Will Backlund get extended this offseason?

[JFK]

Originally Posted by New Era

As it sits we only have Stajan and Versteeg as salaries coming off the books next season.

Eddie Lack is also a UFA but we'll need a back up regardless so that money is ear marked anyway. You forgot Mason Raymond's 1.05 buy out as well, that's another million to factor in.

Backlund - 3.75
Stajan - 3.12
Versteeg - 1.75
Raymond - 1.05 (buy out)
= 9.7 million off the books right now for next season.

Let's give Backlund a healthy raise at 5.5, that still leaves you at 4.2 to play with, 3.7 million if Michael's cap hit goes to six.

Hoping Bennett signs a lower two-year bridge deal. That would leave the Flames with Tkachuk and Bennett to sign in the summer of 2019 but non-core pieces like Frolik, Brouwer and Stone would all have one year left, making them all easily movable for assets and clear out room. (maybe not Brouwer, I digress)

Anywho, it will be tight but doable. Treliving has set himself up nicely, if this window goes but he still has many good pieces to move for another rebuild. Stone, Hamonic, Brodie will still all be under 30, but I'm getting ahead of myself there.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by New Era

Steinberg needs to look at the numbers the team can afford. If you pay Backlund $6M, that puts the cap situation in a pinch.

Right now the Flames have about $4-4.5M to sign Bennett to an extension. That is already taking into consideration that the team is going with Jankowski and Kulak as their extra players, and them eating up just $1.7M between them, leaving ~$1-1.3M as a buffer for the season (all numbers from CapFriendly). So depending on value and term, what they can pay Backlund is up in the air.

As it sits we only have Stajan and Versteeg as salaries coming off the books next season. If the Flames get lucky and can lock Bennett up at $4.5M for 6 years, then they can take a shot at Backlund for $6M. If they can't lock up Bennett, they have to be concerned about the contract negotiations down the line, and that number going higher. They must also recognize that Tkachuk, Lazar and Ferland will be needing new contracts in two years time, and that has to be taken into consideration, as no major contracts are scheduled to come off the books. The only hope for some flexibility in salaries if to have Gillies and Parsons jump up and take the reigns in net. That will provide some cost control for an extra year or three in the crease.

The approach I would take at this is to try and get Bennett long term on that $4.5M contract, then hope the salaries of Stajan and Versteeg ($4.9M combined) will cover the cost of new contracts for Backlund and Tkachuk. So try and get Backlund to sign for his current hit plus that of Versteeg ($5.325) and hope you get Tkachuk done with his and Stajan's money ($4.05M) on a long term or a bridge. That is assuming you can get bridge contracts for Jankowski and continue to feed cheap young players in to fill the holes. Backlund at $6M just doesn't seem like it would work when you project where the young guys should be headed. Every dollar counts, especially when you have a lot of good talent.

If Bennett gets $4.5 then Backlund should get a hell of a lot more than $5.3, IMO.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by rohara66

If Bennett gets $4.5 then Backlund should get a hell of a lot more than $5.3, IMO.

No kidding. No way Bennett gets more than a 3 year deal. Most likely a 2 year deal and it will be for less than $3 million.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rohara66

If Bennett gets $4.5 then Backlund should get a hell of a lot more than $5.3, IMO.

Except that I believe, and I also believe the hockey team feels the same way, that Bennett is going to be a big time player for this team. Bennett has all the tools, the desire, and a fearlessness, that makes him a special player. I expect him to exceed the level of Monahan in next two seasons. If he makes that jump, a bridge will leave you doubling that cost in those two years.

Backlund is what he is. He's a very good player in his role, but he's not going to grow much beyond what he is. I really hope the Flames don't make a mistake with him and pay him a big salary that he will never live up to. Backlund just pulled off a career year of 53 points. He'll be 29 when the new contract kicks in. Just things to consider.

