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

[Enoch Root]

I always enjoy the FO arguments. He is at 48.7% oh no.

He would have needed to win 14 more of his 1023 FOs so far this year to be at 50%. Or 1 every 4 games. Plus, his quality of competition suggests that he is usually matched against top Cs, so given that, it seems like he is holding his own.

Also, most Cs get better at FOs as they get older. Pretty reasonable to assume the same for him.

Having said all that, I too would like to see him to continue to improve at them, as it would only enhance his abilities as a shut down C. And the one place he definitely needs to be better is defensive zone draws, where he has been at only 46.5% this year.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That also ranks him 37th in the league among Cs over that time.

This is a higher-end 2nd line center in terms of production. While also being one of the better two way guys in the league. Frankly, as long as he averages over 40 points during the term of this it's a good deal.

[FireGilbert]

I'm still so happy about this. What a great value signing. If Backlund left, through trade or FA, the Flames would have a huge hole to fill and be on the way to another rebuild.

I get the arguments the deal is a year too long, although I think as a late bloomer Backlund will still be contributing by the end, but I don't buy the argument saying he is not good offensively by stating where he ranks in scoring for centres. There are numerous players listed as centres who barely ever play centre such as Marner, Nylander, and Draisaitl. If you only rank players who are actually centres Backlund's stats look much better.

[taxbuster]

Been off the grid for a couple of days but caught the news from 960 the other day as it broke (dumb luck!). Great signing - great term and pretty good money. Give a head nod to Tre!

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

For the last 3 seasons combined, he has played at a 49.7 point pace. I am willing to call it 50 for the sake of argument.

That also ranks him 37th in the league among Cs over that time.

Of course his production will slow by the end of the contract. But we are getting him below market right now, and the cap will rise. That's the cost of doing business.

Lol. Guy has hit 50 once in his career. Other than that ONE season, he has been over 40 points one other time.

Once in 7 full seasons. And unless he hits 50 this year, that's once in 8 seasons.

Now all of the sudden he is a consistent 50 point player?

You can love the contract without stretching the facts or making stuff up.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread try to argue that he isn't a second line centre right now, or that he doesn't bring elite defensive play. He is and he does. I even think $5.35 right now is very good deal.

But this is a 6 year deal. We will be extremely lucky if his play only declines at the end of the contract, as you are suggesting. I think it's much more likely that his play will decline earlier than the end.

It happens to most players in that age range. You very rarely get great value out of these kinds of contracts.

These arguments about the last 2 or 3 years not mattering are fine now, but I suspect the fan base may feel differently when we ar paying $5.35 M per year to a 3rd line centre that still has two more years on the contract.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I always enjoy the FO arguments. He is at 48.7% oh no.

He would have needed to win 14 more of his 1023 FOs so far this year to be at 50%. Or 1 every 4 games. Plus, his quality of competition suggests that he is usually matched against top Cs, so given that, it seems like he is holding his own.

Also, most Cs get better at FOs as they get older. Pretty reasonable to assume the same for him.

Having said all that, I too would like to see him to continue to improve at them, as it would only enhance his abilities as a shut down C. And the one place he definitely needs to be better is defensive zone draws, where he has been at only 46.5% this year.

What faceoff arguments are you referring to?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Lol. Guy has hit 50 once in his career. Other than that ONE season, he has been over 40 points one other time.

Once in 7 full seasons. And unless he hits 50 this year, that's once in 8 seasons.

Now all of the sudden he is a consistent 50 point player?

You can love the contract without stretching the facts or making stuff up.

I don't see where that was stated in your quote.

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I don't see where that was stated in your quote.

I agree that it isn't explicitly stated. I'm interpreting his argument as an attempt to categorize Backlund as a 50 point player. If he's not trying to do that then I really don't take exception to the post.

Backlund was a 50 point player once. I'm not expecting he will hit 50 points at any point during this 6 year contract extension.

Would love to be wrong about that. I just don't think it's likely to happen, and that's why I don't love the term on this deal.

[Flash Walken]

Dougie!

[united]

So happy for the Flames and Backlund. Seeing a guy who loves the team and city take a million dollar per year discount to stay is awesome, and the Flames re-signing him shows their intent on being a contender immediately.


A few years ago Backlund decided he wasn't content just being an NHL player, he wanted to be better. In a two year span he went from a bottom 10 Flames player in fitness to top 10, hired his own power skating instructor and went from a below average skater to an above average skater with terrific edges, and hired his own skills coach to help add some offence to his game. This was all on his own accord. He always had the smarts but his dedication to improving his own game really pushed him over the top.

Since he entered the league full-time he's been an elite defensive player, he just needed to add some offensive element. In his early years he didn't have the dedication. Finally he reformed himself and got trapped in Bob Hartley's tenure where he was grossly under-played and playing in a system where a centre's defensive responsibilities as they relates to supporting the defensemen are largely ignored. It should be no surprise that his game flourished once a semi-competent coach was hired, where he gets played a reasonable amount and in a tactical role that suits what a centre should do.

