Rumor: Bruins (really) trying to trade Backes

[WhoTagz]

So essentially Backes will not be reporting to the PBruins until at least the deadline. He will, with the Bruins permission, skate on his own while Sweeney tries to find a trade for him. Shannon thinks if Sweeney can't find a trade Backes will report to the AHL. Either that or get suspended without pay I assume.

I can't imagine Sweeney is willing to give up a first to dump him right now. Sweeney would be much more inclined to use the first for a deadline add than just to dump Backes. He would probably be more willing to give up a first at the trade if we still have one than now. Not sure what else could sweeten the pot enough for someone to take him. Any teams willing to take on dead cap have a proposal?

UFA class of 2016 is the gift that keeps on giving...

Brendan smith for Backes

 

[wintersej]

Kovalchuk

For

1st 2020
conditional 3rd 2021
Backes

Pick becomes a 2nd of they make the conference finals, and a 1st if they make the cup finals

Explain to me why Boston, a team that can afford a rental, trades a 1st to move Backes...and acquire a rental.

 

[Chadstudsky]

Explain to me why Boston, a team that can afford a rental, trades a 1st to move Backes...and acquire a rental.

To get him off the books for next year and acquire one of the most sought after rentals?

 

[BB88]

Beggars can't be choosers. Backes isn't a functioning player. Zuccarello is a #2 RW, the exact position the B's have been looking to fill. Getting him would be a big step towards a Cup.

Still not a chance.

Boston can do much better.

 

[My3Sons]

Still not a chance.

Boston can do much better.

Didnt TOR set the market for this? A cap dump of roughly this amount cost then a first. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a team would ask for a first flat out to take Backes. Doesn’t he have some sort of NTC? That would certainly gum up potential trades.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

AA at 50% and a 3rd

For

Zyboril, Backes and a 1st

 

[shelbysdad]

Didnt TOR set the market for this? A cap dump of roughly this amount cost then a first. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a team would ask for a first flat out to take Backes. Doesn’t he have some sort of NTC? That would certainly gum up potential trades.

If I was dumb enough to pay $100 for a pizza because I was hungry and desperate, does that mean anyone who wants to buy a pizza the price is now $100? After all, I set the market.

I gotta believe there is an agreement that Backes will waive for any team at this point

 

[My3Sons]

If I was dumb enough to pay $100 for a pizza because I was hungry and desperate, does that mean anyone who wants to buy a pizza the price is now $100? After all, I set the market.

I gotta believe there is an agreement that Backes will waive for any team at this point

Essentially it's buying a draft pick. I'm not sure anyone wants pick number 58-62 for whatever millions are owed to Backes. That doesn't strike me as a great deal. I think there are probably only a limited number of teams that would spend millions to get pick 28-31. If BOS doesn't need to move him they probably should just bury his cap in the minors and go forward.

 

[BB88]

Didnt TOR set the market for this? A cap dump of roughly this amount cost then a first. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a team would ask for a first flat out to take Backes. Doesn’t he have some sort of NTC? That would certainly gum up potential trades.

Did you read the original proposal I replied to?

Sure it's going to cost but Boston doesn't have to get rid of him, they are under the cap.

But if they had a shot at a longterm #2Rw that makes sense then yep they should pay to get rid of him, best would be to package Backes ++ for that Rw in a singular trade.
Not go pay the price to get rid of him 1st and then deal for the Rw in a separate trade.

Dealing Backes+ for Zucc shouldn't intrest Boston at all.

 

[My3Sons]

Did you read the original proposal I replied to?

Sure it's going to cost but Boston doesn't have to get rid of him, they are under the cap.

But if they had a shot at a longterm #2Rw that makes sense then yep they should pay to get rid of him, best would be to package Backes ++ for that Rw in a singular trade.
Not go pay the price to get rid of him 1st and then deal for the Rw in a separate trade.

Dealing Backes+ for Zucc shouldn't intrest Boston at all.

