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

[Strange Brew]

It is a results business. Standings matter. Playoffs matter. Alot.

But if management truly believes they are building towards long term success you shouldn't look at only one year. But we also shouldn't pretend there have been huge ups and downs either. This team as constructed has never been better than mediocre and in bottom half of league as measured by the standings.

You miss the playoffs this year and next year is pressure filled. Given how this team starts, that would be concerning in and of itself. It is a young team but many of these players are right in their prime.

Rebuilding now would be asinine. You need to improve this team and give it some runway and just know the stakes are high for those making the decisions.

[Caged Great]

If you compare the % of the Frolik contract, when it was signed to what the cap is now at 75 million, that would be worth just north of 4.5 million. So in effect Backlund's contract is only 0.835 more than his and you're getting a similar although better overall player at a more important position player for less than a million more.

Frolik has been worth his contract.

[Enoch Root]

Backlund is significantly more valuable than Frolik, IMO.

(at the time of Frolik's signing)

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

You are arguing semantics and belabouring a point that doesn't matter.

We are trying to define who backlund is today and over the next 6 years.

His most recent 3 years is a comfortable period of time to define who he is today and what kind of production we can expect from him.

That's all that matters. Few players have consistent trends over the entirety of their careers. Developing years, peak, downhill aging. You won't have much success trying to define a players expected consistent production adding up the various pieces of their life cycle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

His point here matters a lot!

When you sign a six year contract extension, I think it's perfectly okay to think about a players production over more than his peak three seasons, and to evaluate the contract with consideration to his full body of work. In fact, the player is more likely to regress to career averages than he is to maintain production levels over the life of the contract given his age.

$5.35 M for Backlund over the next 2-3 years is probably going to work out really well. And if the Falmes have an all-in window that aligns with the front end of this contract then from that perspective this contract probably makes a lot of sense. But when I look it at it for value over term, I am left wanting. I just don't think the value is there over the life of the contract.

I get the argument that it's the price you have to pay in order to get the next three years, but I just don't love where that leaves the team for the three years after that.

Even as the cap increases over the next couple of years (hopefully), $5.35 M is a lot of cap space tied up in what will almost certainly be the team's third line centre.

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by the2bears

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.

I agree. Really fair point

[Enoch Root]

I think that parity will continue, to an even greater extent, and depth will continue to improve across the league.

Forget 1st, 2nd and 3rd lines, going forward, it is going to take a deep and solid top 9.

And I won't mind spending $5.35M on a 3rd line C if that 3rd line c is as good as Backlund. Because winning will take 3 solid lines and 3 really good Cs.

In fact, I can't think of better news than Backlund becoming our 3rd line C. Our concern should be getting Jankowski to that level, not being mad at Backlund for being paid fairly.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by New Era

Elite players are all stars and make their national team. Backlund is neither.

Backhand has played for the Swedish National Team 4 times, twice at the world junior championship, and twice at the world championship.

And he likely gets the call for the 2018 Olympic team id NHL'ers were allowed.

Not that any of this really matters in evaluating the contract.

The real question is: Would you have been prepared to let him go via UFA and let him walk over the length of the contract?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The real question is: Would you have been prepared to let him go via UFA and let him walk over the length of the contract?

I would have been prepared to trade him. At no time would I let that asset get away for nothing, but I take that position on every asset. I would have looked at other options available to fill the gap and would have had some succession plan in place. I can live with the cap hit, I just think term is two years too long and will handicap the team in the last 2-3 of the contract.

[jaikorven]

I think in all of this the big issue is whether Backlund would have signed for less term. In which case we are left with little time to get a trade worked out and also it would be fairly obvious that we couldn't come to terms by other teams and that would drop his value in the trade market.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would have been prepared to trade him. At no time would I let that asset get away for nothing, but I take that position on every asset. I would have looked at other options available to fill the gap and would have had some succession plan in place. I can live with the cap hit, I just think term is two years too long and will handicap the team in the last 2-3 of the contract.

Problem with that is these succession plans are unreliable. Bennett is nowhere near any of the lofty expectations he came in with and Jankowski is making his way through his first full NHL season and remains to be seen just how far he can go.


