Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
That's the juggling act for a GM. The NFL model used by successful teams is that once aging players start to decline a team will move on regardless of him being a fan favorite, locker room intangibles, etc. NHL GM's aren't afforded the ability to just cut players with guaranteed contracts so a GM has a lot of variables to consider. Do you try to move him while he's still a useful player and weaken your team in the short term to avoid the long term pains? The GM job is much more difficult than most fans think it is. You see players like Lucic, Glencross, Frolik, Neal, Brouwer, etc decline quickly as they age and a GM can't afford to have too many of these guys associated with their roster while trying to build a contender. In regards to Backlund I do agree with what FDW said earlier in this thread in that he will assume the role Stajan did which is fine but the reality is that the team had a hole in it's top 6 with Backlund and with his drift to bottom 6 it's now created two holes in the top 6.
|
Those players were mostly physical, or relied on hard work and less on brain power IMO. I see Backlund as more of a Gio type - they work hard but also try to play a smart game. Those guys last longer.
As for Stajan comparisons, maybe there will be a corresponding decline, but Backlund is starting from a much higher position. Stajan never had the production Backlund did, except for one year in Toronto. So where Stajan moved from a 3rd line quality centre to a 4th liner, Backlund moves form a 2nd line quality to 3rd line (and is probably better at that than Stajan was at his peak).