Player Discussion Mikael Backlund

[Johnny Hoxville]

If Backlund keeps playing at this level, you move Bennett to the wing in the event things suddenly become crowded with Janko/Lazar for example. Re-sign Backlund no matter what and if Bennett becomes that elite Kesler style C, then you can look at trading Backlund and cash out down the road. But as of now, it is not smart to deal our best all around player. We would be a bottom 5 team without Backlund.

I'd also give Ferland the Jarnkrok special.

 

[Sparky93]

The thing is, part of what Backlund provides isn't going to show up on the score sheet. He takes all the hard match ups, and his line barely gets offensive zone face-offs. Who's going to handle that responsibility? Monahan?

Much like Kesler in Vancouver. Canucks had their most successful season in 3 years after he was moved. Backlund's had an amazing season, no one can take that away from him, and honestly we wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Thing is we made the playoffs 2 years ago, he missed 30 games, only produced 27 points and 2 in the playoffs. Teams move forward, players progress and take on new responsibilities, whatever it takes to win.

Hawks have stayed successful for years moving players as their contracts expire and they price themselves out of the master plan. Buff, Ladd, Saad, Sharp, Campbell, Leddy and Niemi have all come and gone, while the core remains intact. It's just part of the game.

I don't see us coming to an agreement on term or salary. 4 years would take him to 33 and the cap hit would have to be a minimal raise, I just don't see the 2 sides coming to an agreement.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Much like Kesler in Vancouver. Canucks had their most successful season in 3 years after he was moved. Backlund's had an amazing season, no one can take that away from him, and honestly we wouldn't have made the playoffs without him. Thing is we made the playoffs 2 years ago, he missed 30 games, only produced 27 points and 2 in the playoffs. Teams move forward, players progress and take on new responsibilities, whatever it takes to win.

Hawks have stayed successful for years moving players as their contracts expire and they price themselves out of the master plan. Buff, Ladd, Saad, Sharp, Campbell, Leddy and Niemi have all come and gone, while the core remains intact. It's just part of the game.

I don't see us coming to an agreement on term or salary. 4 years would take him to 33 and the cap hit would have to be a minimal raise, I just don't see the 2 sides coming to an agreement.

The bolded is just a flat out lie. They made it within one game of Lord Stanley with Kesler and he played a huge part in it.

If you want to measure by regular season success go ahead. Just remember that isn't the ultimate goal.

Plus all those players you listed that Chicago moved? All traded. Backlund gets more value if he's signed for longer, if he gets traded.

 

[Calculon]

That's not going to happen.

theoretically overly optimistic

The point was to show that even in a scenario where the Flames sign everyone to significant long term deals, there's plenty of cap space to go around. The concern that the Flames can't fit in Backlund is unfounded plain and simple. And the idea that Jankowski or even Bennett (even though he has more potential energy) will surpass him/make him expendable within the next couple of seasons is laughable.

On the other hand, he's on pace for 53 points in 78 games. If he manages to hit 70+ points in a season before his ELC is done, 7M would not at all be out of the question.

 

[Sparky93]

The bolded is just a flat out lie. They made it within one game of Lord Stanley with Kesler and he played a huge part in it.

If you want to measure by regular season success go ahead. Just remember that isn't the ultimate goal.

Plus all those players you listed that Chicago moved? All traded. Backlund gets more value if he's signed for longer, if he gets traded.

They went to the finals in 2011, you have to make it to the post season first and it really depends on the signing. I'm not sure a $5.5 million Backlund, signed long term has the same kind of value around the league as a $3.575 million Backlund, with a year remaining.

 

[Sparky93]

theoretically overly optimistic

The point was to show that even in a scenario where the Flames sign everyone to significant long term deals, there's plenty of cap space to go around. The concern that the Flames can't fit in Backlund is unfounded plain and simple. And the idea that Jankowski or even Bennett (even though he has more potential energy) will surpass him/make him expendable within the next couple of seasons is laughable.

On the other hand, he's on pace for 53 points in 78 games. If he manages to hit 70+ points in a season before his ELC is done, 7M would not at all be out of the question.

It didn't leave much cash for a Brodie extension either. Considering he'll likely be playing with Hamilton on the top pairing by then, I wouldn't imagine that will be cheap.

 

[Calculon]

It didn't leave much cash for a Brodie extension either. Considering he'll likely be playing with Hamilton on the top pairing by then, I wouldn't imagine that will be cheap.

Frolik's 4.3M cap hit is done at the same time as Brodie's. It shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Sparky93]

Frolik's 4.3M cap hit is done at the same time as Brodie's. It shouldn't be a problem.