Here's an interesting comparison. Compare Backlund to Doug Jarvis back in the Canadiens hay day. He was Bob Gainey before being Bob Gainey meant something. Jarvis was a great two way forward that gave the Canadiens a massive edge over the other teams teams they were playing against. He was great on the faceoffs, tenacious as hell, and was one of the best penalty killers in the league. But when push came to shove, and Jarvis wanted more money, the Habs shipped him off to Washington as part of a blockbuster deal. That opened the door for Gainey to become Gainey, and later Carbonneau to become Carbonneau.

Don't get me wrong, I love Backlund. I'd be comfortable signing Backlund to a larger contract but only if you had cost certainty on Bennett as well. Without cost certainty on Bennett, the risk is too great to throw big money in a long term deal at a player like Backlund. Again, we were all enthralled with Backlund because of the value he brought to the team, and having a career year making $3.5M a season. How will we feel if he gets $6M a season and goes back to being a 40 point guys and missing chunk of the season? See Troy Brouwer and how he is treated here, or Ollie Jokinen when he was first here as examples.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Backlund coming in at anything resembling 6/$36M is a win for the Flames. A number beginning with a 4 only happens if Backs tears both his MCLs.

Love Backlund, but that is too much. I don't think the term will be that long, certainly not at a price starting with 6. By the end of the contract, he will almost certainly be our 3C.

I think a lot will depend on this year. He and Frolik are such solid, responsible players, but offensively, I think Tkachuk deserves a lot of credit for how that line performed, not the other way around. It will be fun to watch this year.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except that I believe, and I also believe the hockey team feels the same way, that Bennett is going to be a big time player for this team. Bennett has all the tools, the desire, and a fearlessness, that makes him a special player. I expect him to exceed the level of Monahan in next two seasons. If he makes that jump, a bridge will leave you doubling that cost in those two years.

Backlund is what he is. He's a very good player in his role, but he's not going to grow much beyond what he is. I really hope the Flames don't make a mistake with him and pay him a big salary that he will never live up to. Backlund just pulled off a career year of 53 points. He'll be 29 when the new contract kicks in. Just things to consider.

Here's an interesting comparison. Compare Backlund to Doug Jarvis back in the Canadiens hay day. He was Bob Gainey before being Bob Gainey meant something. Jarvis was a great two way forward that gave the Canadiens a massive edge over the other teams teams they were playing against. He was great on the faceoffs, tenacious as hell, and was one of the best penalty killers in the league. But when push came to shove, and Jarvis wanted more money, the Habs shipped him off to Washington as part of a blockbuster deal. That opened the door for Gainey to become Gainey, and later Carbonneau to become Carbonneau.

Don't get me wrong, I love Backlund. I'd be comfortable signing Backlund to a larger contract but only if you had cost certainty on Bennett as well. Without cost certainty on Bennett, the risk is too great to throw big money in a long term deal at a player like Backlund. Again, we were all enthralled with Backlund because of the value he brought to the team, and having a career year making $3.5M a season. How will we feel if he gets $6M a season and goes back to being a 40 point guys and missing chunk of the season? See Troy Brouwer and how he is treated here, or Ollie Jokinen when he was first here as examples.

I agree 100%. What I'd like to see is Bennett on 4x2.75 and Backlund on a 4x5.75. seems reasonable to me when you factor in the wizard factor. I believe that leaves Bennett as an RFA at the end of the contract.

Right now on a 2 year he's probably looking 1.75 max per. So essentially we'd be signing him to a 2x1.75 and a 2x3.75. But getting the cap space when we really need it. Low risk

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

I agree 100%. What I'd like to see is Bennett on 4x2.75 and Backlund on a 4x5.75. seems reasonable to me when you factor in the wizard factor. I believe that leaves Bennett as an RFA at the end of the contract.

Right now on a 2 year he's probably looking 1.75 max per. So essentially we'd be signing him to a 2x1.75 and a 2x3.75. But getting the cap space when we really need it. Low risk

OK I know Treliving's a wizard, but he's more of a Gandalf and not a Dumbledore.

In all seriousness though, no way Bennett's camp lets him sign for more than 2 years, and no way for as low as 1.75.

