Re-sign Backlund Thread

[Monahammer]

It seems to me that the team has been looking for a second line centre because they also think that Backlund is more suited as a third on a contender. With Jankowski showing he can potentially take the third line role full time, if management still believes the above about Backlund then I bet we trade him. But not until we get a second line centre back! I wonder how much O'Reilly would cost.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It seems to me that the team has been looking for a second line centre because they also think that Backlund is more suited as a third on a contender. With Jankowski showing he can potentially take the third line role full time, if management still believes the above about Backlund then I bet we trade him. But not until we get a second line centre back! I wonder how much O'Reilly would cost.

There have been no reports that the Flames are looking for the centre. It's been reported that they've been after a winger for a while but have pulled back a bit because of Ferland's play.

Regarding your statement that Jankowski is better offensively than Backlund irght now, I'm not sure what to say.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Poe969

My issue with this is that his numbers are inflated because of one above average year. He was basically a 40ish point player who had one year over 50 points and it doesn't seem like he'll get that this year. His one good offensive year likely won't be repeated by him again. And as for him ranking #53, if you look at the past few years of Stanley Cup champs or even finalists, where would he rank? Teams that go deep or win the Cup typically have better centers on their second line. I don't want the Flames to be like the rest of the teams in the league, I want them to win and to do that they need better value and more points coming from players.

I went back and manually tracked the stats for the 10 centers from each of the Stanley Cup semi finalists from the 2013-2014 season to the 2016-2017 season (Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, San Jose, New York Rangers, Chicago, Montreal, Los Angeles), plus the Flames. In cases where a player was in the top 10 of multiple teams, I summed their results. If they were in the top 10 for one team but then traded to a team not in these group, or didn't rank in the top 10 in this group, I didn't chase down their totals outside of the initial scenario.

Among these 12 teams, I compiled basic scoring stats (GP, G, A, P, +-, P/GP) for 11 centres (as listed by NHL.com).

Backlund ranks as follows in each category:
GP: 12th
G: 18th
A: 20th
P: 21st
+-: 26th
P/GP: 34th

So if you're looking across 12 teams, a top 2 centre should be ranked 24th or higher in these categories. The totals are generally favorable to Backlund (at least partially due to playing on the same team over the entire term), and the P/GP rank him among third line centers.

Not sure if all of this means anything, but it seems to suggest that among teams reaching the Stanley Cup semifinals over the past 4 full seasons, Backlund is somewhere between a second line center and a third line center. Which seems about right? He might be a third line center on teams like Pittsburgh, LA, San Jose, or Tampa. But he could be a second line center on teams like Anaheim, Chicago, or Calgary.

The Flames lack of depth at center is precisely why I want him re-signed. But that's just one man's opinion.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Of course Tkachuk helps Backlund. He is a fantastic player. But Backlund also helps Tkachuk.

Backlund also put up 47 points before Tkachuk was ever a teammate.

And Backlund is a 3rd line centre on how many teams in this league? Two? And that has everything to do with the players that would be in front of him (Crosby, Malkin, Getzlaf, Kesler).

I think Backlund has helped Tkachuck on the defensive part of his game but I don't really think we should develop him as a "good 2 way guy", I think he knows enough about the defensive side of the game and he should be allowed to grow offensively. I think if Tkachuck had a center like Kadri, he would be doing a lot better offensively and that is exactly what the team needs.

My whole point is that Backlund is good but I think the team needs more offense coming from the team and the first line is pretty set. Tkachuck needs more help on that line and I just think Backlund isn't the answer.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There have been no reports that the Flames are looking for the centre. It's been reported that they've been after a winger for a while but have pulled back a bit because of Ferland's play.

Regarding your statement that Jankowski is better offensively than Backlund irght now, I'm not sure what to say.

Flames were rumored to be in on the Turris trade before Nashville got him

[kukkudo]

I would give him 4.5M-5M on a 3-4 year deal. If he wants 6M plus (just guessing) trade him at the deadline. Im pretty sure Treliving knows what his camp wants.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I think Backlund has helped Tkachuck on the defensive part of his game but I don't really think we should develop him as a "good 2 way guy", I think he knows enough about the defensive side of the game and he should be allowed to grow offensively. I think if Tkachuck had a center like Kadri, he would be doing a lot better offensively and that is exactly what the team needs.

My whole point is that Backlund is good but I think the team needs more offense coming from the team and the first line is pretty set. Tkachuck needs more help on that line and I just think Backlund isn't the answer.

