2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[David Struch]

Other players listed as centres in the Flames Organization include:

Ryan Lomberg
Matthew Phillips
Mitchell Mattson
Linus Lindstrom
Adam Ruzicka

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Flames should have paid Johnny for 8 years. Didn’t like the deal as soon as it was announced. Leads me t believe if the Flames are going to get Backlund at reasonable money it is going to take 6-7 years to do it.

You assume Jonny wanted to sign for 8.

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he wanted the flexibility to sign another contract while he still has some tread left on the tire. Or maybe this gives h control on whether or not he wants to go back to the NE states.

Flames initial offer should be 5x$5. I would go 6x$5 or 5x$5.5, but $6 is getting up there.

[Calgary4LIfe]

When it comes to Backlund, I am sure that Treliving will approach this with a certain price-point in mind, for a certain number of years.

However, it seems like a lot of posters here aren't buying how important Backlund is to this team, and a few pages back someone posted that since this team hasn't been very good for 'x' amount of years, that we should move on from Backlund as change will help.

I can't possibly disagree more.

Yes, this team needs to improve, moves need to be made, etc. However, is Backlund someone you win with, or lose with? Does he make this team better, or worse? Is he part of the solution, or part of the problem?

It is all relative to the cap hit. However, that cap hit has to go north quite a bit before I see him becoming a problem. As others have mentioned, he gets absolutely killed on defensive zone starts and quality of competition, yet he seems to out-score the opposition given those circumstances. That's not just good. That's downright amazing.

What isn't much of a leap to appreciate is also that this allows Monahan's line and Jankowski's line to get more opportunities. Gulutzan can give those two lines way more offensive zone starts and easier match-ups to help drive the offence.

You lose Backlund, and suddenly both those lines have to start playing in their own end a lot more. That WILL result in a decline in their offensive stats.

I would be fine with the Flames paying Backlund more money not just because Backlund is a really good defensive player and puts up ~50pts. Backlund gets some of the league's toughest zone starts and match-ups and out-performs anyone he is up against, while making his wingers BETTER at the same time, while allowing the other lines to get way easier minutes and opportunities to create offence.

That's what makes Backlund so valuable. He literally does make everyone on the team better. Hrvik is a career AHL'er thus far - he can't take those minutes. I love Jankowski, but he is definitely not ready for those minutes and assignments. There is literally nobody organizationally that can handle those minutes and assignments. Everyone will have to pull up their pants more and fill-in if Backlund isn't re-signed, and you can bet everyone will take a hit on their own offensive numbers.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

When it comes to Backlund, I am sure that Treliving will approach this with a certain price-point in mind, for a certain number of years.

However, it seems like a lot of posters here aren't buying how important Backlund is to this team, and a few pages back someone posted that since this team hasn't been very good for 'x' amount of years, that we should move on from Backlund as change will help.

I can't possibly disagree more.

Yes, this team needs to improve, moves need to be made, etc. However, is Backlund someone you win with, or lose with? Does he make this team better, or worse? Is he part of the solution, or part of the problem?

It is all relative to the cap hit. However, that cap hit has to go north quite a bit before I see him becoming a problem. As others have mentioned, he gets absolutely killed on defensive zone starts and quality of competition, yet he seems to out-score the opposition given those circumstances. That's not just good. That's downright amazing.

What isn't much of a leap to appreciate is also that this allows Monahan's line and Jankowski's line to get more opportunities. Gulutzan can give those two lines way more offensive zone starts and easier match-ups to help drive the offence.

You lose Backlund, and suddenly both those lines have to start playing in their own end a lot more. That WILL result in a decline in their offensive stats.

I would be fine with the Flames paying Backlund more money not just because Backlund is a really good defensive player and puts up ~50pts. Backlund gets some of the league's toughest zone starts and match-ups and out-performs anyone he is up against, while making his wingers BETTER at the same time, while allowing the other lines to get way easier minutes and opportunities to create offence.

That's what makes Backlund so valuable. He literally does make everyone on the team better. Hrvik is a career AHL'er thus far - he can't take those minutes. I love Jankowski, but he is definitely not ready for those minutes and assignments. There is literally nobody organizationally that can handle those minutes and assignments. Everyone will have to pull up their pants more and fill-in if Backlund isn't re-signed, and you can bet everyone will take a hit on their own offensive numbers.

