Should the Flames protect Micheal Ferland in the expansion draft?

Pat Steinberg
December 21 2016 10:00AM

Assuming the Calgary Flames elect to protect one goalie, three defencemen, and seven forwards in June's expansion draft, the team is going to face one tough decision: who should that seventh protected forward be? 

While I think there might be some debate among Flames fans, the decision is pretty clear to me. Of the possibilities, Micheal Ferland makes the most sense to be Calgary's final protected player.

Below is a breakdown of how things will likely break down if the Flames decide to go with the 7,3,1 format come June.

Screen Shot 2016-12-20 at 6.48.05 PM

There's a couple things to note in that chart above. First off, I only included players we consider to be NHLers right now, so I didn't include Jon Gillies, for instance. Regardless, Gillies will not count on the protected list as we've been able to confirm he'll fall under the exempt list. Matthew Tkachuk will also be protected by virtue of exemption leaving the unbolded players up for consideration. I also included Kris Versteeg, who is a pending unrestricted free agent, considering there's a decent chance he'll be re-signed.

Of course this all changes if for some reason the Flames decide to go the other route and protect eight skaters and one goalie. I can't see them doing that, but you never know. So why is Ferland the guy they should protect from the group above?

On the ice

Ferland is an interesting case in his three seasons in the league. We all remember him bursting onto the scene during Calgary's 2015 first round playoff series with Vancouver and he followed that up with a passable, but not outstanding, first full NHL season last year. This season is where we're really starting to see indications as to what Ferland can be as full-time NHLer, though.

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 2.31.04 AM

Above is a look at some of Ferland's even strength metrics through 35 games this season and where he ranks among forwards, via Corsica. As you can see, he's been one of Calgary's more effective players as we approach the halfway point of the campaign. Used primarily as a bottom six player, Ferland has done a nice job of winning the possession and scoring battles against similar depth opposition and is doing so while being deployed in a primarily defensive role.

I also like where Ferland is trending. At the age of 24, Ferland is an effective depth player right now and I think there's still a ceiling he hasn't hit. While Ferland hasn't popped when given the opportunity to play higher up the depth chart, we also have to remember he's still a fairly green NHLer. As he continues to become more comfortable and more consistent, I think he'll be more effective when asked in the future to play a larger role.

Finally, Ferland brings something on the ice that no one else on the Flames does. While the term "physicality" is commonly snickered at among our dork community, Ferland has the ability to change momentum on any given shift. No other Calgary player possesses that same ability and no one can deny the impact it has made at different points this season.

Off the ice

Two things tilt the scales Ferland's way away from what he does on the ice. First off, at 24, he's still relatively young and won't be 25 until April. That's six years younger than the guy I think is his closest competition in this conversation in Versteeg (more on that later). Because he's a late bloomer, I also think Ferland has a chance to be more effective into his late 20s than other guys do in today's game.

Second, I don't think Ferland's contract is ever going to become overly unwieldy. Ferland is in the final year of a two-year deal that pays him $825,000 and is a pending restricted free agent, so he'll need a new deal for next season. While I think he'll get a raise on that, I don't think we're going to be talking about a massive bump.

Ferland is on pace for 12 goals and 26 points this season which, coupled with the other things he brings to the game, could push him over the $1 million mark. Assuming the Flames don't give Ferland a massive Bouma-esque bump, he could give them some really good bang for their buck on a three- or four-year extension this summer.

Conclusion

As I said earlier, the only other player truly in this conversation is Versteeg as he's been an extremely effective player this season, especially offensively. But if it comes down to one or the other for the seventh protected forward spot, I still lean Ferland's way. Before we get into the reasoning, let's compare the two players using the metrics from above (rank is among forwards).

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 2.42.19 AM

The comparison between the two players certainly makes this conversation really interesting. Versteeg is the superior player when it comes to goal and point production, but Ferland has been more effective in shot generation and two-way play. As such, both have strong cases here.

So why do I lean to Ferland? Age is the biggest factor to me; as mentioned above, Versteeg is six years older than Ferland. That's a sizeable gap in this day and age and needs to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, I think Ferland still has a ceiling to reach whereas Versteeg, while effective, is what he is at this point in his career.

Finally, I think Ferland ends up being the more affordable player in the long run. While Calgary is getting great value on both players right now, Versteeg could be in line for a significant pay bump as a pending UFA if he continues to produce the way he has this season. I like the prospect of what Ferland's next deal could look like and I think it'll be more reasonable than a potential Versteeg extension.

It's an interesting problem to have if you're the Flames and having tough decisions is better than having no decisions at all. For me, the package of results this year, potential going forward, skill set, age, and affordability make Ferland the ideal candidate to be Calgary's seventh protected forward come June.

1cd23297a0d13720ec2fc6d9740ce395
Pat Steinberg is the host of Calgary Flames Hockey and The Big Show on Sportsnet 960 The FAN. He likes advanced stats more than most other radio guys, but knows less about them than most of you reading right now. Follow Pat on Twitter @Fan960Steinberg.
Avatar
#1 The GREAT WW
December 21 2016, 10:08AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
92
props

YES.

