Is it time to trade Mikael Backlund?

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Psytic

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...-game-peak-age

Hes got a year or two still If he ever breaks out.

I always find this chart so interesting. Are young players such studs because the good players have a habit of making the league earlier? Are old players really that bad?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

100% Disagree.

He is exactly the type of guy we would be after.

Pre-Apex, that has shown flashes of being good but hasn't been able to put it all together yet.

Hell us picking up Joe Colborne is a perfect example of that. IMO those two are similar players in terms of where they are in the development cycle, Backlund is actually more proven and has shown more in their young careers.

Ummm... no.

Joe Colbourne - 23 years old - 6 ft 5" - 213 lbs - NHL experience - 33 games

Mikael Backlund - 24 years old - 6 ft 0" - 198 lbs - NHL experience - 187 games

One is pretty well at the apex of the bell curve and the other is just starting out.

[FBI]

If backlund is so bad with 6 pts and good defensive responsibility, what does that say about galiardi and jones who have had A) more icetime B) less points C) worse defense

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Psytic

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...-game-peak-age

Hes got a year or two still If he ever breaks out.

This would be a much better graph if the bottom was number of games played instead of age.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by FBI

If backlund is so bad with 6 pts and good defensive responsibility, what does that say about galiardi and jones who have had A) more icetime B) less points C) worse defense

Agreed, not sure how Jones earned the ice time he's been getting. He has shown nothing around the net all season and is still getting 1/2 line time.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by FBI

If backlund is so bad with 6 pts and good defensive responsibility, what does that say about galiardi and jones who have had A) more icetime B) less points C) worse defense

It says I've only had 18 and 14 games respectively to make up my mind about those two whereas I've had 187 games to make up my mind about Backlund.

[CaptainYooh]

I read the thread and I believe most people are saying essentially the same thing with different overtones: it would have been nice to trade him for a good return but nobody is going to give us a good return for him at this point and, I also agree, that seems to be the case.

However, some players start playing better under different coaches on different teams; so it might help Mikael's career if he is moved to another team. But the good return point comes back - we are likely going to get little value for him.

I'd say, he can only be traded fairly as part of a package deal - with draft picks involved.

[dammage79]

Trade Stajan, get RW depth. Call up Knight and rotate the centers in and out of the fourth line until we get one that cannot get out of the fourth line. Trade him for a pick and a call it a day.

If Knight is surely the guy that gets the permanent call up so be it. I'd rather develop them up here than give those minutes to the vets. Lotto pick or not, its year one of the rebuild. The only Vets we should keep to me are Hudler Wideman and Smid. All the other old guys to me are interchangeable with kids from the farm or elsewhere.

Hanowski, Granlund, Reinahrt are all going to be eventually knocking on the door so hard they wont be able to help but bring em up and play them.

[codynw]

Stajan is the only veteran center. I don't think getting rid of him is a very good idea, at least not yet.

[Anduril]

There really isn't much that we would get back for Backlund. If we do use Colborne as a comparable, we're looking at a 3rd. Not worth it.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Does anybody on here really believe that he's going to get any better than what he's shown so far and that there's nobody in the system that can replace him?

Yes, and yes.

His progression has been slow, but he has been progressing. He has never had a break-out season, but he has steadily progressed from an AHL calibre player to a useful NHLer. He has slowly and steadily progressed and there is no reason to think that he will suddenly turn into a pumpkin at midnight on his 25th birthday and start sucking. So yes, I think he will get better than what he's shown so far.

And I also don't see anyone in the system who is likely to replace him and be an upgrade. Knight is all of ONE year younger, and literally isn't even in the same league as Backlund. Granlund, Reinhart, and Jankowski are all still long-shots to make it as full-time NHLers.

And yes, Backlund is exactly the kind of guy the Flames should be looking at if he was on another team. Highly-touted former first rounder who is young and has all the tools, but hasn't been able to take the next step yet.

He's a quality player, and he's outplaying his cap hit. Of course you move him for the right price, just like any other player. But no reason to go shopping him.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... which puts him 5th amoungst fowards in scoring (2nd amoungst centers) while being 9th in average TOI. He's a good young legitimate NHL player, that's something the Flames should be acquiring not moving out. Even if he never makes a significant breakout offensively he's still a Bolland type quality player... that's nothing to sneeze at.

The standards that some people keep are just so low.

This should have been Backlunds year.
- year 1 of a rebuild
- he should be approaching his best years offensively
- he is one of the more experienced players on this team.

Instead, a rookie that would not have made another teams roster at all is threatening to take his spot in the 3rd line not 20 games in, and another rookie clearly beat him.

He's actually 6th in scoring among forwards, while being 5th in total TOI, and the difference to four other guys is just one point. The guys that he is beating in points are mostly 4th liners (Colborne, Jackman, McGrattan, Bouma), rookies (Baertchi, Bouma, Colborne) or have played less games (Stajan, Jones, Baertchi, Jackman, McGrattan).

This is just not good enough at this point.

I also don't see how he can be considered a "Bolland type" center. I mean sure, Backlund is one of our leading PK guys, but our PK is 28th in the league, so again that's not the standard we should be keeping.

Backlunds two-way game is nothing special. If it would be, he should be our top defensive forward by a good margin, since this is one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Instead, Backlund is last in GA among forwards, with a +/- of -5, one of the worst on the team.

(Bolland is +3, which is among the best on his team.)