If they were to push for a 3rd year, Camp Bennett is going to make sure that 3rd year is expensive and as much of it as possible a signing bonus. But I would go for it.

Year 1: 2.25
Year 2: 2.75
Year 3: 5.25?

(3 x 3.5 AAV)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except that I believe, and I also believe the hockey team feels the same way, that Bennett is going to be a big time player for this team. Bennett has all the tools, the desire, and a fearlessness, that makes him a special player. I expect him to exceed the level of Monahan in next two seasons. If he makes that jump, a bridge will leave you doubling that cost in those two years.

Yes, and no doubt Bennett and his agent also feel that way (more so). Which is why people have been replying over and over that there is no way in hell that Bennett signs a longer term contract at a fan-friendly rate.

It isn't happening. Wishing it so won't change that.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, and no doubt Bennett and his agent also feel that way (more so). Which is why people have been replying over and over that there is no way in hell that Bennett signs a longer term contract at a fan-friendly rate.

Which is why I voted in the Bennett thread that he is going to get a short term bridge contract in the $2.5M range. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is what Backlund is going to get, and all the wishing in the world isn't make the fact that Bennett and Tkachuk are more important to this team and will be considered priorities long before Backlund will. That is going to come into figuring out what Backlund is worth, and whether the team elects to move on from Mr. Backlund or make moves to accommodate him.

It isn't happening. Wishing it so won't change that.

Which is exactly why Backlund will not get a long term deal at $6M that was suggested. What I was showing was that the only way Backlund gets that kind of money is if Bennett is already locked up long term, and then what that long term contract would look like based on his current performance and comparables. It would be nice if that happened, but I agree with your belief that it is highly unlikely to come to that conclusion. I suspect Backlund's contract offer will depend on Bennett's performance out of the gate, and negotiations will be complete by Christmas, or Backlund will be gone by the trade deadline.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

Which is why I voted in the Bennett thread that he is going to get a short term bridge contract in the $2.5M range. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is what Backlund is going to get, and all the wishing in the world isn't make the fact that Bennett and Tkachuk are more important to this team and will be considered priorities long before Backlund will. That is going to come into figuring out what Backlund is worth, and whether the team elects to move on from Mr. Backlund or make moves to accommodate him.



Which is exactly why Backlund will not get a long term deal at $6M that was suggested. What I was showing was that the only way Backlund gets that kind of money is if Bennett is already locked up long term, and then what that long term contract would look like based on his current performance and comparables. It would be nice if that happened, but I agree with your belief that it is highly unlikely to come to that conclusion. I suspect Backlund's contract offer will depend on Bennett's performance out of the gate, and negotiations will be complete by Christmas, or Backlund will be gone by the trade deadline.

I am quite confident that Backlund is extended, and will be stunned if he is moved at the trade deadline. Even in the event that the two sides are for some reason unable to come to terms on a deal by then, I don't believe the team would ever entertain trading one of their most important players heading into the playoffs. This is not remotely the same as trading Curtis Glencross on an expiring contract.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am quite confident that Backlund is extended, and will be stunned if he is moved at the trade deadline. Even in the event that the two sides are for some reason unable to come to terms on a deal by then, I don't believe the team would ever entertain trading one of their most important players heading into the playoffs. This is not remotely the same as trading Curtis Glencross on an expiring contract.

Backlund is a core player and the decision to move him or not cannot wait for the season much less the trade deadline in my opinion. If Treliving and Backlunds camp can't come to an agreement in the next month or so the Flames need to look at moving him for an appropriate player, maybe Duchene?

This thing can't drag to the deadline. Like you said this isn't Curtis Glencross. Backlund moving is an important piece and a deadline deal to another playoff team just doesn't make sense. You won't get the "now" player you want and Calgary really doesn't need futures for him.

Whatever happens needs to happen this off season. Thankfully I'm confident in Trelivings ability to get this deal done.