Backlund is so dedicated to his craft and fitness, and plays such an intelligent game, that I don't see much risk in his game dropping off a cliff by the end of his contract.

Terrific signing.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

All he really did is post some facts. It's weird that this upsets people so much. The post barely talked about whether it was a good contract or not.

It wasn’t well thought out at all. Posting about irrelevant stats like a barely sub par faceoff percentage and plus/minus, and then following it up in the next post by completely dismissing corsi, is not ‘well thought out’

And saying what he would have gotten on the open market is ‘irrelevant’ is probably the most out of touch comment of all.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I get the arguments the deal is a year too long, although I think as a late bloomer Backlund will still be contributing by the end, but I don't buy the argument saying he is not good offensively by stating where he ranks in scoring for centres. There are numerous players listed as centres who barely ever play centre such as Marner, Nylander, and Draisaitl. If you only rank players who are actually centres Backlund's stats look much better.

And beyond that there isn’t a center ahead of him who gets buried with more defensive zone starts.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by united

So happy for the Flames and Backlund. Seeing a guy who loves the team and city take a million dollar per year discount to stay is awesome, and the Flames re-signing him shows their intent on being a contender immediately.


A few years ago Backlund decided he wasn't content just being an NHL player, he wanted to be better. In a two year span he went from a bottom 10 Flames player in fitness to top 10, hired his own power skating instructor and went from a below average skater to an above average skater with terrific edges, and hired his own skills coach to help add some offence to his game. This was all on his own accord. He always had the smarts but his dedication to improving his own game really pushed him over the top.

Since he entered the league full-time he's been an elite defensive player, he just needed to add some offensive element. In his early years he didn't have the dedication. Finally he reformed himself and got trapped in Bob Hartley's tenure where he was grossly under-played and playing in a system where a centre's defensive responsibilities as they relates to supporting the defensemen are largely ignored. It should be no surprise that his game flourished once a semi-competent coach was hired, where he gets played a reasonable amount and in a tactical role that suits what a centre should do.

Backlund is so dedicated to his craft and fitness, and plays such an intelligent game, that I don't see much risk in his game dropping off a cliff by the end of his contract.

Terrific signing.

I agree it is a very good signing.

The Hartley comment however is quite incorrect. He didn’t just become good last year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Lol. Guy has hit 50 once in his career. Other than that ONE season, he has been over 40 points one other time.

Once in 7 full seasons. And unless he hits 50 this year, that's once in 8 seasons.

Now all of the sudden he is a consistent 50 point player?

You can love the contract without stretching the facts or making stuff up.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread try to argue that he isn't a second line centre right now, or that he doesn't bring elite defensive play. He is and he does. I even think $5.35 right now is very good deal.

But this is a 6 year deal. We will be extremely lucky if his play only declines at the end of the contract, as you are suggesting. I think it's much more likely that his play will decline earlier than the end.

It happens to most players in that age range. You very rarely get great value out of these kinds of contracts.

These arguments about the last 2 or 3 years not mattering are fine now, but I suspect the fan base may feel differently when we ar paying $5.35 M per year to a 3rd line centre that still has two more years on the contract.

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.

[transplant99]

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.

So we only use the last 3 years, because it fits YOUR narrative?And who cares how many posts he has made...they are all in response to someone discussing the subject with him.

But since you declared "facts", as the basis for your argument, lets look at ALL the "facts" shall we?

He is a career 41 point player in an 82 game season. Full stop. 9 seasons of data...not 3.

THIS season he is on pace for...47 pts which is not a 50 point pace, though its close enough to not quibble. That however is much more likely to decline than go up.

Does he get better as he gets to 30 years old? Possible but very unlikely. I can see him having a better year next year however, depending on if he gets to hold on to Tkachuk on his left side or not. MT is the guy that drives the offense on that line.

The money for the first couple years is great. The money in 3 or 4 years is very likely going to be something that hurts the club, which is what Brad Marsh is saying. Term is too long. I happen to agree as many others do. Its OK to discuss that is it not?

[ricardodw]

The contract by itself is not necessarily a bad deal. The fact that the Flames have locked up this group of players with so little positive results is sort of like running up the surrender flag.

The Core has been here for the last 3 seasons: Monahan, Gio, Backlund, Brodie, Hamilton, Frolik... now this same group who had the highlight of a winning streak of 10 games last year and 7 games this year. They were overmatched in the playoffs last year and are about 50/50 to sneak into the playoffs this year.

These "good" contracts will account for 40 M of cap space in 2019-20

Add in good contacts of Stone and Hamonic and that moves to 47.3 and add Brouwers bad contract of 4.5 and the Flames have 52.8 of cap space locked up with these 9 contracts.

How the heck will this team show better results than they have had this year?

This year they have been virtually injury free with Frolik being the only significant player missing for 12 games.

Tkachuk and Jankowski and Ferland have outperformed their contracts by a significant margin. The stop gap goalie has been great.

How does this core win??

