I would have zero issues with re-signing Backlund, including with whatever direction this team is going (full rebuild, retool, compete now). It is doubtful that Backlund wants an 8 year deal. 2-3 years is fine. After that, you do 1 year deals. That's the caveat for me - a 3 year deal MAX.
Why would I be fine with it?
1) He is amazing for the community
2) Longest serving Flame by a mile
3) Hasn't dropped-off in production at all, and we can reasonably expect him to at least continue to be elite defensively when his production does drop off
I still see it as a package - Lindholm + Backlund... or what's the point? In my opinion, you add Lindholm to the other 3 long contracts in the hopes that you can win in the next 2-4 years while these players are still relatively in their primes (and that's arguable at that already). You are unlikely to find an upgrade internally or externally unless you make a hockey trade, but there are probably more important holes that will need to be filled anyway. Internally right now, Ruzicka and Zary are possible, but unlikely for a few years. Dube? He realistically might be able to replace Backlund, in a season or two.
I think if the goal is really to try and win, and re-signing Lindholm is the direction you want to go in, then you sign Backlund. If you don't sign Lindholm, this team probably takes another step back from being able to compete, and the Flames do a 1-2 year retool (if a rebuild remains out of the question. I would imagine that Backlund would also rather be traded as his seasons are running out, and the assets become part of that retool. That's why it makes sense to me to have them as a package deal.
The strength of the Flames right now is having 3 capable 2-way centres that are all good at generating some offence, while also playing a shutdown role. If you lose any one, then the group becomes more or less underwhelming when comparing against the other teams in the division.
|