[Vinny01]

I don't think the Flames should be signing Backs to a 6x6. I posted a sell high on Backlund thread early in the offseason largely because I do not want his contract to force the Flames to move a Bennett or Jankowski because they can't afford them when they need their dough.

The Flames paid Gio until his late 30's. Teams with multiple 32+ players making big dough rarely succeed in the NHL today. I think there is room to keep Backlund long term at a reasonable rate.

The 2 things I really do not want to see happen
1- we overpay long term and it hurts the team down the line with a 38 year old Gio and 33 year old Backlund chewing up nearly $14M in cap space.
2- he walks on July 1 next year for nothing.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am quite confident that Backlund is extended, and will be stunned if he is moved at the trade deadline. Even in the event that the two sides are for some reason unable to come to terms on a deal by then, I don't believe the team would ever entertain trading one of their most important players heading into the playoffs. This is not remotely the same as trading Curtis Glencross on an expiring contract.

The reason Glencross was moved was because the team wanted to open a spot for Ferland.

I do believe that if Jankowski and Bennett show they can potentially carry the load then it might be possible they move Backs at the deadline. He could likely help recoup the 1st round pick that was lost in the Hamonic deal. Having said that if the Flames are looking like a cup contender then it might be too risky to trade him but then losing him for nothing would be a devastating blow

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I don't think the Flames should be signing Backs to a 6x6. I posted a sell high on Backlund thread early in the offseason largely because I do not want his contract to force the Flames to move a Bennett or Jankowski because they can't afford them when they need their dough.

The Flames paid Gio until his late 30's. Teams with multiple 32+ players making big dough rarely succeed in the NHL today. I think there is room to keep Backlund long term at a reasonable rate.

The 2 things I really do not want to see happen
1- we overpay long term and it hurts the team down the line with a 38 year old Gio and 33 year old Backlund chewing up nearly $14M in cap space.
2- he walks on July 1 next year for nothing.

I also believe that 6x6 is more than the Flames can comfortably and willingly pay Backlund on an extension. But honestly, there is no such thing as "selling high" on a player. When given the choice between multiple players who can play the same position a team will always choose the best of the two. In Backlund's case, if he has actually become so good that he has priced himself out of the Flames' cap structure, they won't trade him because the return could never compensate for his on ice value. And moreover, I don't believe a 33-year-old Backlund is at all a bad player.

All that to say that I think a 5 year deal in the range of $5.0 m is what Backlund will sign. He is so fiercely loyal to Calgary that I do not believe he will be all that keen on exploring UFA. That is not to say that he will return on a discount, only that he is highly motivated to remain with the Flames.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The reason Glencross was moved was because the team wanted to open a spot for Ferland.

I do believe that if Jankowski and Bennett show they can potentially carry the load then it might be possible they move Backs at the deadline. He could likely help recoup the 1st round pick that was lost in the Hamonic deal. Having said that if the Flames are looking like a cup contender then it might be too risky to trade him but then losing him for nothing would be a devastating blow

Well, yeah. Another way of re-stating exactly what I posted is to say that the difference between Ferland and Glencross is minute compared to the difference between Bennett/Jankowski and Backlund.

Michael Backlund will not be traded this Spring.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am quite confident that Backlund is extended, and will be stunned if he is moved at the trade deadline. Even in the event that the two sides are for some reason unable to come to terms on a deal by then, I don't believe the team would ever entertain trading one of their most important players heading into the playoffs. This is not remotely the same as trading Curtis Glencross on an expiring contract.

If the team does not have his name on an extension by Christmas they will have no alternative but to look for a trade. They would be making a massive mistake in letting Backlund walk away for nothing, so they will have to do something before the trade deadline. That is not to say they are moving Backlund for futures. They could use him in an actual hockey trade, one that benefits both teams. If a deal isn't there that makes budgetary sense, Treliving's hands will be tied and he'll be forced to make a deal. I hope it doesn't come to that end, but if Backlund is thinking he's a $6M hockey player, and holding firm on that number, you have to move on. It just doesn't fit in the budget, unless both Bennett and Tkachuk head south in their performance. If you can post the numbers where that long term salary fits, please do. Show me how the Flames can make it work and I'll buy in, because I like what Backlund brings to the table and see great value in keeping him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

If the team does not have his name on an extension by Christmas they will have no alternative but to look for a trade...

