[Rumour] Sportak: Flames are trying to add second top-10 pick

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Trading Backlund would be a major mistake. He is finally coming into his own as a complete 2 way player. The exact type of player we should be hoping to add to this team.

Did you people that are labeling him a 3rd line center actually watch him play for the Flames this year or in the worlds?

One step forward, two steps back is not the way to build this team.

I like Backlund a lot, but if you can get a potential 1st line player for a 2nd/3rd line tweener, you make that trade every day of the week. Especially when the Flames are deep up the middle with Knight, Jankowski and Granlund all vying for the same #3 C spot.

[The Fonz]

If we get one of Reinhart/Bennet @ #4, I think Backlund gets traded in a package for one of the #7-10 picks

[tvp2003]

This thread is making my brain hurt. Some of these proposed trades are just mind bottling.

Can we hurry up and pick at 4 already? Then we can start mocking the Oilers pick, projecting who we take in the second round, and watching AC's Gaudreau World Championship video again...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Backlund is by far our best C and faces the toughest minutes on the team. He's somebody you play to shelter rookies.

In short, he's the kind of player you give up as part of a package to get a top-ten pick.

[Read Only]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It is possible and likely that people think his value is higher than it is, but you sure do like to suggest he is worth next to nothing.

Let's compare those guys:

Sven
24 pts in 51 NHL games
55 pts in 73 AHL games

Armia
0 NHL games
27 pts in 54 AHL games

Miller
10 pts in 56 NHL games
67 pts in 83 AHL games

Sven has shown more at this point. Period.

Considering Miller brings defense and a physical game he looks like a pretty good comparable. Armia obviously not close at this point.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In short, he's the kind of player you give up as part of a package to get a top-ten pick.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I like Backlund a lot, but if you can get a potential 1st line player for a 2nd/3rd line tweener, you make that trade every day of the week. Especially when the Flames are deep up the middle with Knight, Jankowski and Granlund all vying for the same #3 C spot.

So why would you want to trade someone who is only a couple years older than those mentioned and has already solidified himself as that player?

Knight is at danger of being leapfrogged by Arnold, #4, Reinhart, Granlund, etc..

Jankowski should be in your top 6 (ie not necessarily at centre) or not on your team at all if his projection goes the way it should.

I think Backlund is our Jarret Stoll-type shutdown centerman, a peice that people often think is easily replacable but I beg to differ. Guys that can do it consistently and have offensive punch are not easy to come by.

And just because he potentially ends up on your 4th line, it does not make him a replacable 4th line player (see: Mike Richards).

[Rhubarb]

Return would have to be awesome to give up on Backlund. Not sure how everyone has him pegged as a third liner. A far as I'm concerned Backlund is about a year and a half behind in development due to injuries. The Injury prone thing is way overblown, two of those injuries were freak accidents, and one was protecting a teammate, something severely lacking on this team until last year.

So we develop a player who is a very responsible defensive center, plays in all situations, is behind a little in development, due to some freak injuries, finally shows his offensive flair last year, and were going to trade him for a player who will maybe be as good as him in 3 to 5 years if everything goes well, plus a pick.

Not to mention he is in that mid 20's bracket which the team needs, has bought into the system, is becoming a leader on the team, can shelter the young players coming up, and as far as I'm concerned is just starting to really show how good he is.
Only way I trade Backlund is to massively upgrade defence with a roster player, or one of the top 4 picks.

to me seeing some of the suggestions reminds of Family guy.
Wait a minute Lois, the boat is a boat but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat.

[_Q_]

The only team I can see biting here is Toronto. They have pick #8, but are solidly in win now mode. If you give them pieces they can use next year as well as a half decent prospect they might make that deal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by NomadAJ

First attempt at a proposal. Given the Reinhart connection, anyone think that NYI would bite on something like Wideman (%50 retained) / Smid / Russell + Reinhart + 2nd for 5th?

Flames take Sams/Leon + Richie.

We're not getting a top-ten pick for what amounts to a large collection of spare parts.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Agreed. But to get value, you have to give value. And Backlund is starting to develop some value. He's also a mite fragile, so while I would hate to give him up...

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So why would you want to trade someone who is only a couple years older than those mentioned and has already solidified himself as that player?

Knight is at danger of being leapfrogged by Arnold, #4, Reinhart, Granlund, etc..

Jankowski should be in your top 6 (ie not necessarily at centre) or not on your team at all if his projection goes the way it should.

I think Backlund is our Jarret Stoll-type shutdown centerman, a peice that people often think is easily replacable but I beg to differ. Guys that can do it consistently and have offensive punch are not easy to come by.

And just because he potentially ends up on your 4th line, it does not make him a replacable 4th line player (see: Mike Richards).

