Mikeal Backlund: Long term piece, or sell high trade bait?

[Bingo]

The Flames through a disappointment have been handed some space on Backlund's extension because of Bennett's stall.

If they can get Bennett done on a three year deal around 9, that's likely almost half of what it could have been if he had done what Monahan and Gaudreau had done in their final entry level years.

So you can fit Backlund now, something that wouldn't have happened with a dominant Bennett.

Add in the fact that you need Backlund now because they still don't have said dominant Bennett.

So try and get him on a three year deal around 5M and it fits with Bennett's next development contract.

The key though is avoid the NTC, or at least only give him a limited one so they have some flexibility.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

How far off is a trade like this?

To Calgary
Tavares

To NYI
Backlund
Brodie
1st
Prospect

Gaudreau 6.75 - Tavares 7.5 - Frolik 4.3
Tkachuk .925 - Monahan 6.38 - Ferland 2.5
Jankowski .925 - Bennett 2.5 - Versteeg 1.8
Stajan 3.13 - Lazar 1.25 - Hathaway .925

Giordano 6.75 - Hamilton 5.75
Alzner 5.25 - Stone 4.25
Kylington .925 - Andersson .925

Fleury 5.75
Johnson 1.75

Out = Bouma/Brouwer/Hamilton

Comes in at 70.. so don't know if the numbers work. If not obviously take out Alzner but that is one sexy lineup... right side still kinda weak though.

Take out Brodie and add another 1st pick and Hickey and I do that but the Islanders probably won't. If we are trading Backlund, than it has to be for a clearly big upgrade, if not keep him.

[Lanny_McDonald]

You make a reasonable long term offer based on where you believe Backlund will be in two years. If you believe he's going to be a consistent 25 goal 50 point player, then you pay him. If you think he is going to be surpassed by Bennett and replaceable by Lazar or Jankowski, then you move him. Frankly, I think we're seeing the best Mr. Backlund has to offer and this year was an aberration. The chemistry on his line was outstanding, but most of that credit goes to Tkachuk more so than Backlund. When Tkachuk slipped that line looked exactly like the third line it was advertised to be. That's where I think Backlund fits in around the league. He's a good 2nd line center for a mediocre team, but a good 3rd liner on an elite team. I see Backlund as I saw Staal in Pittsburgh. We know what happened to Staal when he was overpaid and given more responsibility. I hope the Flames do not make that mistake. Trade him while his value is at an all time high. You might actually be able to grab that top line RW or a top four defenseman were are missing.

[Par]

Originally Posted by New Era

You make a reasonable long term offer based on where you believe Backlund will be in two years. If you believe he's going to be a consistent 25 goal 50 point player, then you pay him. If you think he is going to be surpassed by Bennett and replaceable by Lazar or Jankowski, then you move him. Frankly, I think we're seeing the best Mr. Backlund has to offer and this year was an aberration. The chemistry on his line was outstanding, but most of that credit goes to Tkachuk more so than Backlund. When Tkachuk slipped that line looked exactly like the third line it was advertised to be. That's where I think Backlund fits in around the league. He's a good 2nd line center for a mediocre team, but a good 3rd liner on an elite team. I see Backlund as I saw Staal in Pittsburgh. We know what happened to Staal when he was overpaid and given more responsibility. I hope the Flames do not make that mistake. Trade him while his value is at an all time high. You might actually be able to grab that top line RW or a top four defenseman were are missing.

This is pretty much how I see him but he is wayyy better Staal in Pittsburgh. If Backlund(in a package as the main piece) can be used to bring a elite #1 goalie or a top line RW or a top 4 D man, than you do it but only for the things I mentioned. Backlund is good player and trading him depnds on how Bennett, Mark Jankowski and Lazar develop.

I think we see him traded to Montreal or Florida(just a hunch) but don't trade him if you are not getting elite #1 goalie or a top line RW or a top 4 D man.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

You make a reasonable long term offer based on where you believe Backlund will be in two years. If you believe he's going to be a consistent 25 goal 50 point player, then you pay him. If you think he is going to be surpassed by Bennett and replaceable by Lazar or Jankowski, then you move him. Frankly, I think we're seeing the best Mr. Backlund has to offer and this year was an aberration. The chemistry on his line was outstanding, but most of that credit goes to Tkachuk more so than Backlund. When Tkachuk slipped that line looked exactly like the third line it was advertised to be. That's where I think Backlund fits in around the league. He's a good 2nd line center for a mediocre team, but a good 3rd liner on an elite team. I see Backlund as I saw Staal in Pittsburgh. We know what happened to Staal when he was overpaid and given more responsibility. I hope the Flames do not make that mistake. Trade him while his value is at an all time high. You might actually be able to grab that top line RW or a top four defenseman were are missing.

I couldn't disagree more.

If you took Bennett and Tkachuk and swapped them this year it would be Bennett's coming out party not Tkachuk as rookie of the year mention material.