Well Kadri is very similar to Backlund. He plays with some very good players himself and has fewer points this season than Backlund.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Flames were rumored to be in on the Turris trade before Nashville got him

Also rumors they kicked the tires on Duchene as well. I think Treliving has definitely attempted to upgrade the position although I don't believe that means he's soured on Backlund and more just trying to improve the team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Poe969

My issue with this is that his numbers are inflated because of one above average year. He was basically a 40ish point player who had one year over 50 points and it doesn't seem like he'll get that this year. His one good offensive year likely won't be repeated by him again.

47, 53, and on pace for 50. Which of these numbers qualifies as "basically 40ish"?

And as for him ranking #53, if you look at the past few years of Stanley Cup champs or even finalists, where would he rank? Teams that go deep or win the Cup typically have better centers on their second line. I don't want the Flames to be like the rest of the teams in the league, I want them to win and to do that they need better value and more points coming from players.

His #53 ranking is based on the accumulation of numbers from the last four seasons, but I actually think the past three seasons are a better measure for gauging how he might be expected to perform in the near future, and Backlund ranks #37.

As to your question about how this compares to supposed Cup-contending teams from previous seasons, it is obvious that neither the Flames nor any other NHL team will compare to the back-to-back champion Pittsburgh Penguins. The depth provided by Crosby and Malkin is unique, and will not be replicated by anyone.

The finalists from last year were the Nashville Predators, and their centres in that series over the same period rank #24, #84, and #96. (By the way, Sean Monahan ranks #16.) The 2016 finalists SJ Sharks rank #8, #12, and #42, albeit their top three scoring centres are 33, 38, and 28-years-old respectively. Backlund is nearly exactly the same age as Logan Couture, he is ahead of him in production, and unlike Couture who is the Sharks youngest scoring centre, Backlund is the Flames oldest.

The top-two centres from 2017 conference finalists on the same list rank #38, and #57 (Ottawa), and #14 and #51 (Anaheim). For 2016, the conference finalists rank #28 and #45 (TB), and #40 and #99 (StL) respectively.

Some of these numbers are obviously not consistent in large part because every team does not build the same way, and also because some of those players have changed roles (for example in StL and TB). But what I think these numbers do show is that Backlund is a very good top-six centre who would be a welcome addition to the second line of nearly every NHL team. He is still relatively young, especially in consideration of his surrounding cast of players.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There have been no reports that the Flames are looking for the centre. It's been reported that they've been after a winger for a while but have pulled back a bit because of Ferland's play.

Regarding your statement that Jankowski is better offensively than Backlund irght now, I'm not sure what to say.

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Flames were rumored to be in on the Turris trade before Nashville got him

And we were rumored to be in on Duchene, rumored to be in on Zach Smith (don't get this one..) and Treliving said something to the effect of looking for a "RHS who can take faceoffs" in November-ish. I think he's looking to upgrade at centre.

My reply to that is well, disprove it. Janko has 1 less goal in 8 less games, and plays with decidedly worse linemates than Backlund. At most you'd be able to argue me to a wash but frankly the eye test favors Janko at this point too. Backlund lacks creativity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

...Regarding your statement that Jankowski is better offensively than Backlund irght now, I'm not sure what to say.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

...My reply to that is well, disprove it. Janko has 1 less goal in 8 less games, and plays with decidedly worse linemates than Backlund. At most you'd be able to argue me to a wash but frankly the eye test favors Janko at this point too. Backlund lacks creativity.

Disprove what? That Jankowski is a better offensive player than Backlund?

That seems to be what you are asking of Ashasx, which is pretty meaningless since you have yet to prove anything. Your post suggests the possibility that Jankowski is already the better offensive player but as near as I can tell you have provided nothing even remotely definitive to support this conjecture.

If anything, the hard numbers rather emphatically show the opposite: that Backlund is now a better offensive player than Jankowski. If anything, the onus is upon you to prove otherwise.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

And we were rumored to be in on Duchene, rumored to be in on Zach Smith (don't get this one..) and Treliving said something to the effect of looking for a "RHS who can take faceoffs" in November-ish. I think he's looking to upgrade at centre.

My reply to that is well, disprove it. Janko has 1 less goal in 8 less games, and plays with decidedly worse linemates than Backlund. At most you'd be able to argue me to a wash but frankly the eye test favors Janko at this point too. Backlund lacks creativity.

How about the fact that Backlund goes against the top lines in the league? And is there a worse linemate on this team than Troy "show em what you got" Brouwer?

Or the fact that Jankowski gets the highest offensive zone starts on the team other than Jagr and Mangiapane.

I love Jankowski and think he is an awesome young player but man some people in here are really underrating the heavy lifting Backlund does for this team.