[locsofblu]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The contract by itself is not necessarily a bad deal. The fact that the Flames have locked up this group of players with so little positive results is sort of like running up the surrender flag.

The Core has been here for the last 3 seasons: Monahan, Gio, Backlund, Brodie, Hamilton, Frolik... now this same group who had the highlight of a winning streak of 10 games last year and 7 games this year. They were overmatched in the playoffs last year and are about 50/50 to sneak into the playoffs this year.

These "good" contracts will account for 40 M of cap space in 2019-20

Add in good contacts of Stone and Hamonic and that moves to 47.3 and add Brouwers bad contract of 4.5 and the Flames have 52.8 of cap space locked up with these 9 contracts.

How the heck will this team show better results than they have had this year?

This year they have been virtually injury free with Frolik being the only significant player missing for 12 games.

Tkachuk and Jankowski and Ferland have outperformed their contracts by a significant margin. The stop gap goalie has been great.

How does this core win??

This is the truth. What happens when we don't make the playoffs this year? Changes will definitely need to e made and this Wil make it that much harder to do so. I'm not saying it's a bad contract bad I'm saying we aren't a very good team. So now What?

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So we only use the last 3 years, because it fits YOUR narrative?And who cares how many posts he has made...they are all in response to someone discussing the subject with him.

But since you declared "facts", as the basis for your argument, lets look at ALL the "facts" shall we?

He is a career 41 point player in an 82 game season. Full stop. 9 seasons of data...not 3.

THIS season he is on pace for...47 pts which is not a 50 point pace, though its close enough to not quibble. That however is much more likely to decline than go up.

Does he get better as he gets to 30 years old? Possible but very unlikely. I can see him having a better year next year however, depending on if he gets to hold on to Tkachuk on his left side or not. MT is the guy that drives the offense on that line.

The money for the first couple years is great. The money in 3 or 4 years is very likely going to be something that hurts the club, which is what Brad Marsh is saying. Term is too long. I happen to agree as many others do. Its OK to discuss that is it not?

Enoch's reply was to the bolded bit about Brad's claim that "Backlund has never shown himself to be a consistent 50 point producer". Not that he's averaging 50 pt per season in his career.

3 seasons worth of data shows that Backlund has on average, produced 49.7 points. Good enough in my eyes to refute that Backlund has never been a consistent 50 point player.


Nobody is ignoring or expecting that Backlund's offensive production won't drop off sooner than later based on his age. However the fans of the deal willing to overlook the cost of the contract near the end, are looking at the positives like relative cap savings right now, ability to retain defensive play at an older age and being a valuable member of the team at any point of his career.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So we only use the last 3 years, because it fits YOUR narrative?And who cares how many posts he has made...they are all in response to someone discussing the subject with him.

But since you declared "facts", as the basis for your argument, lets look at ALL the "facts" shall we?

He is a career 41 point player in an 82 game season. Full stop. 9 seasons of data...not 3.

THIS season he is on pace for...47 pts which is not a 50 point pace, though its close enough to not quibble. That however is much more likely to decline than go up.

Does he get better as he gets to 30 years old? Possible but very unlikely. I can see him having a better year next year however, depending on if he gets to hold on to Tkachuk on his left side or not. MT is the guy that drives the offense on that line.

The money for the first couple years is great. The money in 3 or 4 years is very likely going to be something that hurts the club, which is what Brad Marsh is saying. Term is too long. I happen to agree as many others do. Its OK to discuss that is it not?

Yes, those are facts too. And I also said that the term was a bit long and that he probably won't be earning his salary at the end. I am more than happy to discuss all aspects of the contract rationally.

But I was specifically responding to something the other poster said. And I stated a specific fact which directly rebutted what he claimed. He then claimed that I was making things up. Thus myreply.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Enoch's reply was to the bolded bit about Brad's claim that "Backlund has never shown himself to be a consistent 50 point producer". Not that he's averaging 50 pt per season in his career.

3 seasons worth of data shows that Backlund has on average, produced 49.7 points. Good enough in my eyes to refute that Backlund has never been a consistent 50 point player.


Nobody is ignoring or expecting that Backlund's offensive production won't drop off sooner than later based on his age. However the fans of the deal willing to overlook the cost of the contract near the end, are looking at the positives like relative cap savings right now, ability to retain defensive play at an older age and being a valuable member of the team at any point of his career.

And 9 seasons of data shows something different......thats my point.

I hope he hits 60 points...hell i hope he hits 100, but that doesnt change the fact he hasnt, and almost assuredly wont as he gets older. I would like to see what he does with a different wingman on his left, as I think thats what will define how good this deal is when all is said and done. Unless we are OK with paying 5+ per, for a really good defensive specialist, which is what he is if he regresses to his norm, he needs to produce at a clip he simply hasnt done for more than 2 1/2 years yet. I think he can, but there is a real risk he doesnt.

This contract has every chance to blow up in the Flames face as it does to be a good value...which is why several people dont particularly like the term. Though, admittedly, its a better gamble to have him on the team than not, and this was the price to make that happen.