I would be surprised if BOS can conflate the two moves into one to lessen the impact of moving Backes. Not with the real dollars he costs the acquiring team. We will see. As you noted, it's not a "must" to move him so unless a GM thinks he has neutral value at his cap hit where he's a throw in as opposed to a negative asset I'd be surprised if BOS can move him. You have to imagine teams have asked BOS what they have in mind and no one to date has said yes.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

I think Backes is going to be an AHL'er soon. I don't anyone taking that contract on unless the sweetener is really, really sweet.

 

[Dizzay]

Delete

 

[Viqsi]

Dubinsky for Backes and Boston's 1st (over pick number anywhere from 20-31)

Dubinsky reportedly hasn't skated all year.....and he's out due to a wrist injury---appears to headed to LTIR

Boston gets the cap room they need, Columbus gets a pick they could use after going all in last year

Columbus takes a 150K higher cap hit ( 6,000,000 Backes, 5,850,000 Dubinsky), but saves 1,850,000 in real money,
as Backes is only owed 4 Mill next year

both have Mod no trade which could eliminate possibility if both clubs where interested

I suspect we could get a 1st or Dubinsky included, but not both. LTIR isn't a magical "cap goes away" thing; his contract still has some impact.

* * *​

and they are doing this as a favor to Boston?

...no, that'd be because you can't buy someone out until the offseason.

 

[wintersej]

I would be surprised if BOS can conflate the two moves into one to lessen the impact of moving Backes. Not with the real dollars he costs the acquiring team. We will see. As you noted, it's not a "must" to move him so unless a GM thinks he has neutral value at his cap hit where he's a throw in as opposed to a negative asset I'd be surprised if BOS can move him. You have to imagine teams have asked BOS what they have in mind and no one to date has said yes.

Of course Backes is a negative asset. But if you are going to pay the price to move him, the good player you are spending his cap hit on better be GOOD. Not going to pay an extra 1st to move Backes to get some mediocre 2nd liner with term I can rent instead.

 

[SPV]

If the Bruins retained 2 million; they would save 4 million in cap space next year, & the acquiring team would only be paying Backes 2 million for one year. If that team got some leadership, and a little production out of him as a 4th liner, that isn't a bad price if you have the 4 million cap space.

 

[RangersFan1994]

Brendan smith for Backes

Staal and Smith for Backes

 

[VanillaCoke]

To get him off the books for next year and acquire one of the most sought after rentals?

"Most sought after rental"
Lol

 

[SML2]

This is where I don't understand why they don't swap Backes his last season as a player for a layup job within the organization. Pay him the same amount as he was due spread over 3 or 4 seasons in exchange for his retirement papers and call it a career.

 

[Chadstudsky]

"Most sought after rental"
Lol

"One of the". Yeah, he is

 

[Curufinwe]

This is where I don't understand why they don't swap Backes his last season as a player for a layup job within the organization. Pay him the same amount as he was due spread over 3 or 4 seasons in exchange for his retirement papers and call it a career.

That's a great plan until the NHL take away draft picks for circumventing the cap.

 

[SML2]

I don't see how it's circumvention. He can retire. He can get a job after he retires. It's less circumvention than LTIRing guys for getting old and sucking.

 

[Todd Parchment]

Try Colorado they have space and he could be a veteran guy then develop allergy to his equipments...

 

[westc2]

I could see the Blues being interested in picking him up for some playoff depth. Depends on whether or not we make any other moves. We currently have Troy Brouwer and Jacob De La Rose in the lineup, and even when Tarasenko comes back, I think Backes would be a significant upgrade over either of those 2 guys, and at least be the 13th forward.

We have the cap space because of tarasenko' near season-long injury.

 

[remer]

Backes should do the honourable thing like Dustin Byfuglien and quietly fade away.

 

[compan]

To get him off the books for next year and acquire one of the most sought after rentals?

I always imagined if we got a player back after unloading a 1st (let alone 2 picks) with Backes, that player would actually be younger.