I guarantee there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't love to add a solid two-way player like Backlund. There really aren't many guys in the league that do what he does as well as he does.

[transplant99]

Backlunds CAREER average is 41 pts a year.

Now, the last 3 have been above that by a little to a lot.

50 point players in this league vary wildly on the pay scale, but with what he adds defensively, he should be on the upper end of that.

The issue here is that the Flames cannot afford to be paying him at that rate because of the other players around him that will be/are getting paid what they are worth. In short he may be worth X million per year to some teams, but is he worth that to this team?

His re-signing in Calgary hinges on this IMO. If he is willing to take a haircut in order to stay, great. If not, then there is no other option than to maximize the return on him. That can only occur from now until the end of Feb.

If Treliving believes he has his next Backlund in Jankowski, then it makes things a lot more black and white and actually pushes the narrative to not if but when the deal is made. All just my speculation of course, but reading the tea leaves it seems like a reasonable deduction.

All this aside, the lack of any media chatter about talks going on signals to me....its likely happening right now. BT never lets this kind of stuff out until it happens and in this case one can assume that the silence is deafening and probably a good sign for those that want hi to remain beyond this year.

Or I could be completely out to lunch.

[Ashasx]

I don't really think what Jankowski might be in the future should impact negatively on Backlund.

If Jankowski really develops into a good middle 6, strong defensive centre, then trade Backlund when that happens. At the current time, that's not what Jankowski is. And let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

It's not like the moment you re-sign Backlund, his value plummets to zero.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Backlunds CAREER average is 41 pts a year.

Now, the last 3 have been above that by a little to a lot.

50 point players in this league vary wildly on the pay scale, but with what he adds defensively, he should be on the upper end of that.

The issue here is that the Flames cannot afford to be paying him at that rate because of the other players around him that will be/are getting paid what they are worth. In short he may be worth X million per year to some teams, but is he worth that to this team?

His re-signing in Calgary hinges on this IMO.

I agree.

If he is willing to take a haircut in order to stay, great. If not, then there is no other option than to maximize the return on him. That can only occur from now until the end of Feb.

Here is where people's opinions on this topic tend to drift away from reality. Were the Flames not in the heat of a playoff race, and had they not made a fairly obvious proclamation that they are gearing up for three or four years of Stanley Cup contention starting this year, then this plan makes sense. However, Backlund is arguably one of the four or five most important players on this time NOW, and realistically will continue to be so over the course of this projected window beyond this season. The team's present circumstances prevent them from recouping the value of EVERY asset. It is just not practically realistic. In Backlund's case, I fully expect that he will remain a member of the Calgary Flames beyond the TD regardless of whether or not he is signed to a new contract, and I believe it will be the right decision.

If Treliving believes he has his next Backlund in Jankowski, then it makes things a lot more black and white and actually pushes the narrative to not if but when the deal is made. All just my speculation of course, but reading the tea leaves it seems like a reasonable deduction.

Is it reasonable to deduce that this has already occurred? I don't believe so. Jankowski looks like he could soon be a very good second line centre, but he is not ready to be "the next Backlund" now. If Jankowski is not ready now, Treliving is not going to weaken his team for the chance to add picks at the draft. This is different than when he traded Glencross both because 1) Glencross was clearly not as integral to the Flames fortunes as is Backlund, and 2) the Flames were amid a clear outlier of a season of massive overachievement near the start of their rebuild.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't really think what Jankowski might be in the future should impact negatively on Backlund.

If Jankowski really develops into a good middle 6, strong defensive centre, then trade Backlund when that happens. At the current time, that's not what Jankowski is. And let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

It's not like the moment you re-sign Backlund, his value plummets to zero.

It's not negatively impacting Backlund, it would be positively affecting the decision of what to do with him though.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It's not negatively impacting Backlund, it would be positively affecting the decision of what to do with him though.

Just tell me why you wouldn't re-sign Backlund right now and then trade him if Jankowski develops into the player you believe he will in the future? Why glut your centre depth, the most important position in hockey, based on hope?

[Poe969]

The only way you trade Backlund now is if his contract demands don't line up with what the team can pay and you would have to have another center lined up to be a top 3 guy.

I keep saying this and I know there's about a .01% chance of it but if Tavares came to the Flames there would be no room for Backlund on the team.

[Ashasx]

I'm not sure why Tavares is even in consideration when talking about Backlund's future as a Flame. You can't make moves like Jay Feaster based on the off-chance that Tavares wants to play in a tough Canadian market.

[Poe969]

I know, I was just saying that because of the first part of my comment, you would have to have another C lined up to be in the roster.