You said it much better than I did.

It's hard to imagine the Flames being a better team without Backlund.

The only reason why the Flames should not sign Backlund to a 6x$6M contract (assuming that is what it would take), is if they admit their window is not now, and are willing to retool to get to another window, and they think that Back's later years will hurt them.

But if they simply let him walk and continue down the path of contending now, that task immediately got harder. He is simply that important to the team.

Because you won't get batter value than that on the UFA market.

And to get batter value than that on the trade market would cost them dearly.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

When it comes to Backlund, I am sure that Treliving will approach this with a certain price-point in mind, for a certain number of years.

However, it seems like a lot of posters here aren't buying how important Backlund is to this team, and a few pages back someone posted that since this team hasn't been very good for 'x' amount of years, that we should move on from Backlund as change will help.

I can't possibly disagree more.

Yes, this team needs to improve, moves need to be made, etc. However, is Backlund someone you win with, or lose with? Does he make this team better, or worse? Is he part of the solution, or part of the problem?

It is all relative to the cap hit. However, that cap hit has to go north quite a bit before I see him becoming a problem. As others have mentioned, he gets absolutely killed on defensive zone starts and quality of competition, yet he seems to out-score the opposition given those circumstances. That's not just good. That's downright amazing.

What isn't much of a leap to appreciate is also that this allows Monahan's line and Jankowski's line to get more opportunities. Gulutzan can give those two lines way more offensive zone starts and easier match-ups to help drive the offence.

You lose Backlund, and suddenly both those lines have to start playing in their own end a lot more. That WILL result in a decline in their offensive stats.

I would be fine with the Flames paying Backlund more money not just because Backlund is a really good defensive player and puts up ~50pts. Backlund gets some of the league's toughest zone starts and match-ups and out-performs anyone he is up against, while making his wingers BETTER at the same time, while allowing the other lines to get way easier minutes and opportunities to create offence.

That's what makes Backlund so valuable. He literally does make everyone on the team better. Hrvik is a career AHL'er thus far - he can't take those minutes. I love Jankowski, but he is definitely not ready for those minutes and assignments. There is literally nobody organizationally that can handle those minutes and assignments. Everyone will have to pull up their pants more and fill-in if Backlund isn't re-signed, and you can bet everyone will take a hit on their own offensive numbers.

There’s no kind way to say this. Your posts are almost always way too long.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

There’s no kind way to say this. Your posts are almost always way too long.

I always read them and they're always worth the time.


But it takes a mere 2- 3 swipes of the finger to scroll past it if you don't wish to read it. Multiple people quoting everything in the post may compound the problem, but it's hardly due to oversight or ill will on Calgary4Life's regard.

[Sandman]

I appreciate Calgary4Life’s posts, always a good read-and I usually agree with his take.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TOfan

You assume Jonny wanted to sign for 8.

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he wanted the flexibility to sign another contract while he still has some tread left on the tire. Or maybe this gives h control on whether or not he wants to go back to the NE states.

Flames initial offer should be 5x$5. I would go 6x$5 or 5x$5.5, but $6 is getting up there.

All I know is what was in the thread when he signed.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...+signs&page=14

Flames didn't want to go over $7M. The Flames save a million in the cap to have Johnny for 2 less years and that valuable cap space can go to great 4th line talents like Troy Brouwer and Matt Stajan.

Anyways sorry for rehashing this discussion not something that needs to be talked about for another 2-3 years.

[blender]

On Backlund and the makeup of the Flames in general, I think it is easy to look at the standings after a third of a season and deduce that the Flames aren't good enough, but if you look at the standings you see that there is a tremendous log jam at the middle which includes the 2/3 division spots and the 2 wildcards.

Parity is real. More importantly the Flames are a team that has been underachieving relative to their potential and are actually starting to play a decent team game. Look at Nashville last season. They got it together at the right time and almost went all the way. Were they a significantly better team than the Flames are this year on paper?

Who knows what this season will bring, but if I'm the Flames as an organization I am keeping Backlund on the roster this year as he gives the team the best chance to have a run. There is no scenario this year where they are a better team without him.

