Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: There are no solutions, only problems

[turnagainoutlaw]

THe 3m line is still arguably one of the best in the league. They will resign Backlund around 6m times 6y. Flames have tons of cap space next year so not sure what the problem is.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Backlund has been playing like Backlund, but he isn't generating the offensive numbers that he's capable of.

That's fantastic news for the Flames in a sense, because every game he goes without a point helps the contract negotiation at this point.

Worth pointing* out that he is still 4th in team scoring.

 

[Anglesmith]

Worth pointing* out that he is still 4th in team scoring.

That's fine, I guess. He is the second-line centre, so it makes sense for him to be fourth in scoring.

I feel like if he repeated last season, he could make the case that he's the best forward on the team.

 

[Mobiandi]

The cap is going up, Stajan's contract coming off the books so we'll have space to sign him.

But the ball's firmly in Backlund's court and it's his choice if he values the term and stability that comes with a UFA contract or if he values the familiarity that comes with being part of this organization more. Treliving really handcuffed himself and the team by putting himself in this position with the trades he's made

 

[Calculon]

Backlund's a streaky scorer, as are all non elite first liners, in the sense that, while he'll get you 50 or so points over the season, they'll come in bunches. Right now he's on a bit of a cold streak but pretty soon he'll put up something like 12 points in 10 games and suddenly look like he's on pace for 60 points. And yeah, points get you paid in this league but Backlund's elite defensive ability makes up for the extra 10 or so points Turris might get over the season. I don't really understand why people still don't see Backlund as a 6M player when that's absolutely fair market value.

And there's enough cap space to give both Backlund 6M a year and bring in a 6M+ winger if the Flames wanted to. The following year, Smith's done (4.25M), Brouwer can easily be bought out (3M) while Frolik and Stone will have just one year left on their deals (4.3M and 3.5M respectively). So there shouldn't be a problem with re-signing Tkachuk, Bennett and Ferland at that point either.

Longterm, unless Backlund randomly falls off cliff, it's highly unlikely that his skills deteriorate to the point where his 6M or whatever cap hit becomes a burden by year 5 or 6. But even if that did happen, compliance buyouts from the next lockout will probably be a thing.

Treliving doesn't really negotiate quickly. And in this particular case, it's not like he has a lot of leverage. Backlund unequivocally better than Frolik (4.3M) and miles ahead of Brouwer (4.5M). And then there's the plethora of league wide comparisons which firmly put Backlund in the 5.5-6.5M range. Obviously Treliving will take things down to the wire but I expect they'll get a deal done eventually. I'm guessing Treliving goes for a shorter term with a higher cap hit (i.e. 5yrs x 6M) instead of a longer term, lower cap hit deal (7yrs x 5M). Either way, I don't think it's at all realistic to expect it to be under 5M per.

I also don't think people realize just how serious the Backlund's loss would be to the team. Without him taking the hardest minutes/matchups, everyone is negatively affected. Nor is it at all realistic to expect Jankowski or even Bennett to assume those responsibilities right away. This will be a much worse without Backlund.

 

[Sparky93]

Stajan contact expires -> $ for Backlund.

You use Jank as the 2/3C.

4C you fill with youth. If you can't fill it with youth, cheap UFA.

Really not understanding the concern with signing Backlund.

The concern isn’t about signing him, it’s about cap management and paying a guy $6 million, who will most like be our 3C. It’s about not being able to extend a guy like Ferland, or upgrade him, with zero RW depth, current or future. It’s looking down the road at $6 million Stajan-ish contract a few years down the road, when he’s putting up 35-40 points on the 3rd line, calling Treliving incompetent for signing that contract. We already have Gio’s Retirement nest egg contract, we don’t need Backlund’s too.

 

[InfinityIggy]

The concern isn’t about signing him, it’s about cap management and paying a guy $6 million, who will most like be our 3C. It’s about not being able to extend a guy like Ferland, or upgrade him, with zero RW depth, current or future. It’s looking down the road at $6 million Stajan-ish contract a few years down the road, when he’s putting up 35-40 points on the 3rd line, calling Treliving incompetent for signing that contract. We already have Gio’s Retirement nest egg contract, we don’t need Backlund’s too.

