlands value to the Flames > Value he equates in a trade

One of my favorite Flames. Keep him.

This. Production or not, I don't think Ferland has the name or rep in the league to get back what most Flames fans would want to see as a return if he ever was to be moved.

Roof-Daddy · 02-12-2018, 11:34 AM

This team is built to win now and for the next several years (hopefully).

If trading Ferland right now somehow results in the Flames being a better team now and while the window is open, then sure go ahead and trade him.

If not, then no you don't trade him in order to "sell high".

undercoverbrother · 02-12-2018, 11:36 AM

Isn't a guy like Ferland the type of player you want in your room and on the ice.

Putting up good numbers and a positive story of overcoming a lot of adversity.

GoJetsGo · 02-12-2018, 11:39 AM

No.

A young, improving cost controlled power-forward (who might put up 30 goals this year) that has growing chemistry with our top two forwards.

Anyone could be traded if it's part of a package to upgrade the team. That fact doesn't equate to it being a good idea to try and sell off a very valuable asset just because it's valuable.

Poor thread / take.

Dajazz · 02-12-2018, 11:40 AM

I'm more worried he'll be overpaid thanks to his ridiculously high shooting percentage. It's sky high. Let's say he's a top shooter and can sustain 12% - that's almost 7 goals less this year alone putting him on pace for 20 and not 30. How many does 'insert random player' score on JG's wing?

Anyway, I like the player but it's an intriguing question. I say keep, and I hope he can be retained for reaonable term and money (4x4?)