Confirmed Signing with Link: [CGY] Flames re-sign Mikael Backlund [6 years/$5.35M AAV]

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,176
8,336
Padded Room
I wouldn't call it a great deal, but it is a fair one. Main thing I don't care for is that NTC in the last 3 years.
it's a limited NTC (10 team trade list per capfriendly) in the last 3 years. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But I agree it's not a major bargain like some are suggesting. I think it's a good contract, I suspected 5x5.5 so 6 years at 150k less is right in line with what I expected.
 

Nithoniniel

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
20,913
16,749
Skövde, Sweden
Yes that's a good contract but Kadri was a RFA and you can argue Backlund is a better player defensively, he has a more important role on the Flames anyway
Backlund is quite a bit better defensively. Kadri is still not that great defensively, while Backlund is a rare defensive forward. The two are similar in terms of what stage of their career they are in, and that they are generally relied upon to play tough match ups. Backlund does this because he's a terrific two-way center though, while Kadri is more utilized that way because he can push offense even against top opposition.
 

FameFlame069

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
2,992
546
I do watch hockey.

Just because I don't love me of your favourite players as much as you do doesn't mean I don't watch hockey.

My proof is watching the vast majority of Backlund games in the NHL.

If you watched a majority of his games, you would actually see his great defensive play versus top players in the league, he was out there for a full 157 seconds during a 6 on 4, that turned into a 6 on 5 in the last 37 seconds against Nashville, but eh your eyes realize your real lie, you're talking out of your @$$, no point in trying to get truth in your head when you're the only reason you don't know what defense is :)
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Why is a mediocre team dishing out long term contracts to mediocre players?

Because mediocrity keeps guys employed.

Better to sign Backlund and stay in the 7-10 range as you can sell making/fighting for the play-offs to an owner rather than take a risk that might have you be a contender but also might risk blowing up in your face.

Sports GM are the most conservative people around for the most part, hockey GM's especially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kelly

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,390
11,074
Bit of an over payment but Calgary needs him and could not let him test free agency.I imagine he brings a lot to the room as well.

Closest comparable was Frans Nielson, he got a couple thousand dollars less in FA... but was 6 years older than Backs. Backlund would have been given a 6x6 by someone out there who needs centre depth. I look at team like Montreal, Backlund would be their 1C with a bullet. Or a team like Vancouver that'd have a ton of cap with nothing else to do with it.

Calgary got a great deal on a great player. The guy's an elite 2C in the league, bordering on a 1B type centre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OvermanKingGainer

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
it's a limited NTC (10 team trade list per capfriendly) in the last 3 years. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But I agree it's not a major bargain like some are suggesting. I think it's a good contract, I suspected 5x5.5 so 6 years at 150k less is right in line with what I expected.

It's a fair deal. Neither side really loses. I mean, this isn't Jossi's 7 year $28 million with Nash where the Preds get an absolute steal.

In the last 4 full NHL seasons, he's gotten:
39, 27 (pro-rated to 41 over a full season), 47, 53, and this year 34 (on pace for 50). So, expect him to range between the high 40's to low 50's. I would probably have guessed it would have landed closer to $5.75 per, so it's not that far off that given he was UFA. Eriksson landed $6 million per at age 31.

He turns 29 in March, so this deal runs until he is 35. Usually, you estimate the end of prime years at age 33. So, the last 2 might be a bit down. Contract isn't front loaded. Last 3 years, cash out is exactly the same as the cap hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FishManSam

member 147413

Guest
Closest comparable was Frans Nielson, he got a couple thousand dollars less in FA... but was 6 years older than Backs. Backlund would have been given a 6x6 by someone out there who needs centre depth. I look at team like Montreal, Backlund would be their 1C with a bullet. Or a team like Vancouver that'd have a ton of cap with nothing else to do with it.

Calgary got a great deal on a great player. The guy's an elite 2C in the league, bordering on a 1B type centre.
He has broken 50 points once in his career. He’s a great 2C, “bordering on a 1B type centre” is a stretch imo.

I would call this a fair deal with probably 2 too many years of term. His value was brought up by a shallow C FA pool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kelly

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
The Flames cannot afford to lose Backlund at all right now. Considering that, what he means to the team, this is a great deal.
 

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
Because mediocrity keeps guys employed.

Better to sign Backlund and stay in the 7-10 range as you can sell making/fighting for the play-offs to an owner rather than take a risk that might have you be a contender but also might risk blowing up in your face.

Sports GM are the most conservative people around for the most part, hockey GM's especially.
What risk is going to make them a contender? Trading one of the better two way players in the league for a low first round pick that has a 20% chance of even making the NHL, much less being a star player? Trading away their hard minutes centre while they have their two best offensive players in the prime of their careers, and are hitting their playoff contention window?
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
What risk is going to make them a contender? Trading one of the better two way players in the league for a low first round pick that has a 20% chance of even making the NHL, much less being a star player? Trading away their hard minutes centre while they have their two best offensive players in the prime of their careers, and are hitting their playoff contention window?

I am not sure what deals are out there so I can't really say an exact move that would make them a contender. That comment was more of a general comment on GM's that they will take the safe move even if it likely means not winning over the risky move that might turn out bad.

I have said I have a hard time seeing this team taking the next step with the guys we have signed and the money tied up with them.

So you might be right that there is not risky move that gets them to be contenders but I don't see a move or moves that gets them to be contenders by running out (basically) the same crew as before.

Nobody says that the trade has to be for a low first round pick either. There are other potential options out there.
 

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
I am not sure what deals are out there so I can't really say an exact move that would make them a contender. That comment was more of a general comment on GM's that they will take the safe move even if it likely means not winning over the risky move that might turn out bad.

I have said I have a hard time seeing this team taking the next step with the guys we have signed and the money tied up with them.

So you might be right that there is not risky move that gets them to be contenders but I don't see a move or moves that gets them to be contenders by running out (basically) the same crew as before.

Nobody says that the trade has to be for a low first round pick either. There are other potential options out there.
True, GMs are normally risk averse. I just don't see any way the Flames could make a move that fits their window. They need to become contenders while Gaudreau, Hamilton and Monahan are on these contracts (not to mention, while Giordano is still good), or else they're going to get stuck in perpetual rebuild.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
True, GMs are normally risk averse. I just don't see any way the Flames could make a move that fits their window. They need to become contenders while Gaudreau, Hamilton and Monahan are on these contracts (not to mention, while Giordano is still good), or else they're going to get stuck in perpetual rebuild.

For me they are in that stage with or without Backlund.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Where's the logic there?

What do you mean?

I think that with Backlund this team is not a contender, I think that without Backlund this team is not a contender. Whether we have Backlund or not we look like a team stuck in the mushy middle.

The logic is that Backlund on the team does not change the fact that we are not a contender, don't have the pieces coming up that are likely to make us a contender and likely don't have the assets to become a contender through trades/FA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kelly

CraigsList

In Conroy We Trust
Apr 22, 2014
19,191
6,974
USA
5.35 is a little over of what I wanted, but the cap is going to go up. When the cap goes to 80m, this contract is equivalent to a 5m contract at 75m of salary cap.

I am happy to welcome back this guy for the next 6 seasons. He has come a long way. I love that he wants to be a Calgary Flame for longer it's players like these that you cannot let go.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->