Expose Brouwer.

WW

Avatar
#2 BlueMoonNigel
December 21 2016, 10:29AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
55
props
The GREAT WW wrote:

YES.

Expose Brouwer.

WW

Agreed.

Avatar
#3 CalgaryBornandRaised
December 21 2016, 10:43AM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Props
28
props

No brainer here, keep Ferland, everyone else is expendable

Avatar
#4 Cfan in Van
December 21 2016, 10:44AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
53
props

Yep. Keep Versteeg and Ferly.

Exposure for Brouwer.

Avatar
#5 FerdaFlames
December 21 2016, 10:55AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
22
props

Goalie: Undecided -

Defenders: Brodie, Gio, Hammy -

Forwards: Johnny, Mony, Backs, Frolik, Steeger, Ferly, and Bennet -

We could use the money we invested in Brouwer somewhere else, as much as I like the guy, he's not worth that money and by the fourth year we are gonna have another wideman on our hands.

Avatar
#6 snotss
December 21 2016, 10:58AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
19
props

no brainer you have to protect ferly.could turn into a star in this league

Avatar
#8 supra steve
December 21 2016, 11:00AM
Trash it!
19
trashes
Props
5
props

Brouwer has a NTC, doesn't that mean the Flames have to protect him?

Avatar
#9 Avalain
December 21 2016, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
18
props
supra steve wrote:

Brouwer has a NTC, doesn't that mean the Flames have to protect him?

IIRC, his NTC doesn't kick in this year.

Avatar
#11 freethe flames
December 21 2016, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
9
props
supra steve wrote:

Brouwer has a NTC, doesn't that mean the Flames have to protect him?

NMC

Avatar
#12 Baalzamon
December 21 2016, 11:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
33
props

Yes. Unequivocally.

The conversation is over who to protect between Brouwer, Versteeg, and Shinkaruk.

Avatar
#13 supra steve
December 21 2016, 11:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
17
props

@Pat Steinberg

Wideman is listed on CapFriendly with a NMC, I'm guessing that doesn't apply because his deal is expiring?

Avatar
#15 Baalzamon
December 21 2016, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props
supra steve wrote:

Wideman is listed on CapFriendly with a NMC, I'm guessing that doesn't apply because his deal is expiring?

Correct.

Avatar
#16 Greatsave
December 21 2016, 12:02PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
14
props

Let's not overthink this. Protect Ferland and Brouwer. Versteeg is UFA this summer; if he wants to go to Vegas, he will go to Vegas.

Avatar
#17 KiLLKiND
December 21 2016, 12:12PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
16
props

I wouldn't be so quick to expose either Shinkaruk or Poirier, just to protect Versteeg. I do really like Versteeg, but both these guys are young and while Poirier isn't putting up points remember Byron who couldn't finish? I think losing Poirier for nothing would be a mistake. We got Versteeg and Brouwer for nothing and every year similar players are available in free agency. Poirier and Shinkaruk have no similar players available and having young talent coming up from the AHL is what will be more beneficial long term. Don't forget Poirier is producing shots like no other. He is tied for 2nd on the team with 56 shots, along with Klimchuk. He has the speed and offensive ability, just hasn't clicked yet this season.

Avatar
#18 al rain
December 21 2016, 12:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
12
props

Consider: Does exposing a player like Brouwer have a similar effect as arbitration? As in, if he's told he's expendable and not claimed does it damage the relationship?

Also, re: Versteeg (or any pending FA), couldn't we not sign him, leave him a free agent until after the expansion draft, use that spot to protect Shinkaruk and then sign him after Vegas has made their picks?

Avatar
#19 Scary Gary
December 21 2016, 01:13PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
23
props

Absolutely protect Ferland and expose Brouwer.

Avatar
#20 Burnward
December 21 2016, 01:19PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
7
props

I'm confused. Wouldn't both Brouwer and Ferland be obvious choices?

Shinkaruk is a maybe. Poirier is a maybe.

Keep NHL players. Especially guys that have proven playoff track records.

Avatar
#21 Greatsave
December 21 2016, 01:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props
al rain wrote:

Consider: Does exposing a player like Brouwer have a similar effect as arbitration? As in, if he's told he's expendable and not claimed does it damage the relationship?

Also, re: Versteeg (or any pending FA), couldn't we not sign him, leave him a free agent until after the expansion draft, use that spot to protect Shinkaruk and then sign him after Vegas has made their picks?

I believe your proposed handling of Versteeg's situation is legitimate, with the added wrinkle that Vegas is permitted to sign him prior to the expansion draft, although that would count as having used their "Calgary pick" on him.

It could also lead to the (maybe not as legitimate) situation where Vegas speaks to Versteeg, they come to a gentlemen's agreement, and Vegas takes another exposed player and sign Versteeg on July 1st.

That's my understanding anyway.