If you have one of the sams or Draisaitl, plus Monahan, then you're set in the top two center positions. We can get by for the time being with Stajan as the #3 guy until one of the prospects emerge. It's not like I'm saying to trade Backs for crap, we'd be getting another player that's better than Sven, closer to Monahan in talent.

[Flames89]

Think there is a chance we trade down our #4 to move to a more "Richie"-acceptable area (let's say #6), then use those assets we gain to pick up a #8-10?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

If you have one of the sams or Draisaitl, plus Monahan, then you're set in the top two center positions. We can get by for the time being with Stajan as the #3 guy until one of the prospects emerge. It's not like I'm saying to trade Backs for crap, we'd be getting another player that's better than Sven, closer to Monahan in talent.

Yeah I know, but what I am saying is that ending up with Backlund as one of your bottom 2 centres would be a great thing for the Flames.

And personally I am very intrigued to see what kind of year Backlund has. His confidence is at an all time high and is recognized by the coach as one of the leaders going forward. I bet he's having a monster summer of training and will be great next season. So I just want to see what happens with him and given his current upswing it would a tough pill to lose him.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So why would you want to trade someone who is only a couple years older than those mentioned and has already solidified himself as that player?

Knight is at danger of being leapfrogged by Arnold, #4, Reinhart, Granlund, etc..

Jankowski should be in your top 6 (ie not necessarily at centre) or not on your team at all if his projection goes the way it should.

I think Backlund is our Jarret Stoll-type shutdown centerman, a peice that people often think is easily replacable but I beg to differ. Guys that can do it consistently and have offensive punch are not easy to come by.

And just because he potentially ends up on your 4th line, it does not make him a replacable 4th line player (see: Mike Richards).

What is your reasoning around this? Jankowksi last year was playing good minutes as being very defensively sound - on the ice at the last moments of a game when the team was trying to get a goal, or when they were trying to hold onto a lead. With his size and skating ability, his 'projection' could be anywhere from the 1st line (if things go very, very well) to being a decent 4th liner. I just can't see how he is a 'top 6 or bust' type - those are usually undersized players.

[djsFlames]

Backlund + Wideman (50%) + 34 to Toronto for 8th?

Aren't the leafs looking to add someone reliable up the middle? You think they'd fall under the help sooner than later group.

I know that value goes against what I was saying before, but 5th (Dal Colle/Ehlers) > 8th and Toronto could definitely see value in Backlund.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Glencross should waive. He arguably has equal value to Hudler with his scoring ability and contract $.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Glencross should waive. He arguably has equal value to Hudler with his scoring ability and contract $.

I think he'd have a higher value than Hudler. Hudler is smaller and more expensive

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What is your reasoning around this? Jankowksi last year was playing good minutes as being very defensively sound - on the ice at the last moments of a game when the team was trying to get a goal, or when they were trying to hold onto a lead. With his size and skating ability, his 'projection' could be anywhere from the 1st line (if things go very, very well) to being a decent 4th liner. I just can't see how he is a 'top 6 or bust' type - those are usually undersized players.

Yeah fair enough, I generally don't like to get to in depth with prospects "potential" because players can come from nowhere and high picks can bust.

And that's why I'm in favor of keeping Backlund. I just look at it like, Backlund already is that (a centre that can play up and down the lineup) at a good level and improving. There's nothing to suggest that any of our other centre prospects can suppliment that. So to me, trading him now while he's still young enough to be a part of this team in a successful upswing, just to find out 3 years from now that no one in the system was able to replace him means its a bad move for a developing team to make. You just don't trade one of your few guys under (or at) 25 who can actually play against NHL players and be effective. IMO you trade any of Stajan, Glencross, Hudler, Jones, and a few of the younger guys (Knight, Granlund, Colborne) before you look to move Backlund.

[JohnnyHockey]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

Return would have to be awesome to give up on Backlund. Not sure how everyone has him pegged as a third liner. A far as I'm concerned Backlund is about a year and a half behind in development due to injuries. The Injury prone thing is way overblown, two of those injuries were freak accidents, and one was protecting a teammate, something severely lacking on this team until last year.

So we develop a player who is a very responsible defensive center, plays in all situations, is behind a little in development, due to some freak injuries, finally shows his offensive flair last year, and were going to trade him for a player who will maybe be as good as him in 3 to 5 years if everything goes well, plus a pick.

Not to mention he is in that mid 20's bracket which the team needs, has bought into the system, is becoming a leader on the team, can shelter the young players coming up, and as far as I'm concerned is just starting to really show how good he is.
Only way I trade Backlund is to massively upgrade defence with a roster player, or one of the top 4 picks.

to me seeing some of the suggestions reminds of Family guy.
Wait a minute Lois, the boat is a boat but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat.

I wish CP had a like button.
You sir have your head screwed on straight. Love this post!