There isn't an NHL team who doesn't have somebody signed for a little too long.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would have been prepared to trade him. At no time would I let that asset get away for nothing, but I take that position on every asset. I would have looked at other options available to fill the gap and would have had some succession plan in place. I can live with the cap hit, I just think term is two years too long and will handicap the team in the last 2-3 of the contract.

I honestly think the Flames were preparing to pull in an excellent return for Backlund if their plans had worked out (Bennett challenging Monahan for first line centre and Jankowski becoming a solid third centre).

Bennett didn't work out at all like they thought and Jankowski is a little behind, but looking to be a solid third line centre in the next couple years. This forced them to sign a 29 year old to a 6 year contract which teams are trying to avoid these days.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would have been prepared to trade him. At no time would I let that asset get away for nothing, but I take that position on every asset. I would have looked at other options available to fill the gap and would have had some succession plan in place. I can live with the cap hit, I just think term is two years too long and will handicap the team in the last 2-3 of the contract.

So what is the plan for the next 3 years ? This is our prime compete window . We’ll worry about years 5 and 6 in 5 and 6 years.

I am not thrilled about he length, but what choice do we have. We are not better over the next few years without Backlund. So if we’re trading him, we should really just revamp the whole team and deal Gio, Frolik, Smith and Hamonik

[devo22]

from Friedmans 31 thoughts:

10. I think Vancouver was disappointed Mikael Backlund re-signed with the Flames. He was going to be a Canuck target.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...als-fell-flat/

haha.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by devo22

from Friedmans 31 thoughts:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...als-fell-flat/

haha.

A team like Vancouver would have made a massive offer

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by devo22

from Friedmans 31 thoughts:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...als-fell-flat/

haha.

Why is Jim telling people these things?

[Toonage]

They'd have to.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

His point here matters a lot!

When you sign a six year contract extension, I think it's perfectly okay to think about a players production over more than his peak three seasons, and to evaluate the contract with consideration to his full body of work. In fact, the player is more likely to regress to career averages than he is to maintain production levels over the life of the contract given his age.

$5.35 M for Backlund over the next 2-3 years is probably going to work out really well. And if the Falmes have an all-in window that aligns with the front end of this contract then from that perspective this contract probably makes a lot of sense. But when I look it at it for value over term, I am left wanting. I just don't think the value is there over the life of the contract.

I get the argument that it's the price you have to pay in order to get the next three years, but I just don't love where that leaves the team for the three years after that.

Even as the cap increases over the next couple of years (hopefully), $5.35 M is a lot of cap space tied up in what will almost certainly be the team's third line centre.

What you say is entirely correct.

But, of course, if you factor in the inevitable back end of contracts being less-productive, and shy away from signing UFA's (or pending UFA's), you'll likely never win a SC.

GM's have to plug their noses on these types of deals or lose players.

It's the price teams like Chicago had to pay to win SC's. Of course, other teams pay the same price and never win that Cup. But it's the price of playing the game.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Bennett didn't work out at all like they thought and Jankowski is a little behind, but looking to be a solid third line centre in the next couple years. This forced them to sign a 29 year old to a 6 year contract which teams are trying to avoid these days.

Yet there would have been a long line up of teams wanting to pay that and more.

[ThePrince]

Backlund's career arch on Calgarypuck:

Age 18 - 24 - "Man, this guy is a bust, I can't believe we used a first rounder on him!"
Age 25 - 28 - "Holy, he's actually turned into a good player, we should trade him while he has value!"
Age 29 - 34 - "I can't believe we signed a good player to a contract, he's probably going to suck by the end of it!"

This board hates everyone who isn't a first line elite player. Even Monahan.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yet there would have been a long line up of teams wanting to pay that and more.

rightfully so. This was posted in the PGT after the Avs game:

https://twitter.com/user/status/967861996275294208

also had 3 points in that game. How many forwards can do that? He'll never lead the league in scoring but you can bet teams would queue up to sign a 20 goal, 50 point center who shuts down the opposition's top line and excels in the toughest D zone assignments imaginable.