Potential doesn't equal results; as Flames fans we know that all too well, but make no mistake, the Flames are right in the thick of it this season.

[Lanny_McDonald]

No one is saying Backlund is not a good player. Backlund is a very good player at this point in his career, and is an important piece to the success of the current Calgary Flames. But that is not what is up for consideration when it comes to signing him, or any other player. The issue is what type of player he is going to be in the future and how much that player is worth to the hockey team.

As it is, Backlund is a quasi number two/three center. There is no doubt in my mind that we are seeing, or have seen, the best that Backlund can produce. His strength will remain as a defensive forward, but he will be surpassed by Jankowski in the very near future on the offensive side of the puck. Jankowski also presents the potential to be better on the defensive side of the puck as that has been his strength throughout his whole development. So that means that Backlund is going to be at best a third line center in the big picture on this team down the line. That is what they should be paying for and what they should be budgeting.

Like it or not you cannot afford to overpay players in the league anymore. Look at the difficulty a contract like Stajan or Brouwer presents to the hockey team. You cannot have third and fourth liners making $5-6M a season, regardless of how well liked they are, how important they were to the team three years ago, or if they had a year where they garnered some Selke votes. You pay a player for what you think he is going to bring to the team in the future, not what he did yesterday.

Take the name out of the mix. If the Flames were in the free agent market and signed a player to be the third line center at $6M a year, this board would lose its mind. So why is it any different with Backlund? That is what this all boils down to. Determining what player you need to fulfill a specific role and paying him accordingly. There will be other centers available in the summer that can play the same role, at like a number way south of $6M. The team can not afford to overpay another player, no matter how popular he is.

[blender]

@New Era. You make a fair point, and I'm not sure if you addressing my post specifically, but my point isn't about paying Backlund at all. I believe the team will (and should) keep him on the roster this season and deal with contract in the off season if they have to as it is playoff suicide to deal him at the deadline. The NHL is ultimately about winning and Treliving has put together a team that COULD be a winner. I don't see a scenario where moving Backlund advances that goal.

[tkflames]

I have made a point the last two seasons to watch Backlund line come out for defensive zone draws. Their ability to have their shift end in the offensive zone is a huge, underappreciated asset for the coach and productivity of the rest of the team.

I expected Backlund to sign over this Christmas break (around the same time Brodie was signed). If that doesn't happen, we could be in for an interesting ride between now and the deadline. Especially if this team continues to hover around +/-3 points of the playoff line.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blender

@New Era. You make a fair point, and I'm not sure if you addressing my post specifically, but my point isn't about paying Backlund at all. I believe the team will (and should) keep him on the roster this season and deal with contract in the off season if they have to as it is playoff suicide to deal him at the deadline. The NHL is ultimately about winning and Treliving has put together a team that COULD be a winner. I don't see a scenario where moving Backlund advances that goal.

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just the general lack of forethought in managing the budget and where players fit in that mix.

Here's a very realistic possibility that i think people are not considering. Say you pay Backlund the $6Mx6 that some are talking about, because he is so important to the team. Jankowski displaces him in the #2 slot, and does so next year, because he has a superior skill set. Dube comes in and during the next two seasons and proves to be the solid two way defensive center the experts think him to be, quickly evolving into that third slot and pushing Backlund down to the 4th line, like has happened to Stajan during his time in Calgary. Now you have a major problem on your hands, because you overpaid for a player based on some sentimental attachment more so than where the guy fits.

Even if you have concerns about the development of players, you still do not make a long term investment on a depreciating asset. The team would be better off dipping into the free agent market and overpaying a player on a short term contract than overpaying on a long term contract. There is the rub. Backlund is likely going to demand not only a big salary, but also term. I'd rather go with an older player on an expensive two year deal to fill that role, than blow that much money and term on a player you expect to see become a marginal player over the term of that contract.

