Speculation: Backstrom (To Re-Sign or Not to Re-Sign?)

[Generic User]

$5-6M/2 years is what I'd be willing to do.

 

[this providence]

I don't think there's anyway this team can go into next season, at least, without him on roster with the way things have shaken out. Do what it takes to get it done. Better going with Backstrom as you know what you have with him than bringing in another vet and hoping it works out.

Harding should be viewed as a non-factor at this point and anything above that should be viewed as a success; both on and off the ice.
As with any younger goaltenders, they're way too volatile to put any kind of faith in. And if the team has any sort of higher aspirations next season, they can't rely on the youth at the position and hope it works out.

 

[Kaptain]

I don't think there's anyway this team can go into next season, at least, without him on roster with the way things have shaken out. Do what it takes to get it done. Better going with Backstrom as you know what you have with him than bringing in another vet and hoping it works out.

Harding should be viewed as a non-factor at this point and anything above that should be viewed as a success; both on and off the ice.
As with any younger goaltenders, they're way too volatile to put any kind of faith in. And if the team has any sort of higher aspirations next season, they can't rely on the youth at the position and hope it works out.

I think we can somewhat rely on the youth, but we can't completely rely on the youth.
I wouldn't mind Backs/Kuemper next year, but Kuemper/Hackett next year has a potential to be a complete disaster. And Harding is a ? with his health and really isn't that good when healthy. We need Backs for sure.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

He'll be halfway to 37 by the time next season starts. 2 year deal preferable; 3 year deal at most, and only if it's financially beneficial for us. But yes, I would be very hesitant to go into next year without him.

 

[BigT2002]

Yes. 3 years at $3.5M

 

[Billy Mays Here*]

No to three years. I'd go with two at around $3-4 million each.

 

[tyratoku]

In a perfect world, he'd sign a two year deal.

1st year - 4.25m
2nd year - 2.125m

Brings his cap hit down to 3.19/season, and would allow the Wild to deal him the following season at a cheap price if they need to do something. Cheap cap hit, low salary, one year deal would look very appetizing to a bunch of teams that might need a goalie. Especially if one of Kuemper/Hackett/Gustavsson emerges as a starter a la Price. And if not, it's cheap and allows the team to have some space to bring in some people in free agency or at the deadline.

Then we talk to him after the two years about possibly signing a 1 year 1m deal if we need another goalie two seasons down the road, but I doubt it would come to that, personally.

/my move if I was GM.

 

[rynryn]

i'm going to guess anything he signs anywhere will have a NMC. at his age i can't see him wanting the bother of getting traded anywhere for a year before (likely) retirement.

 

[Gaps]

My answer would be yes. Not comfortable going into next season with just Harding and the kids (and possibly having to rely solely on the kids if Harding has to take time off). Bäckström's a great guy, a fine goalie and I'm sure he can and will help out the prospects. A 2-year deal would be ideal.

 

[forthewild]

I'm ok with it but we've seen this opera before, if he demands huge money because he's doing great in his contract year we need to walk away. I'm ok with Darcy/Hackett with a vet.

 

[hirawl]

Sign him for 3 years for $7.5 M = $3.5 + 2 + 2 M + no NMC.

Everybody's happy and he should be fairly easily movable for picks at drafts.

 

[Jarick]

Unless Harding comes back and plays great to close the year, I hoped the Wild have had discussions with Backstrom's agent by now. What's the point in waiting? He's been good to great with high consistency for the last seven years.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

In a perfect world, he'd sign a two year deal.

1st year - 4.25m
2nd year - 2.125m

Brings his cap hit down to 3.19/season, and would allow the Wild to deal him the following season at a cheap price if they need to do something. Cheap cap hit, low salary, one year deal would look very appetizing to a bunch of teams that might need a goalie. Especially if one of Kuemper/Hackett/Gustavsson emerges as a starter a la Price. And if not, it's cheap and allows the team to have some space to bring in some people in free agency or at the deadline.

Then we talk to him after the two years about possibly signing a 1 year 1m deal if we need another goalie two seasons down the road, but I doubt it would come to that, personally.

/my move if I was GM.

Very logical.

 

[rynryn]

would you demand a NMC if you were Backstrom? I would, especially as the team is trending up. Is that really a dealbreaker? Someone will offer him that stability on the market over a two or three year deal, no problem.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

would you demand a NMC if you were Backstrom? I would, especially as the team is trending up. Is that really a dealbreaker? Someone will offer him that stability on the market over a two or three year deal, no problem.

Nah, I'd give it to him. I don't go crazy over the FA/draft pick thing.

 

[jedisports]

I really think we need him given our goalie situation. The sad reality is we have to face the fact that we might never see Harding again on the ice for as depressing as it sounds. Or if we do, we have to remember that at any moment he could get sick and have to leave for a while.

As a result, we do need Backs. I do agree that it boils down to if he really likes it here, he will help out and take a pay cut. Awesome Harding took less because he wanted to be here so much. I am so glad he got that money, by the way. What a guy. So with Backs, if he wants to be here, he will agree on a decent 2/3 year contact.

 

[Jarick]

I don't think a NMC makes a difference for Backstrom. Goalie trade markets aren't that big, especially with his age going up.

 

[rynryn]

forget what the rule is...after a certain age you can't get sent to the minors, right? or if you do, you don't have to report and can still collect your check. something like that?
plus i think it would be relatively easy for us to move him (as some people here have said) if the second or third year of his contract are cheap in real-world dollars. I don't think he'd sign anything that didn't include no trade.

 

[ThatGuy22]

forget what the rule is...after a certain age you can't get sent to the minors, right? or if you do, you don't have to report and can still collect your check. something like that?
plus i think it would be relatively easy for us to move him (as some people here have said) if the second or third year of his contract are cheap in real-world dollars. I don't think he'd sign anything that didn't include no trade.

35+ contract. Whatever we sign him for(if we sign him) we need to be sure he is still playing for us. Him retiring or getting sent to the AHL wont matter cause we will still carry the contract. Why I would be hesitant to do more than two years.

 

[bottompairingdman]

Seems like most of us would prefer to sign him for two years for around 3M per. I'd be okay with giving him a 2y/7M deal, mainly because I doubt we could get a better goalie in FA.

 

[MN_Gopher]

one for 4.5
two for 8
three for 9

Never a bad idea to have a veteran goalie around.

I am fine with going forward with Johan Gustafsson, Matt Hackett and Darcy Kuemper, but... they are looking like decent trade biat right now.

Harding was the bridge between them and Backstrom.

No one is Brodeur but he is a 72 born. Backstom a 78. Getting three more good years is very doable. Roloson was a 69 and played last year.

 

[Jarick]

I think two years at $6-7M total is the highest I'd go.

 

[Mancini79]

100% Agreed. Weird....I found myself looking for the "like"button.

 

[NightSky]

Backs will demand at least $4-4,5M/year if the contract is 1-2 years.

 

[Sportsfan1]

ABSOLUTELY NO! Come on shouldn't even be a question, unless he wins a Stanley Cup this year, send him packing!