Well you're starting with a pretty flimsy premise.

What makes you think he will be the 3C in a few years? What leads you to believe Backlund will be Stajan-ish in 2-3 years? Why are you concerned about Backlund preventing us from signing Ferland, Tkachuk down the road and not contracts like Brouwer or Stone?

Backlund at 6M wouldn't be the reason we can't keep someone. It will be because of the bad contracts this team has signed (Brouwer, Stone, future dumb UFA signing) and it is those contracts that need to be remedied. Not signing Backlund because of those contracts now is as bad if not worse than losing Ferland in a couple seasons.

 

[Volica]

5-5.5 x 5 and I'm fine.
He's worth that much.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Realistically he's a 4.5 x 4 player, but given that we don't have anyone around who can really replace him, I'd be fine with a slight overpayment. Love the guy.

 

[Skobel24]

Realistically he's a 4.5 x 4 player, but given that we don't have anyone around who can really replace him, I'd be fine with a slight overpayment. Love the guy.

I think 4.5 is low. I'd say 5.5

 

[Calculon]

Realistically he's a 4.5 x 4 player, but given that we don't have anyone around who can really replace him, I'd be fine with a slight overpayment. Love the guy.

Brouwer got 4.5M in free agency. That's not realistic at all.

 

[Mobiandi]

He'll get anywhere from 5.75 to 6.25 from us (i.e. ranging from Dougie Hamilton to less than Monahan, Gio)

 

[Skobel24]

If he gets around 6 million, I'd like to keep it at 4 years. I'd be hesitant to go past that.

 

[Sparky93]

Well you're starting with a pretty flimsy premise.

What makes you think he will be the 3C in a few years? What leads you to believe Backlund will be Stajan-ish in 2-3 years? Why are you concerned about Backlund preventing us from signing Ferland, Tkachuk down the road and not contracts like Brouwer or Stone?

Backlund at 6M wouldn't be the reason we can't keep someone. It will be because of the bad contracts this team has signed (Brouwer, Stone, future dumb UFA signing) and it is those contracts that need to be remedied. Not signing Backlund because of those contracts now is as bad if not worse than losing Ferland in a couple seasons.

There’s world of difference buying out one year remaining on a guy that didn’t work out than it is being saddled with a $6 million 3C for the next 5. Yes I do think his increased production is a direct result of playing higher skilled players, in Tkachuk and even Bennett the year before. Without them he’s 40-45 point Backlund and the contract speculation would be far more realistic. Regardless, if everyone thought he was worth it, he’d be extended already. This season will determine his fate. Failure or an early playoff exit will force Treliving into reassessing the talent. If we have playoff success, they’ll probably see the team as contenders and extend him.

 

[Sparky93]

He'll get anywhere from 5.75 to 6.25 from us (i.e. ranging from Dougie Hamilton to less than Monahan, Gio)

Zero chance he gets more than Dougie

 

[Mobiandi]

Zero chance he gets more than Dougie

Backlund's been consistently the more valuable player since Dougie's trade

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

These are the numbers I'd be happy with

< $5M x 6/7 years
$5-6M x 5
> $6M x 4

Anything less than $5 I'd consider a hometown discount and I'd make it up in term. Anything more than $6M is an overpayment.

THAT SAID, he's only making $3.6M/year right now and I'd argue he already gave us a hometown discount on his current contract and there's no question he's earned it and then some so I wouldn't be too upset if we overpaid him a bit.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Yes I do think his increased production is a direct result of playing higher skilled players, in Tkachuk and even Bennett the year before. Without them he’s 40-45 point Backlund

Same could be argued of nearly every non-franchise player in the league. What is Backstrom without Ovechkin? What is Monahan without Gaudreau? What is Stamkos without MSL/Kucherov? What is Seguin without Benn? What is Scheifele without Wheeler?