My approach to Backlund would be simple. If he wants term, he needs to give on dollars. If he wants big dollars, he needs to give on term. I've got $18-24M to spend on him, and the term 3 to 6 years. If he wants $6M, I'll give him three years ($18M). If he wants stability I give him six years, but at $4M ($24M). If he wants something in between I give him $5.25x4 ($21M) or $4.5x5 ($22.5). All contracts front loaded and with no trade limitations in the final two years of any deal. If he doesn't go for that, I deal him and recoup the assets I have lost to date and go shopping in the free agent pool in the summer. As much as I would like to roll the dice and hope for a new deal beyond the trade deadline, the fact that all of those early draft picks have left the organization forces to me to recoup assets where possible, not bleed anymore.

One last point to make, people need to look at faceoff stats. Of the Flames centers, Backlund has the worst stats and is the only center ice man to have a percentage below 50%. Not slagging Backlund, just pointing it out.

[GioforPM]

Backlund right now is probably a $5.5-6M player. The issue is, of course, is this peak Backlund? If not, New Era is right - he's Matt Stajan (who I submit played at a $3M level in his last contract year by putting up 33 points in 63 games, good for 6th on the team, and being the main defensive centre). The Flames paid him as if he'd not decline for four more years, which he proceeded to do the very first year.

Backlund is better, and 2 years younger than Stajan, but the risks are essentially the same.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

There’s no kind way to say this. Your posts are almost always way too long.

Calgary4Life’s posts >>> a simple “keep/trade Backlund” post without any reasoning.

I find his posts to be very insightful, and sometimes a POV that I didn’t even consider/think of.

So Calgary4Life, you can at least know you have a few people that like your posts. Keep them up!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just the general lack of forethought in managing the budget and where players fit in that mix.

Here's a very realistic possibility that i think people are not considering. Say you pay Backlund the $6Mx6 that some are talking about, because he is so important to the team. Jankowski displaces him in the #2 slot, and does so next year, because he has a superior skill set. Dube comes in and during the next two seasons and proves to be the solid two way defensive center the experts think him to be, quickly evolving into that third slot and pushing Backlund down to the 4th line, like has happened to Stajan during his time in Calgary. Now you have a major problem on your hands, because you overpaid for a player based on some sentimental attachment more so than where the guy fits.

Even if you have concerns about the development of players, you still do not make a long term investment on a depreciating asset. The team would be better off dipping into the free agent market and overpaying a player on a short term contract than overpaying on a long term contract. There is the rub. Backlund is likely going to demand not only a big salary, but also term. I'd rather go with an older player on an expensive two year deal to fill that role, than blow that much money and term on a player you expect to see become a marginal player over the term of that contract.

My approach to Backlund would be simple. If he wants term, he needs to give on dollars. If he wants big dollars, he needs to give on term. I've got $18-24M to spend on him, and the term 3 to 6 years. If he wants $6M, I'll give him three years ($18M). If he wants stability I give him six years, but at $4M ($24M). If he wants something in between I give him $5.25x4 ($21M) or $4.5x5 ($22.5). All contracts front loaded and with no trade limitations in the final two years of any deal. If he doesn't go for that, I deal him and recoup the assets I have lost to date and go shopping in the free agent pool in the summer. As much as I would like to roll the dice and hope for a new deal beyond the trade deadline, the fact that all of those early draft picks have left the organization forces to me to recoup assets where possible, not bleed anymore.

One last point to make, people need to look at faceoff stats. Of the Flames centers, Backlund has the worst stats and is the only center ice man to have a percentage below 50%. Not slagging Backlund, just pointing it out.

I was just coming here to post something similar, very well thought out post New Era.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

When it comes to Backlund, I am sure that Treliving will approach this with a certain price-point in mind, for a certain number of years.

However, it seems like a lot of posters here aren't buying how important Backlund is to this team, and a few pages back someone posted that since this team hasn't been very good for 'x' amount of years, that we should move on from Backlund as change will help.

I can't possibly disagree more.

Yes, this team needs to improve, moves need to be made, etc. However, is Backlund someone you win with, or lose with? Does he make this team better, or worse? Is he part of the solution, or part of the problem?

It is all relative to the cap hit. However, that cap hit has to go north quite a bit before I see him becoming a problem. As others have mentioned, he gets absolutely killed on defensive zone starts and quality of competition, yet he seems to out-score the opposition given those circumstances. That's not just good. That's downright amazing.

What isn't much of a leap to appreciate is also that this allows Monahan's line and Jankowski's line to get more opportunities. Gulutzan can give those two lines way more offensive zone starts and easier match-ups to help drive the offence.

