What? Pretty much everyone predicted he would regress. That's why we didn't sign him.
Not the sick part and probably not so soon, but there were plenty of people who saw a regression around the corner.
Staying in St. Louis is entirely another path. Think of it as an algorithm.
It's like a recently-traded player gets injured and the fanbase of his former team being relieved that they did not keep that player because he just got injured.
It's bad logic.
Maybe Backes hates Boston and his motivation is lost. Maybe he ate some wicked bad chowda and his hockey brain got poisoned.
Maybe if Backes stayed in St. Louis he would have continued his bullish ways in a place where he feels comfortable and has a home and has roots.
Maybe he would have regressed, like so many supposedly predicted.
And if he scored 30 goals last season, we would have been whining that (or maybe lauding) the Backes-regression naysayers were right.
Backes was only 31 years old when he signed with Boston. How does that indicate an upcoming regression? His last season with the Blues was arguably his most consistent performance ever with the team. How does that indicate an upcoming regression?