Simply put: If the Flames believe by the TD that they are well positioned to play for a Stanley Cup and if Michael Backlund is a significant contributor to that success, then they are not trading him.

This idea that every player which is not extended before the last good opportunity to trade him is a wasted asset is nonsense. In a perfect world I suppose this is true. But there are too many mitigating factors to expect a general manager to treat all of his players like commodities all the time.

[oldschoolcalgary]

i would be pretty surprised if Backlund doesn't get an extension done before the trade deadline...

i would also agree that you would have to move him if that deal isn't signed by the deadline...

I just don't think there's a chance of that happening...i think he's a Flame for at least 2 more years... once he's in his thirties and if a bennett or Janko can legitimately replace him, then maybe you'd think to move him... moving him based on pure speculation that the other guys will be able to do what he does would be a huge gamble

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Simply put: If the Flames believe by the TD that they are well positioned to play for a Stanley Cup and if Michael Backlund is a significant contributor to that success, then they are not trading him.

Simply put: The Flames can't afford to allow a significant asset like Backlund walk away for nothing. We watched for decades as this has happened, and as a result this team suffered greatly. If Treliving believes they are a contender, they are not going to allow that opportunity to slide, but he is also not going to do something that could harm the future of the team. He has already pushed in enough pieces, losing one of Backlund's stature for nothing doesn't make sense. If the Flames do not have a contract extension in place, Backlund is going to be traded. Treliving isn't going to allow an asset to walk for nothing. He may be forced to trade away Backlund for a large return, then I see him bringing in an older veteran to fill that same role, for a much lesser cost.

This idea that every player which is not extended before the last good opportunity to trade him is a wasted asset is nonsense.

Except it isn't. It's how good teams remain competitive for decades rather than a few years and hit the rebuild cycle. Good teams will recognize when they have to move assets to recoup others to keep the system stocked. I believe we have a GM that has that mindset and not one who will go for it, and then get fired if he fails. I think he has an eye on the prize, but is setting the team up to take multiple runs at the cup, not just one and rebuild.

In a perfect world I suppose this is true. But there are too many mitigating factors to expect a general manager to treat all of his players like commodities all the time.

Except that Treliving has shown an incredible ability to use all resources available to him to grab the players he wants and needs. Treliving is a very good GM, and he won't allow an asset of Backlund's stature walk away with no return. Not after selling out the draft for the next two years. He will make sure he doesn't allow a good asset get away. At least that's what he has done to date. If he is forced to move Backlund, I think he will have already beat the weeds and found a player to fill the need in the short term, while gaining assets. Treliving respects his players, but he won't allow himself to get attached to them to the point where he can't/won't deal them, and hurt the team as a result.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Simply put: If the Flames believe by the TD that they are well positioned to play for a Stanley Cup and if Michael Backlund is a significant contributor to that success, then they are not trading him.

I think if they can find common ground the Flames will re-sign him but I feel Backlund could probably fetch a very good prospect or young player in a trade so it's not like the Flames would be losing him for nothing. If Jankowski pans out there's kind of a log jam at the position and I just don't see why you would keep Backlund at $5+ million over younger, cheaper players that haven't hit their prime yet. Last season may be the best season he's ever going to have in his career and I hate when teams sign players for long term for past performance that they will never replicate again. Penguins traded Jordan Staal (at the time a similar player to Backlund) and you can only pay so many of your top players top dollar. Paying Backlund a big deal will restrict may make it difficult to keep Brodie and Hamonic past their current deals. I suppose if Parsons or Gillies pans out they will have a few seasons where they won't be paying much at the goaltending position but the long term deals are starting to accumulate for this team now and the team is probably not going to be able to keep Bennett, Jankowski, and Tkachuk if they all meet or exceed expectations.