Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Martin Hanzal returned a 1st, a 2nd, and a 4th.
Backlund > Hanzal.
So if Backs is moved, you’re getting a 1st+2nd+4th and maybe something slightly better.
The Flames, having spent significant assets in the summer does not allow them the freedom to allow Backlund to walk away via free agency. It is possible Backlund could go out the door to a team in the same way Turris did - with an extension - or it’s also possible Backlund gets moved and in a separate trade the Flames acquire someone else to play 3rd line centre.
Or, Backlund could be extended - but the closer we get to the end of the year, the less likely that comes to pass (in my opinion).
|
The Flames are going to be in a dogfight for 2nd in the division the rest of the way. You can't jettison the centre who does all your heavy lifting defensively, centres the #1PK unit, and is on the #1PP. You just can't.
In the case of Hudler/Glencross, these were players who were already made expendable either by situation or performance. The team was also at a different point in its development.
Hudler was traded away from a team that would draft 6th overall. Glencross was traded from a team that had not made the playoffs in five years.
I will listen to arguments that between Jankowski, Bennett and Dube, the organization thinks it can weather the loss of Backlund next year. But they can't trade him now. They can extend him, they can let him walk, but they cannot send this team into the post-season without a player at least as good as him as #2C.
Given that acquiring this would likely cost whatever we give up for Backlund, let's just keep Backlund. The Flames have three defensemen under contract at less than $5M for two years after this one, all well under 30. If they need to recoup assets, that's the way you do it - not by trading Backlund six weeks before the playoffs.