Avatar
#22 Greg
December 21 2016, 01:37PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
10
props

This Brouwer talk is crazy. Clearly we should be exposing Gaudreau. :P

Avatar
#23 Rockmorton65
December 21 2016, 01:51PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
8
props

We may be able to avoid the whole "who to protect" issue if we can convince Vegas to "sign" Engelland and burning the Flames pick in the draft. IIRC, Engelland lives in Vegas. Wonder if he would like to play close to home.

Avatar
#24 Burnward
December 21 2016, 01:54PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
12
props

@Rockmorton65

Would be a great fit for a team like that. Vet that's been through it all in his career to help keep the boys in line.

Still gots a soft spot for this guy though.

Avatar
#25 Eggs Bennett
December 21 2016, 03:19PM
Trash it!
20
trashes
Props
4
props

@Pat Steinberg

The Flames exposing Brouwer would already do the expected damage in terms of organizational reputation to future FAs. Whether or not Brouwer is actually taken is irrelevant to the damage. Therefore, the cost of this move for the Flames is taking a reputation hit to protect both Versteeg and Ferland and the POTENTIAL of shedding Brouwer's contract.

Avatar
#26 deantheraven
December 21 2016, 04:12PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
4
props
Pat Steinberg wrote:

I certainly think exposing Brouwer is a worthy conversation. That said, I included him on my protected list because I can't see the Flames signing him one summer and exposing him in an expansion draft the next summer.

That said, I wonder if there's a chance the Flames expose him thinking Vegas wouldn't select him because of the contract. Certainly an interesting added wrinkle to the whole thing.

I think that's exactly why Brouwer got that contract. That Treliving's a crafty one.

Avatar
#27 deantheraven
December 21 2016, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
8
props
Eggs Bennett wrote:

The Flames exposing Brouwer would already do the expected damage in terms of organizational reputation to future FAs. Whether or not Brouwer is actually taken is irrelevant to the damage. Therefore, the cost of this move for the Flames is taking a reputation hit to protect both Versteeg and Ferland and the POTENTIAL of shedding Brouwer's contract.

Bah! Humbug! All three will be here next year unless someone makes an offer for Brouwer at the TDL.

Avatar
#28 Baalzamon
December 21 2016, 04:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
10
props

@Eggs Bennett

And yet, Brouwer didn't negotiate a no move clause for his contract. That rule was revealed before free-agency started, which means that Brouwer must be aware that exposure is a possibility, if a remote one.

Avatar
#29 Schmenkley
December 21 2016, 07:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props
Pat Steinberg wrote:

I certainly think exposing Brouwer is a worthy conversation. That said, I included him on my protected list because I can't see the Flames signing him one summer and exposing him in an expansion draft the next summer.

That said, I wonder if there's a chance the Flames expose him thinking Vegas wouldn't select him because of the contract. Certainly an interesting added wrinkle to the whole thing.

I would agree with your logic on exposing Brouwer to a point, and that point is the business acumen of Treliving; this is a guy that had no problem letting rfa's walk that he deemed unworthy.

I think he made some obvious missteps in the first couple years of his tenure, but it wouldn't surprise me too much to find out that part of the logic behind that contract was for the express purpose of exposure at the expansion draft.

Avatar
#30 OKG
December 21 2016, 07:41PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
7
props

Protecting Ferland is as much of a no-brainer as not waiving Paul Byron.

Oh wait, our management is not very smart.

Avatar
#31 OKG
December 21 2016, 07:41PM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
4
props

Protecting Ferland is as much of a no-brainer as not waiving Paul Byron.

Oh wait, our management is not very smart.

Avatar
#32 The GREAT WW
December 21 2016, 07:50PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
21
props
Eggs Bennett wrote:

The Flames exposing Brouwer would already do the expected damage in terms of organizational reputation to future FAs. Whether or not Brouwer is actually taken is irrelevant to the damage. Therefore, the cost of this move for the Flames is taking a reputation hit to protect both Versteeg and Ferland and the POTENTIAL of shedding Brouwer's contract.

Are you trying to tell me that exposing Brouwer will make it harder for our GM to sign UFAs to bad contracts in the future?

Just look at some of the idiotic contracts that were handed out at free agency; it's a win/ win.....

WW

Avatar
#33 sathome
December 21 2016, 10:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
18
props

I don't see this big reputation hit happening. The Flames aren't the only team who will try to expose veterans on bad contracts to protect younger assets. There will probably be some hurt feelings around the whole league.

Avatar
#34 FlamesRule
December 22 2016, 12:06AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props

Can we not wait until after the TDL for this talk. 2-3 of these guys won't even be on our team by then, especially if we can't start playing more consistent hockey.

And YES. We should protect Ferland!

Avatar
#35 freethe flames
December 22 2016, 06:01AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
1
props
snotss wrote:

no brainer you have to protect ferly.could turn into a star in this league

Or more likely he is Bouma.(please note I really like Ferland for what he is a 3rd line at best LW; pretending he is more drive me to distraction)

Comments are closed for this article.