2016/2017 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Derek Engelland might get a nice little return this year. Other than maybe Dougie Hamilton, he's been the Flames most consistent defenceman. For a contender looking for a solid guy to play on the bottom pairing, he's going to be very attractive.

I'm not sure what term he has left though....

UFA this summer and considering his off-season home is Vegas he'll probably an obvious signing for them. Prime candidate to move at the deadline if their is a market for him.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Considering how good Backlund has been for the last 3 seasons or so, it's more likely that players like Tkachuk are benefitting the most from playing with him, and not the other way around. And that's not to say Tkachuk hasn't looked great, but Backlund has had great numbers for a while now.

Backlund has suffered some pretty hefty injuries over his first few years in the NHL, this is really the first season that he has been healthy all year (knock on wood) AND has had offensive zone success at the same time.

So no, I don't think Backlund has been making linemates better for years. The offensive chemistry that the 3m line can only be deduced to individual efforts if they are separated IMO.

Originally Posted by Toonage

Backlund made Colborne look good 2 seasons ago. Nuff said?

Last season was a breakout for Backs and Colborne benefited at times from that, but Colborne also played with Johnny and Monny as well, quite a bit and always on the PP.

[Justin]

Engelland will have some tire kickers. Work horse for the playoffs. Can reliably be paired up against most any line. Stepped up huge during injuries and ate some big minutes. At times he's been the Flames most consistent d-man.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Advocating the Flames to make the same mistake? Brouwer at his best hasn't been as good as Backlund since he was 23. I get what you're saying... Brouwer has been paid, it's done, options are limited. But Backlund has been the Flames best centre for a while now. He's the only centre on the team that has an understanding of the defensive aspect of the game. He gives Monahan and Bennett easier minutes. Backlund's impact goes beyond his own play on the ice. As bad as things have been this season, you remove Backlund and this team completely falls apart.

I actually agree, but you are underselling Monahan. But I guess, this team hasn't been a playoff team with Backlund, does it matter if things get worse without him?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I actually agree, but you are underselling Monahan. But I guess, this team hasn't been a playoff team with Backlund, does it matter if things get worse without him?

You mean consistently I assume?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I actually agree, but you are underselling Monahan. But I guess, this team hasn't been a playoff team with Backlund, does it matter if things get worse without him?

The team hasn't been a playoff team with Backlund. But is that the fault of Backlund, or Monahan, Gaudreau, Giordano, etc., not pulling their weight this season?

Almost every player on this team has trended down this season. Is it correct to single out one of the few that have been good (great) and say "well, we haven't been a consistent playoff contender with them on the team, so why keep them?"

That logic is just incorrect.

[automaton 3]

Backlund has been great. And not to take anything away from him, but imo Tkachuk's play has been a big factor in Backlund's offensive success this year.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Backlund has been great. And not to take anything away from him, but imo Tkachuk's play has been a big factor in Backlund's offensive success this year.

I mean, he's on pace for 53 points as opposed to the 47 he had last year without him.

I agree that Tkachuk has been a help, but literally every Flame improves their numbers when Backlund is on the ice.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Backlund has been great. And not to take anything away from him, but imo Tkachuk's play has been a big factor in Backlund's offensive success this year.

Backlund has been this good for 3 years. His rates haven't improved much. Literally the only difference is playing time

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He's the #1 centre on this team. He's a better all-around player than Monahan.

Trade Backlund and the fate of this team will depend on whether or not Bennett turns into a reliable #2 centre. Does management want to take that risk? I'm not sure I would.



Montreal is the obvious candidate. But they're going for it now, so they won't move a contributing roster player. You'd be looking at picks and prospects, with the centrepiece being Scherback and/or a 1st.