In the playoffs Backlund had a bad back and Frolik had a bad wrist and low and behold Tkachuk was nearly invisible.

There's a reason Lance Bouma and then Joe Colborne had the best stretches of their careers and that's all Backlund.

I like Tkachuk and he's going to be a great player, but he doesn't have his rookie season without the wily contributions of Backlund.

[Fan in Exile]

Anyone else find some irony in the fact that while Treliving is generally lauded on this board and Chiarelli is the subject of scorn and ridicule on the Edmonton is no good thread, that aside from undeservedly picking up McDavid, the Oilers have picked up Talbot, Larsson and Lucic (I know he's a left-winger but still and there's Maroon as well), who are basically the ideal players to fill the holes we have in our line-up.

I don't bring this up with admiration, just suggesting that maybe we've over-rated Treliving and under-rated Chiarelli who has built more of a Burke-style truculent team that's tough to play against in two years than Treliving has accomplished with his acquisitions.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Anyone else find some irony in the fact that while Treliving is generally lauded on this board and Chiarelli is the subject of scorn and ridicule on the Edmonton is no good thread, that aside from undeservedly picking up McDavid, the Oilers have picked up Talbot, Larsson and Lucic (I know he's a left-winger but still and there's Maroon as well), who are basically the ideal players to fill the holes we have in our line-up.

I don't bring this up with admiration, just suggesting that maybe we've over-rated Treliving and under-rated Chiarelli who has built more of a Burke-style truculent team that's tough to play against in two years than Treliving has accomplished with his acquisitions.

Nope

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Anyone else find some irony in the fact that while Treliving is generally lauded on this board and Chiarelli is the subject of scorn and ridicule on the Edmonton is no good thread, that aside from undeservedly picking up McDavid, the Oilers have picked up Talbot, Larsson and Lucic (I know he's a left-winger but still and there's Maroon as well), who are basically the ideal players to fill the holes we have in our line-up.

I don't bring this up with admiration, just suggesting that maybe we've over-rated Treliving and under-rated Chiarelli who has built more of a Burke-style truculent team that's tough to play against in two years than Treliving has accomplished with his acquisitions.

It was rumoured that Tre was in on both Talbot and Jones and in the sames offseason picked up Hamilton. Also Lucic at that money and Term.... No thanks! And the oilers give up Hall for Larson, do you recommend we give up Gaudreau for a top 4 D?

Chia also gave a up a 1st rounder ++ for Reinhardt. Ouch.

Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Anyone else find some irony in the fact that while Treliving is generally lauded on this board and Chiarelli is the subject of scorn and ridicule on the Edmonton is no good thread, that aside from undeservedly picking up McDavid, the Oilers have picked up Talbot, Larsson and Lucic (I know he's a left-winger but still and there's Maroon as well), who are basically the ideal players to fill the holes we have in our line-up.

I don't bring this up with admiration, just suggesting that maybe we've over-rated Treliving and under-rated Chiarelli who has built more of a Burke-style truculent team that's tough to play against in two years than Treliving has accomplished with his acquisitions.

Chiarelli's ability to put together a team that can play well for a year or two was never in question, it's drafting and handcuffing himself against the cap that gets him in trouble and limits long term success . And it's looking like he's making the same mistakes again.

Lets not forget about Griffin Reinhart either

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Anyone else find some irony in the fact that while Treliving is generally lauded on this board and Chiarelli is the subject of scorn and ridicule on the Edmonton is no good thread, that aside from undeservedly picking up McDavid, the Oilers have picked up Talbot, Larsson and Lucic (I know he's a left-winger but still and there's Maroon as well), who are basically the ideal players to fill the holes we have in our line-up.

I don't bring this up with admiration, just suggesting that maybe we've over-rated Treliving and under-rated Chiarelli who has built more of a Burke-style truculent team that's tough to play against in two years than Treliving has accomplished with his acquisitions.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Nope

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It was rumoured that Tre was in on both Talbot and Jones and in the sames offseason picked up Hamilton. Also Lucic at that money and Term.... No thanks! And the oilers give up Hall for Larson, do you recommend we give up Gaudreau for a top 4 D?

Chia also gave a up a 1st rounder ++ for Reinhardt. Ouch.

Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.

Not to mention without falling ass backwards into an undeserved McDavid that piece of crap team isn't even in the playoffs right now.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Zoller

Backlund is not our 3rd line Centre. He's our second

Bennett has not proven he can be a top 6 centre yet. Let him prove that first before there is any talk of trading Backlund

Pretty much this. Bennett hasn't shown he can be a #2 centre in this league. Unless or until he does, trading Backlund leaves a huge hole in the roster. In fact, we can probably judge what the Flames' brass think of Bennett's mid-term potential by how they handle Backlund here.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by Par

This is pretty much how I see him but he is wayyy better Staal in Pittsburgh. If Backlund(in a package as the main piece) can be used to bring a elite #1 goalie or a top line RW or a top 4 D man, than you do it but only for the things I mentioned. Backlund is good player and trading him depnds on how Bennett, Mark Jankowski and Lazar develop.

