Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
The thing is to up grade them, you can't just do a 1 for 1 trade. You need to add something in order to upgrade them. Say the rangers said that Hayes was available or the kings said that Toffoli was available, who would you trade to get them? Stajan, England and Colborne? No, it'll take a lot more than that because the other teams won't want over priced average players. They're going to want players with value in return. If the Kings wanted Backlund and Ferland for Toffoli, do you say no because those guys are core players and bring something special?
I'm not saying we should trade Backlund for the sake of trading him. IF there is a chance to get a legitimate top 6 RW and the other team is asking for Backlund, you do the deal. If they're asking for a guy like Brodie, you don't.
Core guys are guys you won't trade unless something drastic comes along. I wouldn't trade Monahan for Toffoli because I think Monahan is more important and part of our core.
And people are talking about Backlund like he's carrying this team. Without him would we be 29th or 30th instead of 26th?
|
Think of Backlund this way:
Yes, without him maybe this team is 29th or 30th. Monahan would have to play against stiffer competition, and that would probably hurt his numbers as well.
If there were two Backlunds on the team, maybe the Flames would be 22nd or 23rd instead of 26th.
Backlund does help you win. He plays a very sound 200ft game. He is a fantastic skater who you don't often see take a shift off (which is huge for a rebuilding team needing to keep up the tempo for other guys to help fall in line).
He may not carry the team on his back like what is usually expected out of a superstar. That isn't Backlund. What Backlund gives you is very tough minutes fairly consistently. That's worth a lot to a team, and usually worth a lot more to the team that already has Backlund than another team that is wanting him.
Is Backlund untouchable? I don't think anyone is claiming that. What people are saying is that he provides an incredibly useful role that isn't very glamorous, and the fact that it isn't glamorous makes his trade value a bit lower.
I would love it if the Flames had a 6'4" Backlund that scored a bit more and hit a bit more. That would be ideal, and that would make Backlund expendable. As it stands right now, there is nobody on the team that can do what Backlund does. What does this allow? It allows 19 year old Sam Bennett to learn how to play center in the NHL without losing confidence since Hartley can shelter him. It allows Monahan to play against slightly weaker opposition in an effort to create more offence.
Backlund playing tough minutes and being relied upon to essentially smother the best team's opposing players is not a glamorous job. Backlund being a plus player while doing so - on a team that is a huge minus - that says a lot about what Mikael Backlund is bringing to the Calgary Flames. Yes, give me another Backlund, and I promise you the Flames will be winning more games. Don't confuse that with a superstar who carries a team kicking and screaming into the playoffs. Backlund does a lot of the dirty work that allows a superstar to carry that team on his back.
Now, would I hate to see Backlund moved in the right trade? If the return is good, of course not. Any player - Gaudreau and Monahan and Bennett and whomever else - I would feel the same. I just think Backlund right now is invaluable to the Flames - as 'sucky' as they are right now - and I would be angry if it was for even a 'fair' trade. There is no reason to move a Backlund for market value - the value he brings to the Flames is higher than market value. I think that is the point that many people are trying to make. Not untouchable, but since his value to the Flames outweighs what most believe his market value to be, he becomes untouchable by circumstance, if that kind of makes sense (and if my long rambling and distracted post made sense at that).