Saying Backlund's production went up with better players is valid. What you should be questionig is why he was never given good players to play with from the beginning. He has made guys like Lance Bouma relevent.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Turris is the most recent benchmark we have. Turris isn't nearly as good defensively, but he's slightly better offensively.

 

[Sparky93]

Backlund's been consistently the more valuable player since Dougie's trade

Offensive players get paid. A 24 year old defenseman that put up 93 points, the last 2 years is worth a fair bit more than a 28 year old centre that produced 100 and has broken 50 points once in his career

 

[InfinityIggy]

There’s world of difference buying out one year remaining on a guy that didn’t work out than it is being saddled with a $6 million 3C for the next 5. Yes I do think his increased production is a direct result of playing higher skilled players, in Tkachuk and even Bennett the year before. Without them he’s 40-45 point Backlund and the contract speculation would be far more realistic. Regardless, if everyone thought he was worth it, he’d be extended already. This season will determine his fate. Failure or an early playoff exit will force Treliving into reassessing the talent. If we have playoff success, they’ll probably see the team as contenders and extend him.

You're talking about not being able to sign other players because of the Backlund contract.

So the 'world' of difference is getting rid of those bad contracts allows us to not lose anyone. Not a difficult concept. Not sure why you would open with that statement.

Playing with other top 6 players allows him to score more while being our best defensive player? It's almost as if any player produces better with talent that matches the line they play on.

 

[Fig]

1. If Backlund falls to 3C due to depth, that merely means we have great depth or a great piece for a trade.
2. If Backlund doesn't play C, he's a good option for wing.
3. Backlund would be a great vet to keep long term
4. Salary cap concerns are vastly overstated by some posters who often point at certain players due for big pay raises. Why can't Backlund share a haircut with those other players?
5. Without even checking, Treliving is IMO not even close to being top 10 teams in regards to being handcuffed. He has to be wary though, sure. I mean if Edmonton fans aren't totally terrified of their cap situation sitting on CMD + LD at 12.5 + 8, why would we be as terrified of 6.4 + 6.X for our 1C/2C? We still theoretically have cap to surround our players with talent.

 

[JurassicTunga]

Chad DeDominicis @CMDeDominicis
Scouts on the list for the tonight's #Sabres and #Bruins game: BOS, DAL, WPG, CGY, DET, PHI, TOR (2) and FLA

Chad DeDominicis @CMDeDominicis
Here's another log for the Flames and Kane rumor. Derek MacKinnon the Flames Director of Pro Personnel is the rep on the list for Calgary

 

[Sparky93]

You're talking about not being able to sign other players because of the Backlund contract.

So the 'world' of difference is getting rid of those bad contracts allows us to not lose anyone. Not a difficult concept. Not sure why you would open what that statement.

Playing with other top 6 players allows him to score more while being our best defensive player? It's almost as if any player produces better with talent that matches the line they play on.

For starters, I don’t even think the Stone contract is bad. Very few 3 years and under are, they’re very manageable due to term. Brouwer, 100% bad. It was before he hit the ice, even if his production hadn’t nose dived, it would never have been a good contract. The second worst, to me, is hands down Giordano. We paid an aging vet based on a couple years of exceptional play, that he has not lived up to since the contract kicked in, which is unlikely to change given his age. That’s 4 more years of paying a 30-40 point guy $6.75 million and the totals are optimistic as he ages. The other 4 of our top 5 defensemen contracts, who are all much younger, expire before that ones up. That’s horrible asset management.

I have no problem resigning Backs he’s an elite 3C, but the cost has to reflect that. I know there’s guys on here that will argue that he’s a legit 2C, but his production just doesn’t reflect that. Over the last 3.5 years he ranks 52nd scoring, among centres. Only with last years anomaly season does he even crack the top 60. This year he’s ranked 60th. For those that think Turris is comparable, he’s ranked 33rd in the NHL over the last 3.5 years.

Backs is a guy we want, he’s not a guy we overpay, based on one excellent season. $4.95 max, and I think that’s a fair deal for both parties. If he wants more than that, let someone else pay it. End rant

 

[Calculon]