[Signing] Backlund re-signs. 6 years, AAV $5.35M

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If's don't count. What if the Flames had a better home record? They don't so it doesn't matter. He's going to be slotted in a 3rd line spot in the coming years and his production will drop accordingly the moment he's not playing with Tkachuk. There's no question that signing Backlund was plan B for Treliving as he was trying to improve on the position by acquiring Turris or Duchene. Those didn't materialize so he was kind of in a situation where he kind of had to keep him but it's pretty obvious the GM realizes that this position that needed to be upgraded.

Ya I know they don’t. My point being he’s just about on the same pace DESPITE that, which tends to be an outlier. You keep talking about him as if he’s having some bad down season. He’s currently in a cold streak, that’s about the worse I can say about his season. People love to point to his lower goal total as if they have more value than assists but then would turn around and take Crosby over Ovechkin any day, so I don’t care for that argument. Points are points. Backlund is a little behind last years pace and it’s pretty clearly because of his outlier shooting percentage. Whether you want to dismiss that is your own prerogative but it is a quantifiable fact. And I’m not saying you can’t dismiss it, you can do whatever you want. Plus/minus is also quantifiable and I completely dismiss it as rubbish.

And speaking of ‘ifs’ not counting, you are literally pointing to rumor and speculation as proof that Backlund was plan B. What an argument that is lol.

[Bingo]

Guys are making 12 million now, the next tier of future stars (young players) are getting 8.5.

Backlund is an elite two way center, not a number one center but one of the most productive shut down guys in the league.

You don't let them walk when you're trying to create a three or four year window.

His contract flows through that window and I'm pretty sure he'll be as productive as he needs to be in that secondary scoring role.

If the cap goes where they say it might his contract will be just fine.

Can't believe there's 16 pages suggesting Backlund is a sign of mediocrity.

This site is just crazy these days ...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Guys are making 12 million now, the next tier of future stars (young players) are getting 8.5.

Backlund is an elite two way center, not a number one center but one of the most productive shut down guys in the league.

You don't let them walk when you're trying to create a three or four year window.

His contract flows through that window and I'm pretty sure he'll be as productive as he needs to be in that secondary scoring role.

If the cap goes where they say it might his contract will be just fine.

Can't believe there's 16 pages suggesting Backlund is a sign of mediocrity.

This site is just crazy these days ...

He has been a large part of a team that has been mostly a bubble team that is not getting better. In a lot of ways giving him this raise on this term is the exact definition of signing on for more mediocrity. That’s not to say he’s a bad or even mediocre player but if his best days haven’t contributed to this team getting better it’s clear this deal is a large serving of mediocrity as unlike a lot of the young core Backlund’s best days are behind him and he largely got this deal based on his career season last year. This is not how teams get better and this is clearly a team that hasn’t improved on last season despite adding better players in Stone and Hamonic.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Draft players and develop them. Don't sign everyone that has a pretty good season to a 6-year deal. Never ever trade away your high draft picks.

Don't "build" through UFA's. Big contract UFA's should only be signed if they really are the missing piece that will get you to a point that you can make the playoffs without them and they are going to win you some playoff series.

Does signing UFA Backlund mean the Flames are pretty sure they will win a playoff series this year? Even then they did not need to sign him now. Hard to imagine Backlund having a playoffs that would have upped his value as a UFA.

The closer he gets to free agency the higher the chances he tests the waters.
Let me ask you - could they replace Backlund with a guy that has the same performance for less or the same money? If not than what it the plan.
It appears your plan is to start the re-build all over again.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He has been a large part of a team that has been mostly a bubble team that is not getting better. In a lot of ways giving him this raise on this term is the exact definition of signing on for more mediocrity. That’s not to say he’s a bad or even mediocre player but if his best days haven’t contributed to this team getting better it’s clear this deal is a large serving of mediocrity as unlike a lot of the young core Backlund’s best days are behind him and he largely got this deal based on his career season last year. This is not how teams get better and this is clearly a team that hasn’t improved on last season despite adding better players in Stone and Hamonic.

This is an over simplistic view with far too many assumptions built in.
First - who's to say they do not get better. They still have a young core, some of whom probably haven't reached their full potential
Second - there are likely to be changes to the roster going forward. There always is.
Third - This team's window is just opening. So the fact that this season, according to some, hasn't gone to expectation is hardly a guarantee that it will be the same next season.

So no - it is not the exact definition of anything unless you choose to look at things through a very narrow lens.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He has been a large part of a team that has been mostly a bubble team that is not getting better. In a lot of ways giving him this raise on this term is the exact definition of signing on for more mediocrity. That’s not to say he’s a bad or even mediocre player but if his best days haven’t contributed to this team getting better it’s clear this deal is a large serving of mediocrity as unlike a lot of the young core Backlund’s best days are behind him and he largely got this deal based on his career season last year. This is not how teams get better and this is clearly a team that hasn’t improved on last season despite adding better players in Stone and Hamonic.

I see it as he and Giordano are the elder statesman on a team that just went through a rebuild with an extremely young core that is learning how to win on the job.

Your rain cloud view seems fun though!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I see it as he and Giordano are the elder statesman on a team that just went through a rebuild with an extremely young core that is learning how to win on the job.

Your rain cloud view seems fun though!

That’s the reality though. Nothing I said in that post can be disputed. Backlund is getting paid based on his career season and the Flames are treading water.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That’s the reality though. Nothing I said in that post can be disputed. Backlund is getting paid based on his career season and the Flames are treading water.

