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

[flamesfever]

Backlund is a huge reason for our move forward this year. He is definitely a 2nd line centre, and is indispensable on the PK. We would be left with a huge hole in our team without him. I think the Flames have to find a way to keep him over the next few years.

[Snuffleupagus]

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.

No he's not wrong, first off Backlund overall isn't near any of those players, secondly how in hell can you say the Av's "broke" MacKinnon and Duchene? they played on a bad team but make no mistake either one of them would make this team far better, I would trade Backlund in a minute for Duchene and would add a 1st+ for MacKinnon.

[Par]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

Backlund for Gallagher?

Or Backlund for Bjugstad + Luongo?

If(and this is a big if) you are trading him, trade him in a package, you can get more for him. If we do trade, that will a big hole in the lineup, so you have to get something back that is worth while.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

No he's not wrong, first off Backlund overall isn't near any of those players, secondly how in hell can you say the Av's "broke" MacKinnon and Duchene? they played on a bad team but make no mistake either one of them would make this team far better, I would trade Backlund in a minute for Duchene and would add a 1st+ for MacKinnon.

You do that and run like a cheetah. I do that in a second.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.

At market value , Brouwer is what you get for 4.5.
Not Backlund

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Martin Hanzal is not nearly as good as Backlund.

I don't see it as clear as you.

Size - Hanzal >>
Speed - Backlund >
Face Offs - Hanzal >>>
Shot - Hanzal >
Playmaking - Backlund >
Defence - Backlund >

Backlund is definitely better defensively. However I think Hanzal is very well equipped to handle 2nd line minutes until Bennett develops into that role. Not to mention Hanzal also brings much needed size and face off ability.

If we can get Hanzal for a million less than Backlund mean while trading Backs to fill a hole like RW, top 4 D, or #1 goalie I don't see how it's not a good option.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Gallagher
Tkachuk - Hanzal - Frolik
Versteeg - Bennett - Ferland

Looks better than

Gaudreau - Monahan - Ferland
Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik
Versteeg - Bennett - Chiasson

An example of course of the route we could take. We could probably solidify our top 4 D if we wanted to by trading Backs as well.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I don't see it as clear as you.

Size - Hanzal >>
Speed - Backlund >
Face Offs - Hanzal >>>
Shot - Hanzal >
Playmaking - Backlund >
Defence - Backlund >

Backlund is definitely better defensively. However I think Hanzal is very well equipped to handle 2nd line minutes until Bennett develops into that role. Not to mention Hanzal also brings much needed size and face off ability.

If we can get Hanzal for a million less than Backlund mean while trading Backs to fill a hole like RW, top 4 D, or #1 goalie I don't see how it's not a good option.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Gallagher
Tkachuk - Hanzal - Frolik
Versteeg - Bennett - Ferland

Looks better than

Gaudreau - Monahan - Ferland
Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik
Versteeg - Bennett - Chiasson

An example of course of the route we could take. We could probably solidify our top 4 D if we wanted to by trading Backs as well.

That is not a huge improvement and without a huge improvement, I would not trade Backlund.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Par

That is not a huge improvement and without a huge improvement, I would not trade Backlund.

Hanzal is also a 20 G 40point player but was doing it on a dumpster fire Phoenix team. You get to add a 50 point RW to that and it's not a huge improvement ? I would disagree.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Hanzal is also a 20 G 40point player but was doing it on a dumpster fire Phoenix team. You get to add a 50 point RW to that and it's not a huge improvement ? I would disagree.

He's made of glass and doesn't drive possession nearly as well as Backlund.

[Ashasx]

You really can't have a legitimate discussion with anyone who thinks Hanzal is even in the same stratosphere as Backlund.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by ashasx

you really can't have a legitimate discussion with anyone who thinks hanzal is even in the same stratosphere as backlund.

lol

[Vinny01]

I just don't want the Flames to be in a Bruins situation where they overpaid for valuable guys like Krejci, Kelly, Peverly and end up trading Seguin and Hamilton largely due to cap constraints. The Flames core 4 are Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkachuk and those are the guys where the $6+M should be reserved. There is room for some $4-5M forwards and Backlund could fit in that group.

I just do not want to lose him for nothing or overpay to keep him and end up moving a younger player that fits better with the age group of the team. Lastly this discussion isn't even possible without Jankowski in the system who by all accounts is the real deal (big body 3rd line centre with some offense ability). It would be a risky trade for the Flames but if they could get a legit RW, or 23-28 right shot D maybe it makes some sense?

Backlund + Hickey for Strome + Hamonic?

Get a guy who can play centre or wing and a big shutdown Dman signed to a good deal for a prospect that might not sign with us and Backlund

[Kovaz]

Backlund becomes expendable the day one of Bennett or Monahan can start in the D zone against tough competition and still drive possession favourably. That could be as soon as a year or two, or it could be never. But until that point, he's an indispensable part of our team. Easily worth the ~5M/year extension he'll get next offseason. Plus we'll have 5M extra of Bouma/Stajan money and no one else major to extend so there's no way we lose him solely due to cap concerns.

Looking forward, the only slightly iffy window cap-wise is in 2 years with Tkachuk being the only expiring contract. But we've currently got $33M of cap-space that year, so it's not a problem right now - it's just a constraint that BT has to take into consideration over the next 2 offseasons.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

Backlund for Gallagher?

