Makes sense for Backlund to take a shorter term - he gets three years of security and stability, and an expiring contract as a 37 year old might allow him a better shot to ring chase if his game remains consistent vs at 38.
Plus, I really don’t think these guys like the idea of having to play until they’re 38-40 years old to collect all their money.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Makes sense for Backlund to take a shorter term - he gets three years of security and stability, and an expiring contract as a 37 year old might allow him a better shot to ring chase if his game remains consistent vs at 38.
Plus, I really don’t think these guys like the idea of having to play until they’re 38-40 years old to collect all their money.
I think you're off the mark entirely on this one. It doesn't make sense for a non star player at Backlund's age to take shorter term to get more contracts after.
It's the team that wants shorter term, and short term (Flames) vs long term (Backlund) is likely the centre piece of negotiations. Backlund was likely pushing for four years, the Flames for two years and if they meet the in the middle it will be three, while the Flames hope to get their way at two.
The one weird thing in the two rumours (both very credible sources in rasta-masta and Elliot Freidman) is that if there are reports of 2 and 3 year deals, you'd think the AAV would be reversed.
2 years at 5.5 or 3 years at 4.5. So one side might just not have correct info as to numbers. I really hope rasta has the better inside track and history suggests he doesn't post unless something is basically done and correct.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
I am not going to be pleased if the Flames give Backlind a raise and 3 years. The 2x4.5 was a deal I would be happy with but 5.5x3 for a guy who will be 38 when it is over is not great
I was on the trade backlund camp but you can’t go wrong with the 2 year deal. I didn’t think there was a chance in hell he would sign before season unless it was a 3 year deal at over $5 million. The 2 year deal is good for both parties . It’s a trade able contract if things go south.
I think people are reading way too much into Friedman's tweet. Here is what the-rasta-masta posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta
Backlund signed for 2 years, 4.5aav. ��
That sure looks like a statement of information to me.
Here's what Elliotte wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
Friedman:
Quote:
My prediction on Mikael Backlund: he signs in the neighbourhood of three years at a $5.5M AAV. We will see how accurate I am. It’s always a grind to get there, but there is a will on both sides.
He says right up front that this is a prediction, and then covers that by noting he could be wrong about the numbers. I suspect he knows they will get a deal done, but it sure doesn't sound like he has any feel for what it will look like, and is just guessing.
Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Backlund adds a lot of value to the team. But to put things in perspective he’s our 3rd line center. I doubt there are many 3rd line centers making 5.5 million on other teams.
The Following User Says Thank You to Goriders For This Useful Post:
Backlund adds a lot of value to the team. But to put things in perspective he’s our 3rd line center. I doubt there are many 3rd line centers making 5.5 million on other teams.
Well, not yet. But, how many centres of Backlund's calibre have signed new deals in the past year?
Also, I think there is an important difference here between identifying a "third line centre" and the centre who happens to be playing on the third line. There are a bunch of teams where Backlund would be playing on the second line, and the luxury the Flames have to deploy a player as good as Backlund on the third line is a huge advantage. But, his value is not determined by his place on the depth chart—it's a matter of how good a player he is.
Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I think it's also worth noting that Backlund is one of if not the best '3rd line' centres in the league...is he not?
So if we lack the top-end #1 centre (which we do), then outside of a drastic rebuild, building depth that can hopefully expose the perceived lack of depth that other top teams may have is the path forward.
I don't love the strategy, as I don't think it works - but there's no other options on the table a the moment, and the team seems to have made the decision not to rebuild - so paying Backlund this fair salary makes sense.
The Following User Says Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
Backlund should absolutely have been traded. The lovefest with all these players who have won nothing with the Flames is funny. People treat Backlund similar to how Chicago would treat a player like Toews or Kane... Backlund has been a part of multiple cores that have barely made it past the first round.
We really need the opposite of a "thanks"
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
This would be more in line what I’d expect to see.
$4.5M is a hometown discount (especially on a 2-year term). $5.5M and 3 years seems closer to market.
Giving a 35+ player a 3 year deal isn't market. The market right now for mid-level vets is atrocious. Look at what Tatar signed for. Even Kopitar, who is coming off a 74 point season, only got 2 years.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