You lose Backlund, and suddenly both those lines have to start playing in their own end a lot more. That WILL result in a decline in their offensive stats.

I would be fine with the Flames paying Backlund more money not just because Backlund is a really good defensive player and puts up ~50pts. Backlund gets some of the league's toughest zone starts and match-ups and out-performs anyone he is up against, while making his wingers BETTER at the same time, while allowing the other lines to get way easier minutes and opportunities to create offence.

That's what makes Backlund so valuable. He literally does make everyone on the team better. Hrvik is a career AHL'er thus far - he can't take those minutes. I love Jankowski, but he is definitely not ready for those minutes and assignments. There is literally nobody organizationally that can handle those minutes and assignments. Everyone will have to pull up their pants more and fill-in if Backlund isn't re-signed, and you can bet everyone will take a hit on their own offensive numbers.

I will counter and say the best season this organization has had in almost a decade in 2014 Backlund missed almost half the season. This team will always live or die with Monahan, Gaudreau and the goaltending. Backlund is a very nice complementary piece.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just the general lack of forethought in managing the budget and where players fit in that mix.

Here's a very realistic possibility that i think people are not considering. Say you pay Backlund the $6Mx6 that some are talking about, because he is so important to the team. Jankowski displaces him in the #2 slot, and does so next year, because he has a superior skill set. Dube comes in and during the next two seasons and proves to be the solid two way defensive center the experts think him to be, quickly evolving into that third slot and pushing Backlund down to the 4th line, like has happened to Stajan during his time in Calgary. Now you have a major problem on your hands, because you overpaid for a player based on some sentimental attachment more so than where the guy fits.

Even if you have concerns about the development of players, you still do not make a long term investment on a depreciating asset. The team would be better off dipping into the free agent market and overpaying a player on a short term contract than overpaying on a long term contract. There is the rub. Backlund is likely going to demand not only a big salary, but also term. I'd rather go with an older player on an expensive two year deal to fill that role, than blow that much money and term on a player you expect to see become a marginal player over the term of that contract.

My approach to Backlund would be simple. If he wants term, he needs to give on dollars. If he wants big dollars, he needs to give on term. I've got $18-24M to spend on him, and the term 3 to 6 years. If he wants $6M, I'll give him three years ($18M). If he wants stability I give him six years, but at $4M ($24M). If he wants something in between I give him $5.25x4 ($21M) or $4.5x5 ($22.5). All contracts front loaded and with no trade limitations in the final two years of any deal. If he doesn't go for that, I deal him and recoup the assets I have lost to date and go shopping in the free agent pool in the summer. As much as I would like to roll the dice and hope for a new deal beyond the trade deadline, the fact that all of those early draft picks have left the organization forces to me to recoup assets where possible, not bleed anymore.

One last point to make, people need to look at faceoff stats. Of the Flames centers, Backlund has the worst stats and is the only center ice man to have a percentage below 50%. Not slagging Backlund, just pointing it out.

I think you are on point on your rationale on the contract value. I'm just a bit concerned it is taking so long and that Backlund is going to insist on term and dollars knowing the market will bear it as the UFA market seems to be getting so weak lately.

I hope if that is the case they move him for assets with Janko emerging. I love Backlund but the team is not showing itself to be a top club and overpaid heavily for Hamonic imo. Getting back some assets is a must if you are letting him walk.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I will counter and say the best season this organization has had in almost a decade in 2014 Backlund missed almost half the season.

He was out for a third. But on that logic, Gio was out for a quarter of the season (at the most critical time) so that means he's dispensible?

On the other hand, Wideman played all 80 and got 56 points (4th on the team). Maybe we better get him back.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I will counter and say the best season this organization has had in almost a decade in 2014 Backlund missed almost half the season. This team will always live or die with Monahan, Gaudreau and the goaltending. Backlund is a very nice complementary piece.

You mean that same season where we had to have Hudler, Wideman, and Bouma have career years? Don’t make it seem like Backlund isn’t crucial to our team’s success. I love how you didn’t mention us making the playoffs last year, a huge part of that was because of Backlund. He may be a complimentary piece, but he’s the best complimentary piece you could ask for.