Why no Ferland siging

[BigRed]

I don't get it. The guy had 1 great series, but that's basically his whole NHL resume. How does that warrant $1 mln+ ? And I love the guy.

[Enoch Root]

If I were Ferland, I would not sign for 3 x $1.25

Very tough deal because, at this point, Ferland is mostly unproven.

That usually means a one-year deal. I would expect 1 x $1 - 1.2M

Maybe they can get a 2 year deal done in the $1.25 - $1.4M range.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I agree, though I would go to 1.4-1.5 to get him for 3 years. What would you consider fair for Ferland over 3 years? Not factoring in if you think he would sign for that or not.

If I was Ferland, I would want something like $1M, $2M, $3M or 3 x $2M

I get why the Flames would be leery of that. But if I'm Ferland, no way I sign for 3 years unless they make it worth my while.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by BigRed

I don't get it. The guy had 1 great series, but that's basically his whole NHL resume. How does that warrant $1 mln+ ? And I love the guy.

You have to pay for potential when signing NHL contracts. Unless you want a team built around 1-2 year deals, you're going to have to take some risk. If the Flames believe Ferland will be a good player, they are better off to lock him up today for longer than they are to kick the can down the road. It all comes down to how much faith the Flames have in Ferland's ability. There is strategic merit in signing players to long term deals to get a more favorable cap hit, you just have to pick the right players.

Of course there are two sides in a negotiation. For all we know, Ferland is asking for 1.8m×3.

I think he'll end up getting 2 years $1m.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Of course there are two sides in a negotiation. For all we know, Ferland is asking for 1.8m×3.

I think he'll end up getting 2 years $1m.

I like the 2 years at $1M. To me though, this screams for a one-year "prove it" deal. Why would Ferland lock in for multi-years when he has potential to become a key contributor. And why would the Flames pay extra to add years on the deal, when he may (but not likely) turn out to be nothing more than an injury prone 3rd/4th line energy guy?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

I like the 2 years at $1M. To me though, this screams for a one-year "prove it" deal. Why would Ferland lock in for multi-years when he has potential to become a key contributor. And why would the Flames pay extra to add years on the deal, when he may (but not likely) turn out to be nothing more than an injury prone 3rd/4th line energy guy?

If you're high enough on a player and are confident in his ability to improve then there is no need for a "prove it" deal IMO. At that point it becomes good business to lock up a guy for longer because when he does prove it, he's going to cost a lot more than what they can get for him today. It all depends on what the Flames see in him and how Ferland values himself.

Imagine Ferland gets 15 goals 30 points and plays a full season next year. He won't be the bombastic bowling ball we saw against Vancouver all year but imagine he puts up 100 PIM and 200 hits. Slap another strong playoff on to that and what do you get? Likely something in the 3m+ AAV on a 4+ year deal range.

Signing everyone to "prove me" deals and paying market value for everyone who is proven is not a great strategy IMO. Eventually some risks should be taken to get some value contracts to provide more room under the cap. Ferland is a good player to take a chance like that on. I think, worst case scenario, he's a bigger, better version of Dorsett... how much risk are we really even talking about here?

[Gaskal]

2 years at 1-1.25m is ideal, it takes him to the 2017 offseason, when a lot of cap space becomes available in case if he deserves a raise.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I agree, though I would go to 1.4-1.5 to get him for 3 years. What would you consider fair for Ferland over 3 years? Not factoring in if you think he would sign for that or not.

A tough question really. I'm just not sure if you are the Flames that you pay much more for a 3 year deal than a 1 year. He does really need to prove himself. Any more than 1.2 per and I say no if I am management.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Signing everyone to "prove me" deals and paying market value for everyone who is proven is not a great strategy IMO. Eventually some risks should be taken to get some value contracts to provide more room under the cap. Ferland is a good player to take a chance like that on. I think, worst case scenario, he's a bigger, better version of Dorsett... how much risk are we really even talking about here?

Flames don't have enough "prove me" deals IMO. You need some in a salary cap league. Because for every long term deal you sign that turns out to be a bargain, you have a chance of a boat anchor contract.

Brodie is a guy that signed a prove me contract before his latest deal and it worked for everyone. To me it's not the worst thing if a guy signs a prove me deal and outperforms it. At worst you have an extremely tradeable asset (Russell). I will take that over a contract that you can't move and affects your ability to make other deals.

Ferland is the classic case of a guy that still needs to prove himself to earn a long term deal.

[King Theo]

There is no way he is signed to a 3 years deal. Most likely a 1 year just below 1 million. If he gets a 2 year deal it will be between 1 - 1.5M.

