Is it a good time to sell high on M. Ferland?

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

No.

Can play on first line.

Toughest guy on team.

Keep.

Exactly. Ferland has turned into what people think Evander Kane is - without the baggage or cap hit. Not the guy we want to move. Solves nothing.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

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?)

I think a 4x4 would be pretty close to perfect on all sides.

[the2bears]

While Ferland's value may be at an all-time high his value to the Flames is probably even higher.

Trading him now means we would be trading from an area of weakness. We'd only see an incremental benefit. Doesn't make sense to me to "need scoring" and trade one of our best scoring threats to address that.

I think we'd be very unlikely to get back Ferland's value to the Flames in a trade, for his portion of what is sent to the other team. From that sense I see us losing value by trading him.

Of course, you can always say it has to make sense, only if the return value is amazing. But if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The time is now to keep the best players and try to win a championship in the next few seasons, not sell high on any player.

Ferland has goal scoring ability, playmaking ability, adds speed to this team, and adds by far the most grit to this team. The time is now to find another Ferland or two to add to our collection of one.

[Enoch Root]

Player is still a work in progress, hasn't taken the next level yet: trade him! He is what he is! Get something while you can!

Player takes the next level: trade him! Sell high!

Ferland is 25 and costs $1.75M. He is providing as much value for his contract as any player on the team, this side of Tkachuk.

Sure his shooting percentage is high. Factor that in and say he is a 15 goal guy who is having a great year. Still huge value for his contract.

A team needs players. You can't trade every player that gets on a hit streak.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Player is still a work in progress, hasn't taken the next level yet: trade him! He is what he is! Get something while you can!

Player takes the next level: trade him! Sell high!

Ferland is 25 and costs $1.75M. He is providing as much value for his contract as any player on the team, this side of Tkachuk.

Sure his shooting percentage is high. Factor that in and say he is a 15 goal guy who is having a great year. Still huge value for his contract.

A team needs players. You can't trade every player that gets on a hit streak.

Yeah, this is a mentality that bugs me to no end. Building a hockey team is not like building an investment portfolio, and the end-goal is not to "maximize the value" of every player.

The goal is to win, and I think Ferland has demonstrated that he is a key component of ultimately achieving that goal.

[SeanCharles]

The team needs more size.

The team needs more grit.

The team needs more goal scoring.

Ferland provides all of these so why the hell would we trade him?

[codynw]

No. It's not always about asset management, sometimes teams are allowed to just keep their good players.

[Fan in Exile]

One of the things that irritates me most about advanced stats watching is this idea that high shooting percentages are somehow a negative. It's crazy. Yes, it's true that Ferland's shooting percentage will likely drop on the whole of his season or his career. But higher shooting percentages also correspond to skill, ability and confidence. When did finishing chances become a negative in hockey?

As a team, the Flames have a low shooting percentage. People assume it will get higher corresponding to wins. Sure, probably to some degree - but not if you look to trade players as soon as they have a high shooting percentage because they won't be able to sustain it in the future and then make more money that they're worth.

Just insane overcomplication and putting the cart before the horse. Ferland is far from being a player it makes any sense to move for the foreseeable future. He's playing at a level far above his pay grade.

[Erick Estrada]

They absolutely have to trade him at the deadline as the Flames waited too long on Bennett and need to start moving all their younger players before they hit their prime. This is how it works right?

[SilverKast]

I like Ferland, he's exactly what we always say we want - young, physical (wish he was more often though), showing some skill and promise. These types of threads always remind me of this:

"Now hold on, Lois! A boat's a boat, but the Mystery Box could be anything! It could even be a boat!"
— Peter Griffin, Family Guy

[flames_fan_down_under]

Michael Ferland is exactly the type of player you don’t trade.

First of all he is extremely cheap! Ferland barely takes up any cap room, he’s basically the complete inverse of Troy Brouwer. Find me another 20 goal RW with a million dollar cap hit.

He is young! Bam!! And he is improving every single year he has been in the NHL.

He hits!

Yes he has some warts in his game, but this guy is basically a fifth round grand slam of a pick.

You don’t trade those.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

No.

Can play on first line.

Toughest guy on team.

Keep.

The fact he has fit in on that first line as well as he has and then we all know his ability to play on lines 3/4 and change the dynamic of a game with his physical play is just so rare. Arguably the best utility guy on the team and seems like a solid guy off the ice having changed his life around. That is the kind of guy you hang onto as long as possible.

The thought of playing against him in a playoff series alone makes me say no!

[Kovaz]

Yeah keep Ferland. In a cap league there's a TON of value in players that can be effective playing higher in the lineup than they ideally should in a vacuum. Having Ferland complete the top line without having to spend $6M on a RW makes the whole forward corps so much stronger. Especially after having to watch 50 games of Chiasson on the top line last year, I say hang onto Ferland as long as we can unless he prices himself out of the lineup.

[Beninho]

Can we take this thread down? This just makes us look dumb. We have very little depth at RW, why trade our young 20 goal scoring power forward?

[debil]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Can we take this thread down? This just makes us look dumb. We have very little depth at RW, why trade our young 20 goal scoring power forward?

take this thread down. do not discuss anything. make a list of the only right opinions. whoever says something else ban him forever.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by debil

take this thread down. do not discuss anything. make a list of the only right opinions. whoever says something else ban him forever.

Good grief.

[Macho0978]

Not only does Ferland have 20 goals and 34 points he has done this without playing much on the PP with Johnny and Monahan. Ferland has 6 PPG and 6 PPP's. That is 28 even strength points. Sidney Crosby only has 32 even strength points this year. Malkin and Kessel are in the mid 30's in even strength points as well.

I also look at his linemates playing with him. Both on pace to smash career highs. At what point does anyone give Ferland some credit. Sure his points and goals are inflated, could make the same case about Monahan too. But the line is scoring at an elite level 5 on 5

I doubt Ferland brings back a ton either in a trade so no way do you trade him right now.

[djsFlames]

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.

Impatience is a thing that spans many generations, old man.
The youngins raised by your generation, no less, didn't invent it. They inherited it from somewhere.

[btimbit]

Can't really be creating more holes on the right side of the lineup. Keep him. I dont think we have to worry about Treliving paying him 5+ mil a year so what's the risk