the thing about the Backes deal that has always killed me is they traded a younger Lucic because they didn't want to pay him long-term because they were worried his body wouldn't hold up due to style but then signed Backes to an identical contract despite being older and having the same concerns.
I mean I guess they got a nice return on Lucic so there's that, but I'd have traded Loui and kept Lucic.
Im no insider but i try to be a student of the game... i was posting alot about how compables to lucic and eriksson dont age well at all. It was no surprise to me when bruins didnt want to commit
But then again i said same thing for marchand
Theres no 100% way of using projections to get it right every single time
As for backes... his superior level of defense and his superior play in the slot bodes well for his continued good play. Similar style players have had allstar seasons well past 35
I believe backes struggles are far more related to health than to his style
But the lucic/backes situation brings into focus an even bigger point ive championed for 25 years now. If you can sign an equal ufa for the same money as keeping a guy... and if you can at the same time make a very valuable trade with that first guy... you got to give this a ton of consideration
I mean in theory... we could have resigned lucic AND still got that haul for him too
Its a rare case that a team wouldnt come out better if they feel confident a replacement ufa is available
Look at this years ufa... if we could sign carlsson or tavares then i say its a no brainer to attempt to trade krug or krejci. I know its easier said then done
But wed be much better off with one of the new guys AND a haul
The lucic/backes deal is a deal that paid off and a reason why our rebuild was accelerated