Why would we only offer Backlund a 3 or 4 year deal? Why wouldn't we offer him 5 years, like we just offered Brodie? 5 years at 3.5 and we've got a guy who can play 2nd or 3rd line C depending on how Monahan, Bennett, Colborne and anyone else we draft progresses, kills penalties, and dominates possession numbers.
What team in the NHL wouldn't love to have Mikael Backlund as their 3rd line C for that price? Is there any indications there's going to be regression or stagnation in his game? Hasn't he gotten better every single year he's been in the league?
What is the thinking behind offering him a shorter term deal?
|