I think we see him traded to Montreal or Florida(just a hunch) but don't trade him if you are not getting elite #1 goalie or a top line RW or a top 4 D man.

Backlund for Gallagher?

Or Backlund for Bjugstad + Luongo?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I couldn't disagree more.

If you took Bennett and Tkachuk and swapped them this year it would be Bennett's coming out party not Tkachuk as rookie of the year mention material.

In the playoffs Backlund had a bad back and Frolik had a bad wrist and low and behold Tkachuk was nearly invisible.

There's a reason Lance Bouma and then Joe Colborne had the best stretches of their careers and that's all Backlund.

I like Tkachuk and he's going to be a great player, but he doesn't have his rookie season without the wily contributions of Backlund.

I respect this view. I think Backlund is a very good hockey player, a guy we need more of, not less. But you have think of where his game is going and pay for that. Where is he going to fit on this team? Do they make a mistake and overpay him for where he is going to be in two years? I hope not. I would like to keep Backlund, but only if he is on a Frolik contract. His ask is a cent over that and you move him. You can't afford to have a guy on your third line eating $5-6 million and think you're going to be competitive at the levels of the elite teams. I would rather someone else assumed that risk, and not the Calgary Flames.

[FlamesAddiction]

Sounding like a broken record, but Bennett should be moved to the wing permanently. I think he has better top 6 potential as a winger than a center. Hopefully Jankowski can show he is ready next season.

And we should keep Backlund until we can upgrade with top 6 center. For now, Backlund is working.

[DuffMan]

Absolutely have to keep backlund. He plays PP, PK, and everything else, very well. Very dependable defensively while being one and of the top offensive guys.
I've always been a supporter, and I've noticed this year, and maybe last, he's picked up an abrasive aspect to his game, he didn't have earlier.
Pay him whatever keeps him here.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Zoller

Backlund is not our 3rd line Centre. He's our second

Bennett has not proven he can be a top 6 centre yet. Let him prove that first before there is any talk of trading Backlund

I like Backlund and yes he's now playing as our 2nd line center but lets face facts, Backlund is in his prime years and likely won't keep it up past 3 more years, when Backs was Bennett's age he couldn't even make the team.

Bennett if handled properly should pass Backlund on the depth chart with ease within 2 years, he has more natural talent and far more jam.

I would trade Backs for a solid #3 dman right now before I give him even close to 5 x $6m

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by New Era

I respect this view. I think Backlund is a very good hockey player, a guy we need more of, not less. But you have think of where his game is going and pay for that. Where is he going to fit on this team? Do they make a mistake and overpay him for where he is going to be in two years? I hope not. I would like to keep Backlund, but only if he is on a Frolik contract. His ask is a cent over that and you move him. You can't afford to have a guy on your third line eating $5-6 million and think you're going to be competitive at the levels of the elite teams. I would rather someone else assumed that risk, and not the Calgary Flames.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

This is the same kind of attitude the Avs took towards Stastny and O'Rielly.

You give your kids opportunity, but you don't put the weight of the team on their shoulders before they've shown they can carry it. That's how they broke MacKinnon and Duchene.

[Zoller]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I like Backlund and yes he's now playing as our 2nd line center but lets face facts, Backlund is in his prime years and likely won't keep it up past 3 more years, when Backs was Bennett's age he couldn't even make the team.

Bennett if handled properly should pass Backlund on the depth chart with ease within 2 years, he has more natural talent and far more jam.

I would trade Backs for a solid #3 dman right now before I give him even close to 5 x $6m

Well I don't know about you but I believe this team has a pretty good chance to win in the next 3 years. Why trade Backlund if he's in his prime?

I wouldn't offer more than 5.5 x 5 years but that would be slightly under market value. Hopefully he takes a bit of a discount to stay with the team.

[EldrickOnIce]

Last two seasons of 20 goals and 50 points in shutdown role.
Kesler is similar, but has done it 4 years instead of 2. No one suggesting paying the 6.8 Kesler gets, but you can't tell me he isn't incredibly valuable to Anaheim.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

This is the same kind of attitude the Avs took towards Stastny and O'Rielly.

You give your kids opportunity, but you don't put the weight of the team on their shoulders before they've shown they can carry it. That's how they broke MacKinnon and Duchene.

Sorry, you're dead wrong (see how easy that is). This isn't about expectations, this is about trying to maintain a budget and not complete #### yourself like the Oilers did. You want to be competitive, you DON'T overpay players unless they are elite. Backlund is not elite. Backlund is on the same level as Frolik. That is what you pay. If he wants more than that, then you move him out. And don't think for a second that its easy to get rid of players that are on bad contracts. Flames have been trying to move certain bodies and found no takers, because their contracts are bad. You can't afford to over-pay players anymore. You just can't, because you're stuck with that contract for as long as it runs.