Backlund is NOT the number one center on this team. He may be performing at that level right now, but that is because the other two guys are ####ting the bed pretty hard. Backlund is a number three guy. A top end number three guy, but still a number three guy. Looking at just his performance this season is stupid. Look at his whole career and his trajectory. He's a third liner. Christ, this is reminiscent of when Jeff Shantz was on the team. Yeah, he put up good numbers for the team he was on, but he was nothing more than third liner on every team on the planet. I really like Backlund, but the comments about his abilities are crazy. He's no different than Bouma a couple years ago when everything he touched turned into goals. He ain't as good as his. I bets lead you to believe.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Pretty funny how we were so quick to overpay Brouwer but don't want to pay Backlund fair value as a much more important player for this team.

First of all few posters liked that deal and I'm sure the GM may not make it if he could do that over. 2nd of all Backlund is playing himself into a $5 million dollar long term deal. By next summer the Flames will already have got his best seasons so we are talking about a legacy contract for a 3rd line center. If the team really thinks Jankowski is going to be a player something will have to give. Just like the Oilers will have to say goodby to guys like RNH and Eberle, the Flames will have to let go some players that are still useful but no longer feasible in the team's salary structure. That badly needed 4th defenseman and RWer isn't going to come cheap. Something has to give.

[herashak]

Originally Posted by New Era

Backlund is NOT the number one center on this team. He may be performing at that level right now, but that is because the other two guys are ####ting the bed pretty hard. Backlund is a number three guy. A top end number three guy, but still a number three guy. Looking at just his performance this season is stupid. Look at his whole career and his trajectory. He's a third liner. Christ, this is reminiscent of when Jeff Shantz was on the team. Yeah, he put up good numbers for the team he was on, but he was nothing more than third liner on every team on the planet. I really like Backlund, but the comments about his abilities are crazy. He's no different than Bouma a couple years ago when everything he touched turned into goals. He ain't as good as his. I bets lead you to believe.

Who is the 2nd line centre ahead of backlund? It sure as hell isnt bennett

[Wolfman]

Those talking about trading Backlund are out of their bloody minds!!! You invested years on him and he finally turns a corner and you want to get rid of him? How does that make sense? 27 year old center getting into his prime. Mind boggling!!!

[BigFlameDog]

Yep some of you would be begging for a Backlund like player 5 mins after he was traded. Some of you are out of your minds right now.

[Ashasx]

I think that given the kind of player he is (doesn't light the league on fire offensively), Backlund will always be undervalued around the league. If we decide to trade him next season because we figure we won't have room to re-sign him, I don't see us getting much more than a really late 1st round pick, if that. That's not worth giving up Backlund to me considering his impact as a whole on this team.

I also think the cost to re-sign Backlund will be less than his actual value. He loves the Flames more than any other player on the team. If that means we have to move out contracts to keep him, I do it. If it means we have to give up some draft picks to get out of Brouwer's contract, I do it. He just means too much to this team.

The moment you trade Backlund is the same moment you want him back.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The team hasn't been a playoff team with Backlund. But is that the fault of Backlund, or Monahan, Gaudreau, Giordano, etc., not pulling their weight this season?

Almost every player on this team has trended down this season. Is it correct to single out one of the few that have been good (great) and say "well, we haven't been a consistent playoff contender with them on the team, so why keep them?"

That logic is just incorrect.

Singling out Backlund as the reason wasn't my point at all. My point was, does it matter if we get worse then we are now, given we aren't a playoff team.

I'm not suggesting that the Flames could be considering trading Backlund because he's the reason we are struggling, quite the opposite. Way to many people look at trades as something that only happens to players "responsible" for poor performance.

The biggest risk to trading Backlund is what you have correctly identified, it likely makes us worse (assuming a return of future potential) this year and next. My point is, does it matter if we are worse this year, if we aren't a playoff team (which is still TBD, totally correct Toonage)? Trading Backlund would be about "trying" to be better 3 years from now, and not potentially letting a valuable asset walk away for nothing or for limited value if the long term plans (cap wise or other) don't allow him to be a part of this team beyond his current contract.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Singling out Backlund as the reason wasn't my point at all. My point was, does it matter if we get worse then we are now, given we aren't a playoff team.