Or Backlund for Bjugstad + Luongo?

No, and lol.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I just don't want the Flames to be in a Bruins situation where they overpaid for valuable guys like Krejci, Kelly, Peverly and end up trading Seguin and Hamilton largely due to cap constraints. The Flames core 4 are Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkachuk and those are the guys where the $6+M should be reserved. There is room for some $4-5M forwards and Backlund could fit in that group.

I just do not want to lose him for nothing or overpay to keep him and end up moving a younger player that fits better with the age group of the team. Lastly this discussion isn't even possible without Jankowski in the system who by all accounts is the real deal (big body 3rd line centre with some offense ability). It would be a risky trade for the Flames but if they could get a legit RW, or 23-28 right shot D maybe it makes some sense?

Backlund + Hickey for Strome + Hamonic?

Get a guy who can play centre or wing and a big shutdown Dman signed to a good deal for a prospect that might not sign with us and Backlund

You don't trade Backlund until you have another player that can play his minutes. Monahan can't. Bennett can't. Gaudreau can't.

[The Fonz]

The issue I have is that I expect Bennett to surpass Backlund in a couple years time, pushing him down to 3rd line C. We can't be paying 5.5M + term for a 3rd line C. I guess when that day comes, you trade Backlund? That'd be a shame - the guy loves Calgary and the Flames, hates the Oilers and the Canucks, and has propelled his linemates to career years in 3 consecutive seasons (14/15-Bouma, 15/16-Colbourne, 16/17-Frolik). How can you trade a guy like that?

This would all be solved if Gaudreau could play his off wing, and Bennett could move to the left side permanently.

Bennett Monahan Gaudreau
Tkachuk Backlund Frolik

The guys making big $$$ need to be playing in the top 6.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Hanzal is also a 20 G 40point player but was doing it on a dumpster fire Phoenix team. You get to add a 50 point RW to that and it's not a huge improvement ? I would disagree.

Why wouldn't we just sign Eaves/Vrbata/Oshie/Radulov instead of downgrading at center to add Gallagher?

I'd rather 82 games of the better defensively Backlund than 50-70 games of the bigger Hanzal. Trading a center for a RW so you can sign a center in FA makes little sense if you can just sign a RW in FA.

Hanzal has also hit 20G once in his career, while Gallagher has never hit 50 points, so not sure why we're labelling either of them as that type of producer.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

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

I get that in order to be one of the cool kids on the board you have to hate the Oilers. Not exactly sure why. I grew up in the 80s when there was a real rivalry and the Oilers and Flames were the teams to beat. Sure I hated the Oilers then. They were our main rival and main obstacle to winning a Cup. Maybe we both get there again. I also hated the Canucks because they were a Conference rival with a bunch of dirty unlikeable players and insufferable fans. Couldn't care less about them now. Not sure why you'd bother despising the Oilers when they've been completely inept and irrelevant for the last ten years aside from them fluking out and being gifted so many firsts overall and then getting McDavid on top of that.

But aside from all that, objectively speaking, I watched the Oilers and Flames down the stretch and in the playoffs and well...

They got a much better goalie than we did. Out of the guys that have been available, the Oilers, the Sharks, and the Leafs got good young reliable number ones and we did not.

The Oilers are now a tougher, more physical team than the Flames. They have big physical forwards who contribute offensively on each of their top three lines. And I would absolutely love to have someone like Larsson on the Flames. We have more speed and offensive skill on D than the Oilers but Larsson is exactly the kind of player we are lacking on our D.

The two teams have been looking to find the same kind of players and the Oilers have filled those holes better than we have. Don't understand how that can be denied.

Fair enough to be of the opinion that Chiarelli may have paid too much and puts the Oilers in a hole later on given what McDavid and Draisatl will demand. I guess we'll see but Talbot, Klefbom, Larsson, McDavid, Draisatl seems like a solid core to build on.

I guess this is all a tangent but I guess my point is if we have to trade Backlund to fill the holes in our lineup, the same holes we've had for 3 seasons now, and which Chiarelli has managed to fill in two, that's a major fail for Treliving.

[Roof-Daddy]

Hanzal career CF% 51.2 OZs% 47.9
Backlund career CF% 52.5 OZs% 44.6

Hanzal career GPG/PPG 0.19/0.52
Backlund career GPG/PPG 0.20/0.49

Hanzal career FO% 51.9 - Last 5 years FO% 54.5
Backlund career FO% 47.8 - Last 5 years FO% 47.8


Very comparable players IMO.

Backlund is a better possession driver, but Hanzal is no slouch and crushes face offs and brings a huge frame to the mix.

If they did trade Backlund to fill a hole somewhere, I'd be OK with Hanzal as the #2/#3 center behind Monahan, with Bennett hopefully being the other #2/#3 center with upside.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Love

You don't trade Backlund until you have another player that can play his minutes. Monahan can't. Bennett can't. Gaudreau can't.

I understand that point of view and agree Backlund does his role better than anyone else on the roster could. This is about a long term move though and what the organization truly thinks about where they see players slotting. If the Flames believe Sam Bennett is a number 2 centre and Mark Jankowski will be a number 3 then Backlund would be the odd man out. Trading him now his value may never be higher and the Flames address one of there other needs. Losing Backlund potentially creates a hole but perhaps as Monahan, Bennett, Jankowski continue to progress and absorb his loss.