Re-sign Backlund Thread

[Poe969]

The issue with that is if he's not playing himself to a big contract it means he's not playing that well and if we know he isn't playing well, do they really want to keep him? I know some people worship the water they think Backlund walks on but other than one season, is he really that important to the team? I know that the team doesn't have many options to move up to take his spot but can't they address that by letting Backlund go and getting someone else?

[Ashasx]

You think Backlund has only been good for one season?

[Poe969]

He's been a good third liner and was a solid second line player for one season. I don't think a guy who puts up 50 pts once in his career is a second line center.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

You think Backlund has only been good for one season?

He's only been really good for one season in his career.

[Ashasx]

I feel like we've had this discussion before. It's like after a loss we forget what was posted 24 hours earlier and just regurgitate the same arguments.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I feel like we've had this discussion before. It's like after a loss we forget what was posted 24 hours earlier and just regurgitate the same arguments.

I feel like we have with you for sure as we get it that he's one of your favorite players, he's worth a $50 million contract, and his advanced stats are great blah blah blah. Fact is he's had one 50 point season in his career and is still unsigned so it appears the GM doesn't feel he's a slam dunk for a big raise as you believe.

[Ashasx]

I never said he was worth a $50 million contract. I want him re-signed to a fair deal.

But if you think that Backlund has only had one good season, you are plainly wrong and there's nothing more to say there. It outlines your hockey knowledge well.

Mikael Backlund, a 3rd line centre? It's just hilarious.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I feel like we have with you for sure as we get it that he's one of your favorite players, he's worth a $50 million contract, and his advanced stats are great blah blah blah. Fact is he's had one 50 point season in his career and is still unsigned so it appears the GM doesn't feel he's a slam dunk for a big raise as you believe.

It might appear that way, but this GM never seems to be in a big hurry to extend players. I don't think we can use Backlund's present contract status as an indication one way or another as to Treliving's plans for him.

[Erick Estrada]

Now you are being silly as you know full well I said he had one really good season which is totally true.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Now you are being silly as you know full well I said he had one really good season which is totally true.

It's funny how you act like I'm the one with an agenda when you post this nonsense.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It might appear that way, but this GM never seems to be in a big hurry to extend players. I don't think we can use Backlund's present contract status as an indication one way or another as to Treliving's plans for him.

He didn’t wait to sign Gio to an extension and when the Glencross situation came to an impass he simply traded him despite the team hanging on to a playoff spot. I have no doubt Treliving has plans for him but right now it’s not clear exactly what that is as I feel he would be signed already if both parties were on the same page.

[Poe969]

He's had one good season as a second liner, he's good defensively and has great advanced stats and intangibles but he is just not a second line player...at least not on a winning team. He had a really good season where he put up 53 points but before that he only put up more than 40 points once. He's good defensively and teams need that but they need that on the third line, for the most part he's around a 40ish point player. Do you really think having a 40 point center as your second best center is going to win you championships?

Don't get me wrong, I like Backlund and would love if he signed a deal that was paying him to be a third line center on a shorter term contract but if he's looking for anything more than 5 million for anything more than 4 years, I think you have to let him walk or trade him. He will get more than he's worth as a UFA because players always do, I just don't want the Flames to be stuck with a guy who likely won't score close to 50 points and is over 30 anchored as their second line guy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

It's funny how you act like I'm the one with an agenda when you post this nonsense.

I absolutely have an agenda. I don't want the team to overpay for this guy. How many really good seasons has he had?

[Monahammer]

IMO it has been Tkachuk and Frolik that have elevated Backlund from a good third line centre that tops out around 40 points in a solid year but plays a decent possession game, to a second line 50 point possession stud. Without Tkachuk, Backlund was always weak along the boards and his line had trouble retaining possession for longer grinding stretches in the zone. Before Frolik's speed and chemistry, half of us thought backlund was a bust. Backlund lacks offensive creativity on his own but is a great fundamentals player. Frolik is shot happy and Tkachuk has creativity for days. The line is what makes each player better.

Backlund himself tweeted it to Tkachuk at his goal milestone :P

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Okay how many really good seasons has he had?

He has been defensively strong for 5+ seasons now. He has rounded out his offensive game over the last 3.

Has he been a strong second liner for the last five? No, but he has unquestionably been for the last three, and there's really no indication that he's going to fall back anywhere significantly.

I'm not saying to go out and sign Backlund to a 6x6 deal. He's not going to get that, especially considering the contracts of other players on this team. But a 4-5 year deal for fair money? Why wouldn't you do that, considering nobody in this organization can do what he does?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

He has been defensively strong for 5+ seasons now. He has rounded out his offensive game over the last 3.

Has he been a strong second liner for the last five? No, but he has unquestionably been for the last three, and there's really no indication that he's going to fall back anywhere significantly.

I'm not saying to go out and sign Backlund to a 6x6 deal. He's not going to get that, especially considering the contracts of other players on this team. But a 4-5 year deal for fair money?

I think the issue is determining what's fair money for this player. I'm not against signing him in the least but you have to be careful when it comes to overpaying players long term for intangibles. I'm not a fan of the Jordan Staal type contracts where a team sinks a lot of money into a forward that's not a big offensive producer.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I absolutely have an agenda. I don't want the team to overpay for this guy. How many really good seasons has he had?

If he's not that good then why do they need to overpay? Sure as a UFA his price may be driven up a bit but if he's not that good then it still won't be a ridiculous contract.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I think the issue is determining what's fair money for this player. I'm not against signing him in the least but you have to be careful when it comes to overpaying players long term for intangibles. I'm not a fan of the Jordan Staal type contracts where a team sinks a lot of money into a forward that's not a big offensive producer.

Who is talking about intangibles?

Treliving has done really well when it's come to re-signing his own players. There seems to be this expectation that Backlund is going to get a long term deal for a lot of money, and that's just not going to happen from the Flames or in free agency, given Backlund's age and underappreciated defensive play.

Frolik's contract adjusted for salary cap inflation is probably a good estimate of what he'd get in free agency and I would expect a better contract if he re-signs with the Flames.

That's something I'm on board with.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

He has been defensively strong for 5+ seasons now. He has rounded out his offensive game over the last 3.

Has he been a strong second liner for the last five? No, but he has unquestionably been for the last three, and there's really no indication that he's going to fall back anywhere significantly.

I'm not saying to go out and sign Backlund to a 6x6 deal. He's not going to get that, especially considering the contracts of other players on this team. But a 4-5 year deal for fair money? Why wouldn't you do that, considering nobody in this organization can do what he does?

I guess it depends on what you consider a second liner, I think last year he played like a second liner, and as pointed out I think it was because of Tkachuck. Being defensively strong is a great attribute...for a third liner and I think that's what he is.

His next contract will determine everything, in 2-3 years I see Janko as being better than him offensively which would push Backs to the third line, or if the Flames somehow grab another top 2 guy it pushes Backs down too. Just because right now he's the second best center on the team doesn't mean he should be the second best center on the team. Most of us had higher hopes for Bennett to be a second line guy and Janko to come in as a third line guy but that doesn't seem to be happening so now the center depth isn't as good as we once thought. All of this makes Backlund seem that much better but in the big picture I would hope the team has better options than a defensively responsible 40 point player who's getting older (by hockey standards)

[Ashasx]

At age 23, Backlund had better offensive stats than Jankowski and had much better possession numbers, so why is there this expectation that Jankowksi will become better than him offensively? Nothing thus far in his career would indicate it.