Sure it can. Most of what you wrote is opinion. Thus it can be disputed.
The view that the Flames are and will continue to tread water is an opinion not a fact.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Sure it can. Most of what you wrote is opinion. Thus it can be disputed.
The view that the Flames are and will continue to tread water is an opinion not a fact.

Are they better than last season?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Are they better than last season?

Standings wise no but i think they are playing a more sustainable and effective brand of hockey. I have way more confidence this season that they could have some playoff success.

My opinion.

Standings isn't the only way to look at this.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Standings wise no but i think they are playing a more sustainable and effective brand of hockey. I have way more confidence this season that they could have some playoff success.

My opinion.

Standings isn't the only way to look at this.

Does the other way matter if they miss the playoffs? Yes or no?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Does the other way matter if they miss the playoffs? Yes or no?

Missing the playoffs is a big deal for sure, but again, if one is trying to make roster decisions going forward it would be simply idiotic to only look at it from that basis. There is far too much competitive parity in the league to start shipping effective core players out, or not re-sign them from that one piece of criteria.
What if the Flames get 97 points (more than last year) but miss?
The mere fact that you are trying to boil this down to such a binary yes/no question is exactly my point.
All of this is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

I didn’t comment on whether that deal was good I was responding about whether other teams would have competed for him. And you still haven’t put forth an alternative plan for what the Flames should do instead

I'm sure Treliving had a pretty good idea of what teams would have competed for him. With his contract expiring and the flames in and out of playoff position, I'm sure Treliving fielded lots of calls about Backlund's availability.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Does the other way matter if they miss the playoffs? Yes or no?

Do you need me and others to agree with you?

I see the process is coming along nicely, and they are a better hockey team. I also see most of their key players are at an age where they are likely to get better.

You don't have to agree though. Pessimism and Optimism provide a spectrum that is large enough to fit everyone.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Missing the playoffs is a big deal for sure, but again, if one is trying to make roster decisions going forward it would be simply idiotic to only look at it from that basis. There is far too much competitive parity in the league to start shipping effective core players out, or not re-sign them from that one piece of criteria.
What if the Flames get 97 points (more than last year) but miss?
The mere fact that you are trying to boil this down to such a binary yes/no question is exactly my point.
All of this is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

I truly believe effective organizations keep short term over reactions out of the conversation for their executives so they can always plan further than the deadline in two weeks.

I think that's the case in Calgary.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Are they better than last season?

for sure, Goaltending has improved a tonne, they have better depth at defense.

They need to add more offensive, as they won't be able to score when the game gets tight checking in my view

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Making stuff up? I simply stated a fact. Over the last 3 seasons, he has 134 points in 221 games (before last night). That's a 49.7 point pace.

134 / 221 * 82 = 49.7

We get it (because you've posted 16 times in this thread), you don't like the contract. That's fine. But facts are facts, even when they don't fit your narrative.

I had to step back for a day or two!

I don't dispute the math on his "pace". My issue is that it feels like a bit of a mathematical manipulation to fit a particular narrative, because it is also a fact that he has only broke 40 points twice in his career. While his three year pace may be 49.7, it is also a fact that he has only ever hit 50 points once in his career.

Pace is fine and well. The year-end actuals matter too. In fact they maybe matter more.

Even if we consider these last three years to all be 50 point seasons, he is playing at this level at the age of 27-29, which almost universally are the peak years for offensive production. With very few exceptions, a player's offensive production drops considerably after 30. ~70% of this contract will likely take place during those declining years. I don't love that.

This contract for me really seals the notion that the team has identified a 3 year window to try to win, because beyond that, there could be a couple of hand-cuffing contracts on the roster. I really hope it works out.

And all but 2 of my 16 (now 17) posts in this thread have been in response to others who have quoted my posts. I thought that was ok on a discussion board?

[Enoch Root]

The notion that the contract is bad because the team hasn't won anything is flat out ridiculous. Just silly.

Some of you talk like 29 teams should rebuild every year.

The idea is to get better. To continue to improve. Hard to get better if you let some of your best players go, or keep trading everyone for picks. And getting better isn't linear, it requires patience. It requires ADDING to the core, not subtracting from it.

If you want to argue that Backlund isn't worth the contract, go ahead. But arguing the team isn't good and therefore we shouldn't sign him is some pretty horrific logic.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

I don't dispute the math on his "pace". My issue is that it feels like a bit of a mathematical manipulation to fit a particular narrative, because it is also a fact that he has only broke 40 points twice in his career. While his three year pace may be 49.7, it is also a fact that he has only ever hit 50 points once in his career.

I think your "narrative" comment is a bit of a reach. The numbers were clearly presented as the last 3 seasons, without any kind of obfuscation. I think where you veered off the point was challenging the numbers rather than whether using the last 3 seasons as a measuring stick was reasonable.

Personally I think it was a reasonable measure to present.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Backlund is an elite two way center, not a number one center but one of the most productive shut down guys in the league.

Except he's not. Backlund is not elite. I wish people would stop using this term in relation to so many players, when they are certainly not in that class, as it cheapens the term. Backlund is a good center on both sides of the puck, but not elite. Elite is the best of the best, and Backlund is not in that class. Elite players are dominant. Backlund is not. Elite players take games over. Backlund does not. Elite players lead in statistical categories. Backlund does not. Elite players are the best at their position on their team. Backlund is not. Elite players are all stars and make their national team. Backlund is neither. Backlund is a good center on both sides of the puck, but he is not elite. Saying so is just hyperbole on the positive side rather than a statement with any logic behind it.

This site is just crazy these days ...