Main Camp Day 1 - Kylington will not take part of first day of training camp

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Groot

Backlund was 6th in Selke voting last year (Lindholm was 10th), in a disastrous year, with 56 points. Arguably a career year. Backlund is Bergeron-lite, who just retired after a stellar season at 38. A 4 year contract would bring Backlund to 38. But the team should treat their longest-tenured played and 3rd most tenured player in franchise history, the apparent de facto team Captain in the room, like some retiree that is just hanging on year-to-year. It's ludicrous.

If the Flames are a basement team in 4 years, it is not because of a 4x5 contract for Mikael Backlund.

Bergeron also was on a 1x2.5m contract last year.

I think what’s fair for all parties is more term but lower cap hit.
5-5-3-2 over 4 gives a cap hit of 3.75m

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

First, we don't know that 'Backlund will have lost all value' in a year or two - smart two-way Cs are always in demand with contenders.

And second, retaining some salary for the final two years can really up the value.

I agree that a a 3 yr deal is preferred, but the 4 yr deal likely comes at a lower cap, so it's a trade-off. And it's certainly more workable than you're making it out to be in this post.

If you sign Backlund to a 4 year deal, you're getting a discount on the early years and paying a premium for the later years. To expect that you can trade him for positive value in the back half of that contract is unwise.
So yeah you are either eating dead money in a trade, giving up assets to unload his salary or worst case, buying him out. All are options and all will cost you. I'd rather the club didn't go that route.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "year or two". His new contract won't even kick in for a year and a four year deal has him signed for next 5 years. I'm sure he will be an effective player for next year or two.

[Enoch Root]

A year or two was your wording that I quoted.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A year or two was your wording that I quoted.

Then how long are you giving it to determine if the club has “taken a step”? It sounds like you were stating there was some positive exit strategy for a long term Backlund contract.

Remember it’s not that Backlund has lost his value as a player in a year or two. It’s that saddling him with a long term contract destroys his trade value.

If it’s true that Flames are looking at a two year deal I’d be very happy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Then how long are you giving it to determine if the club has “taken a step”? It sounds like you were stating there was some positive exit strategy for a long term Backlund contract.

Remember it’s not that Backlund has lost his value as a player in a year or two. It’s that saddling him with a long term contract destroys his trade value.

If it’s true that Flames are looking at a two year deal I’d be very happy.

You're assuming that he's valueless for the last two years. I don't think that's a given. Not sure what you're trying to argue here - would a 2 year deal be better? Of course (depending on the AAV). But a 4 year deal with a lower AAV is not likely to be a problem either. If the AAV is $4M or less, salary retention can make him a $2M player, and unless he absolutely falls off the map (which seems unlikely with his conditioning and health at the moment), he should still have a fair amount of value at that point.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're assuming that he's valueless for the last two years. I don't think that's a given. Not sure what you're trying to argue here - would a 2 year deal be better? Of course (depending on the AAV). But a 4 year deal with a lower AAV is not likely to be a problem either. If the AAV is $4M or less, salary retention can make him a $2M player, and unless he absolutely falls off the map (which seems unlikely with his conditioning and health at the moment), he should still have a fair amount of value at that point.

Well this is exactly what I said several posts earlier. You sign him to a 4 year deal, and you will have to pay to trade him at the end of it. That’s the cost of lowering the AAV.

I’m crossing my fingers that Conroy is not of this mind. Better off with a higher AAV and not losing flexibility and/or having dead money against the cap.

Will Backlund fall off the map? IMO hard to tell based on his 33 year old season, when a four deal would see him through age 38.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well this is exactly what I said several posts earlier. You sign him to a 4 year deal, and you will have to pay to trade him at the end of it. That’s the cost of lowering the AAV.

I’m crossing my fingers that Conroy is not of this mind. Better off with a higher AAV and not losing flexibility and/or having dead money against the cap.

Will Backlund fall off the map? IMO hard to tell based on his 33 year old season, when a four deal would see him through age 38.