I'm not suggesting that the Flames could be considering trading Backlund because he's the reason we are struggling, quite the opposite. Way to many people look at trades as something that only happens to players "responsible" for poor performance.

The biggest risk to trading Backlund is what you have correctly identified, it likely makes us worse (assuming a return of future potential) this year and next. My point is, does it matter if we are worse this year, if we aren't a playoff team (which is still TBD, totally correct Toonage)? Trading Backlund would be about "trying" to be better 3 years from now, and not potentially letting a valuable asset walk away for nothing or for limited value if the long term plans (cap wise or other) don't allow him to be a part of this team beyond his current contract.

Your post seems to imply a rebuild of the rebuild, in which case Backlund would be the perfect veteran to have on the team to ensure the young players aren't thrown to the wolves.

If you aren't implying a rebuild of a rebuild, and instead attempting to win with this current core, Backlund is still the perfect player to have because absolutely nobody else on this team could attempt to do what he does and hold their heads above water.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Your post seems to imply a rebuild of the rebuild, in which case Backlund would be the perfect veteran to have on the team to ensure the young players aren't thrown to the wolves.

The rebuild started after Backlund made the team, and it isn't finished yet. I'm not saying we trade him, but if we did, it would be a continuation of the rebuild. A rebuild of the rebuild would be if the Flames traded Bennett and Monahan.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Your post seems to imply a rebuild of the rebuild, in which case Backlund would be the perfect veteran to have on the team to ensure the young players aren't thrown to the wolves.

If you aren't implying a rebuild of a rebuild, and instead attempting to win with this current core, Backlund is still the perfect player to have because absolutely nobody else on this team could attempt to do what he does and hold their heads above water.

My posts were actually in response to one by a poster who was just flabbergasted that Backlund could be traded. Honestly, I think "what to do with Backlund" is one of the most interesting and difficult things this management group has had to contemplate since this rebuild began. From my perspective, I honestly have no idea what I'd like them to do, I just don't think contemplating trading him, is rediculous.

That said, I think you last paragraph isn't totally accurate. Clearly you like the player (as do I) and just can't fathom him not being around. Moving Backlund does not represent a rebuild of a rebuild. Why, because he's not a core player to this current rebuild, he's too old. I agree he's the perfect player to have around as our core is young (he's showing it this year why he is) as he makes us competitive and as you pointed out, can help shelter our young centers from tough minutes.

That doesn't change the fact that his contract is up at the end of next year and he will be 29. A good 6 years older than most of the other players who are the core. Backlund is peaking now, our other best players will be peaking later, something has to give.

Not to mention, that at some point the Flames need to make a decision on who we are going to invest in at Center. We will not be able to invest in all 3 of Monahan, Bennett and Backlund over the course of the next 5 years and build a balanced winner. Again, something has to give.

I'm not saying Backlund has to be the one that goes. But there is no scenario that exists where the Flames can keep Monahan, Bennett and Backlund, if all three players are playing like we hope. Bennett is going to buy us a little time given he's likely not earned anything beyond a bridge deal. But the Flames are going to have to decide which ponies at center they are backing (clearly they've already chosen Monahan) and will need to know before Backlund's contract is up next year, and sooner if they potentially want to maximize any return value on either him or Bennett, and they are likely going to need to make that decision before Bennett makes the decision easy for us (one way or another), meaning it will be a gamble.

Backlund is the easy one in my mind to say move, because he's likely never going to be playing better, and he's older than the other two. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing. Very, very hard decisions coming up for BT, Burke or whoever.

[Flash Walken]

There is nothing stopping the flames from signing backlund to an extension that carries him to 35, but if you are doing that you are basically saying the flames won't be signing Bennett to the same contract.

In the abstract there isn't anything really wrong with that, you just need to hope you made the right choice because if 23 year old Sam Bennett scores 30 goals it's going to be pretty frustrating if 31 year backlund is preventing the flames from signing him.

The flames already have Giordano who will be a contract obstacle by the time this team is a contender, I think the risk of having backlund be another one is simply too great.