This all just basicly goes around the same point; while Backlund doesn't suck, neither defensively or offensively, he's also not trending up at all, and he would need to take a BIG leap either offensively or defensively to become a keeper on a good team. (Heck, even on an average team IMO.)

[TheDebaser]

I'm starting to wonder if our training schedule is too focused on ice time and our guys aren't hitting the gym enough. At 24 Backlund shouldn't be weak anymore, this is a serious problem for our entire roster. How are teams like the sharks and bruins beefy as hell from the top of their roster to the bottom and why are the flames so lanky compared to pretty much every competitive team? Why can't any of our guys be pushing the opposition around out there?

Now that I think about it, there are very few longtime flames on this team who are actually capable of pushing the opposition around. Giordano, Jackman, McGratton maybe Wideman and Brodie?

To me, it seems like developing strength should almost be a given in this league, but flames players always seem to be so weak.

Baertschi, Backlund, Butler, Cammy, Hudler, Stajan, Stempniak, Russell, Galiardi, (All of our top nine except Jones/Glencross)

Could there be a problem in the way our teams practices are being scheduled in that not enough time is being devoted to the weight room?

This is the post that got me thinking about this stuff, and I really think this guy, and Chris Pronger, is on to something:
http://www.reddit.com/r/EdmontonOile...bout_training/

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Itse

Backlunds two-way game is nothing special. If it would be, he should be our top defensive forward by a good margin, since this is one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Instead, Backlund is last in GA among forwards, with a +/- of -5, one of the worst on the team.

He has the hardest zone-starts of any forward on the team, and faces the toughest competition of any forward on the team.

He IS the teams leading defensive forward, and it is by a large margin.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Ummm... no.

Joe Colbourne - 23 years old - 6 ft 5" - 213 lbs - NHL experience - 33 games

Mikael Backlund - 24 years old - 6 ft 0" - 198 lbs - NHL experience - 187 games

One is pretty well at the apex of the bell curve and the other is just starting out.

So being more successful at a younger age and being trusted with more NHL games means he wouldn't fit the bill...that is wrong. Size is the only aspect there that is really relevant.

Plus issue with Backlund this season though hasn't been his 200ft play, that has been fine. He continues to drive possession, play a strong 200ft game, and is much stronger physically this year.

The issue has been they expect him to generate more offense this season and he hasn't taken that step. They are being hard on him because they think he has that aspect to his game (see the game this weekend) and are trying to find a way to help him harness it on a more consistent basis.

The other reason you don't trade Backlund right now is his value to the team is much higher then it would be to the rest of the league. Why trade him if you are only going to get a 2nd or 3rd round pick, his value to the team and overall potential is still much higher then that.

[FBI]

Please please please trade stajan over backlund. Not the other way around.

[Enoch Root]

People are so impatient - it is not the time to trade Backlund, either with respect to him as a player, or with respect to the rebuild.

As it stands right now, Backlund is our 2nd most talented centre.

As far as the rebuild goes, I would hold onto him until I learned:
a) how good he can be
b) what we've got in Jankowski
c) whether or not we end up with another top C prospect, like Reinhart or McDavid, and
d) how the other guys - Knight and Colborne progress.

In other words WAIT TWO YEARS.

IF any other players push him out of the lineup - great. If he develops into something more - great. He either becomes an important piece or his trade value goes up.

To suggest we need to trade him now because his value may continue to fall is silly. His value isn't high now, so you won't get anything for him. So there is little cost in waiting. Plus, the Flames need him right now.

Patience.

[SeanCharles]

^FBI - I agree you definitely can't keep both while developing Colborne, Monahan and Knight so one has to go.

Stajan is 30 and has peaked as a 2/3rd line center. Backs isn't as good as Stajan but Stajan is better to this team as trade bait.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

So being more successful at a younger age and being trusted with more NHL games means he wouldn't fit the bill...that is wrong. Size is the only aspect there that is really relevant.

Plus issue with Backlund this season though hasn't been his 200ft play, that has been fine. He continues to drive possession, play a strong 200ft game, and is much stronger physically this year.

The issue has been they expect him to generate more offense this season and he hasn't taken that step. They are being hard on him because they think he has that aspect to his game (see the game this weekend) and are trying to find a way to help him harness it on a more consistent basis.

The other reason you don't trade Backlund right now is his value to the team is much higher then it would be to the rest of the league. Why trade him if you are only going to get a 2nd or 3rd round pick, his value to the team and overall potential is still much higher then that.

The issue is that he is and always has been, soft on the puck. The stats say he's 6 ft and 198 lbs but he sure doesn't play like it. He's a 3rd /4th line center and will always be that. The league is full of them. The Flames are full of them.

I think if the Flames could get a 2nd round pick for him they would jump on it in a heartbeat. The only reason Knight is in Abby and Backlund isn't is because Knight has a two way contract and Backlund doesn't.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

He has the hardest zone-starts of any forward on the team, and faces the toughest competition of any forward on the team.

He IS the teams leading defensive forward, and it is by a large margin.

Stajan is the guy they throw against the top lines no question, I don't know where you get your stats. And Stajan isn't that great either.

Besides, leading in defensive responsibility is not the same as leading in defensive results. As in, actually keeping the puck out of the net. Backlunds results are worst-in-team kind of bad.

It's not his fault, because yes, he does get put into tough spots, but using Backlund as a defensive forward is a result of him being above average on a bad team, not a result of him actually good.

Let's put it this way: would you think someone would trade for Backlund to use him as a shutdown guy? (Other than Edmonton.)