Except that isn't what I said - with salary retained, he could still be a very valuable asset, generating a good return

a lower AAV also has an advantage in the short term

in the end, the overall difference is likely marginal

[Redrum]

No, a cheaper 4 yr would absolutely kill his value compared to 2. That one really isn't close. The thing about a 35 yr old is they could fall off a cliff in a few months no matter how they look now. I don't know why the Flames are oblivious to age, but I think most teams have that one figured out. If he pulls a Pavelski and is still good that last year, then you might get someone to take the last few months of the contract. Not sure how common "Pavelskis" are though.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Except that isn't what I said - with salary retained, he could still be a very valuable asset, generating a good return

a lower AAV also has an advantage in the short term

in the end, the overall difference is likely marginal

Well you asked where we disagree and you pretty much summed it up.

Retaining salary isn’t nothing. Look at trades involving 38+ year old players in the last few years and show me the good return. Maybe Backlund will be a unicorn, but not something I’d count on.

I don’t agree with you that the difference between a short term and long term deal is marginal. And I’m hopeful the Flames don’t see it that way.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Redrum

No, a cheaper 4 yr would absolutely kill his value compared to 2. That one really isn't close. The thing about a 35 yr old is they could fall off a cliff in a few months no matter how they look now. I don't know why the Flames are oblivious to age, but I think most teams have that one figured out. If he pulls a Pavelski and is still good that last year, then you might get someone to take the last few months of the contract. Not sure how common "Pavelskis" are though.

You are right on here. Pavelski is a good example. He was widely considered an elite player. He went to UFA after a 38 goal season and got a three year deal when he was 35.
No reason for the Flames to jump the gun on offering term to Backlund with a year left in his current deal.

[Hackey]

Seeing how he does this season and then talking extension would probably be the smart move. Extension after a career year does seem risky. I also think you'd get a way better return for him as a rental if things did end up going that way.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Has there been any further news on Kylington?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Has there been any further news on Kylington?

Nothing since the announcement,

[foofighter15]

This is heartbreaking….I was so excited to see he came to camp and was very optimistic he’d be ready for his return. The fact he hasn’t played yet and no further news has come out since the first day of camp is beyond worrisome. Fingers crossed he gets passed this hurdle he’s facing, not just because of what he provides on the ice but primarily for who he is off the ice.

We’re rooting for ya Ollie

[cam_calderon]

I respect Oliver's privacy, but as an NHL player in the spotlight he can't maintain the same level as John Smith the O&G engineer. At some point the truth must come out. It's been over a year now.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

I respect Oliver's privacy, but as an NHL player in the spotlight he can't maintain the same level as John Smith the O&G engineer. At some point the truth must come out. It's been over a year now.

No, it actually does't have to.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

I respect Oliver's privacy, but as an NHL player in the spotlight he can't maintain the same level as John Smith the O&G engineer. At some point the truth must come out. It's been over a year now.

How do you figure? I’m not even being sassy, I don’t understand this thought process at all.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

How do you figure? I’m not even being sassy, I don’t understand this thought process at all.

Entitlement as a fan.

[cam_calderon]

The club has a responsibility to the fans, to not treat them as morons. A year of being kept in the dark about a player who was tipped to explode and become an extremely important defenceman is completely disrespectful.

I'm sick of the smoke and mirrors and carefully worded PR nonsense, enough already. What is the problem with this guy?

If you work in an office and the person sitting next to you has not come in for a year but is still being paid, would you not ask questions about that?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

The club has a responsibility to the fans, to not treat them as morons. A year of being kept in the dark about a player who was tipped to explode and become an extremely important defenceman is completely disrespectful.

I'm sick of the smoke and mirrors and carefully worded PR nonsense, enough already. What is the problem with this guy?

If you work in an office and the person sitting next to you has not come in for a year but is still being paid, would you not ask questions about that?

Disrespectful… to us? This is amazing.

The last point, it’s straight up not legal or permitted… in fact, you could have a year off and only your doctor and benefit provider need to know the details. Your boss doesn’t. Unless you work in a #### hole.