Armourboy
Hey! You suck!
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.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.
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.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
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.
Why is a mediocre team dishing out long term contracts to mediocre players?
Why is a mediocre team dishing out long term contracts to mediocre players?
Why is a mediocre team dishing out long term contracts to mediocre players?
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.
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.
He has broken 50 points once in his career. He’s a great 2C, “bordering on a 1B type centre” is a stretch imo.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.
Calgary got a great deal on a great player. The guy's an elite 2C in the league, bordering on a 1B type centre.
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?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?
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.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.
For me they are in that stage with or without Backlund.
Where's the logic there?