[GullFoss]

Its tricky for both sides. For the players - what if you go one year, and you find out you can't hack it? At the same time, what if you go three years and realize you're amazing. Its very tricky.

The best comparable IMO is Hammond in Ottawa. Played lights out, but took the safety of a 3y at 1.3 AAV. Could he have taken 1y and then tried to go for a Kari Ramo money? yup probably. But what if he flamed out? In the wider context of life, given that Hammond has never gotten paid before...getting paid $3.9m over 3 years actually looks pretty good.

For the clubs...its a lot of the same, but in reverse.

[Robbob]

Prior to arbitration Bouma was coming off a 1 year prove me contract worth 775k. I would think that is the neighborhood that the Flames are looking at. Maybe add 100k but Ferland's numbers were pretty on par with what Bouma brought to the table.

I would guess it will be somewhere between the Bouma contract last year and the deal Colborne got (2x 1.25M). It would surprise me if he got more than Colborne.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I would guess it will be somewhere between the Bouma contract last year and the deal Colborne got (2x 1.25M). It would surprise me if he got more than Colborne.

He can't get more than Colborne. I get that you pay for potential to some extent, but Colborne has almost 3 full seasons of 3rd line NHL service under his belt (and a great playoffs of his own this year). Ferland would be lucky to get that kind of money.

[Robbob]

^^^
That is why I would be surprised if he got something similar.

[442scotty]

I think 2 years at 1.1 would be a good contract and being a Canadian its really a lot more in Canuck bucks...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If I was Ferland, I would want something like $1M, $2M, $3M or 3 x $2M

I get why the Flames would be leery of that. But if I'm Ferland, no way I sign for 3 years unless they make it worth my while.

With no guarantees of anything, why would Ferland NOT take a 3 year deal?

Does he think he'll be an NHL regular? He's just starting to wet his feet in the NHL, and it was only because of injury to Bouma. Unless you are a star in the NHL, you almost always go for as much term as you can, since you never know where the next contract is coming from.

Firstly, the FLames wouldn't offer a new guy a 3 year deal off the bat.

Secondly, if they did, Ferland would be incredibly arrogant to not accept it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

With no guarantees of anything, why would Ferland NOT take a 3 year deal?

Does he think he'll be an NHL regular? He's just starting to wet his feet in the NHL, and it was only because of injury to Bouma. Unless you are a star in the NHL, you almost always go for as much term as you can, since you never know where the next contract is coming from.

Firstly, the FLames wouldn't offer a new guy a 3 year deal off the bat.

Secondly, if they did, Ferland would be incredibly arrogant to not accept it.

It would depend on the offer.

Why sign for 3 years at $1M if you think you can earn more by signing for 1 year and then sign for more later?

Disagree about non-stars always going for as much term as possible. If you think you are going to continue to improve (like most young guys would think), why sign long term at a low number?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It would depend on the offer.

Why sign for 3 years at $1M if you think you can earn more by signing for 1 year and then sign for more later?

Disagree about non-stars always going for as much term as possible. If you think you are going to continue to improve (like most young guys would think), why sign long term at a low number?

A young guy like Bennett or Mony, maybe. But a later round guy like Ferly, I don't think he's as confident he'll have a long term NHL career. If I were him, I would take a 3 year deal, basically at any dollar amount.

Too risky to take 1 year, and then fizzle. It could be through no fault of his own, (injury, coach's doghouse) but 1 year deals are always risky.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

With no guarantees of anything, why would Ferland NOT take a 3 year deal?

Does he think he'll be an NHL regular? He's just starting to wet his feet in the NHL, and it was only because of injury to Bouma. Unless you are a star in the NHL, you almost always go for as much term as you can, since you never know where the next contract is coming from.

Firstly, the FLames wouldn't offer a new guy a 3 year deal off the bat.

Secondly, if they did, Ferland would be incredibly arrogant to not accept it.

It wouldn't say much of Ferland's belief in himself if he took a 3 year deal for little money.

[calgarybean]

I'd be surprised if it's over a million for a one year deal.
In looking at Jooris and the Byron deals. I see those players as showcasing their talents more for the Flames as a whole than Ferland did in the playoffs. He was good but such a short window to gauge things.

Do the same thing as you did for Bouma - 1 year, 1 way and see what he earns for next year.

I hope he then proves himself and forces a raise next year or makes himself desirable on the trade market for us. With no leverage other than going to play for rubbles overseas I don't see Ferland as having much leverage on this one.