It's safe to say Brodie will be due at least a $2 million raise at the end of this contract. Jankowski, Lazar, Kylington and Andersson will all be making more than a million a piece, so that would still leave us in a situation where we're forced to move Brodie or be a player short. I would not sacrifice Brodie for Backlund, especially with a suitable replacement, in Jankowski, knocking at the door.

 

[BVicious]

Jankowski, Lazar, Kylington and Andersson will all be making more than a million a piece

Curious why you think they would be making more than a million?

 

[Sparky93]

Curious why you think they would be making more than a million?

Experience and ability. Janko and Lazar will be in the NHL next year. One of Andersson and Kylington the year after that. I consider all of them above average prospects and expect at least 2 of them to have early success. With all their ELC's expiring, I expect the average to be a fair bit higher than a million.

 

[Calculon]

It's safe to say Brodie will be due at least a $2 million raise at the end of this contract. Jankowski, Lazar, Kylington and Andersson will all be making more than a million a piece, so that would still leave us in a situation where we're forced to move Brodie or be a player short. I would not sacrifice Brodie for Backlund, especially with a suitable replacement, in Jankowski, knocking at the door.

I'm just going to go ahead and copy my previous posts rather than retype it all:

And if all of Jankowski/Mangiapane/Klimchuk/Kylington/Andersson, etc., warrant significant raises because the Flames' developmental system suddenly starts compensating for decades of inactivity? See the Hawks re: Ladd/Versteeg/Byfuglien/Saad/Leddy/Niemi/Sharp. Either the expensive veterans or the soon-to-be expensive younger depth gets traded for futures to restart the process.

Core players are core players; you don't prioritize keeping the periphery because the core need new contracts. This is where drafting/development is critical because once all the core is locked down, it'll be hard enough to keep guys like Frolik at 4M+, let alone 4th liners with cap hits greater than 1M.

This is really not complicated. Lots of player doing so well that's there not enough cap space to keep them all? Trade the least important, that's the least important, not core players for futures to restart the cycle.

There's no cap related scenario in which Brodie or Backlund are traded. Those are core players and you keep the core at all costs. If you don't consider either of them core players, then that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

And can Jankowski at least play more than a game at the NHL level before he's written as Backlund's replacement? Over the years, Backlund has supposedly been replaced and made redundant by Stajan, Horak, Arnold, Granlund, Colborne or traded away to make room for lesser players like Berglund, Staal, Zajac, Couturier and so on. Maybe we should wait until someone actually performs better than Backlund before rushing to say he's expendable?

 

[Sparky93]

I'm just going to go ahead and copy my previous posts rather than retype it all:





This is really not complicated. Lots of player doing so well that's there not enough cap space to keep them all? Trade the least important, that's the least important, not core players for futures to restart the cycle.

There's no cap related scenario in which Brodie or Backlund are traded. Those are core players and you keep the core at all costs. If you don't consider either of them core players, then that's just something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

And can Jankowski at least play more than a game at the NHL level before he's written as Backlund's replacement? Over the years, Backlund has supposedly been replaced and made redundant by Stajan, Horak, Arnold, Granlund, Colborne or traded away to make room for lesser players like Berglund, Staal, Zajac, Couturier and so on. Maybe we should wait until someone actually performs better than Backlund before rushing to say he's expendable?

That's just it though, I don't really consider Backlund part of the core and I don't think one amazing season, with a super star rookie, playing on the only complete line on the team warrants a $6 million raise. We're at the stage of the rebuild where hard decisions will have to be made. Much like the Hawks, I don't think Backlund is anymore important to the future of the Flames than Buff, Ladd, Leddy, Saad or Campbell were.

 

[Dack]

This team finishes bottom 5 without Backlund. Another way to look at his "one amazing season" is this is the first time he's actually played with two top 6 wingers. Remember when Lance Bouma played with Backlund and looked like he could be a 2nd line power forward instead of the grinder we were accustomed to? How about last season when Joe Colborne who went from a 45 point season on Backlund's wing to having 2 points in his last 52 games?

Backlund makes every player he plays with better, the only way he should be traded is if Treliving knows he can't sign him. This feels like the Gaudreau contract thread from last summer.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

This team finishes bottom 5 without Backlund. Another way to look at his "one amazing season" is this is the first time he's actually played with two top 6 wingers. Remember when Lance Bouma played with Backlund and looked like he could be a 2nd line power forward instead of the grinder we were accustomed to? How about last season when Joe Colborne who went from a 45 point season on Backlund's wing to having 2 points in his last 52 games?

Backlund makes every player he plays with better, the only way he should be traded is if Treliving knows he can't sign him. This feels like the Gaudreau contract thread from last summer.

Not to mention, even when Backlund was averaging "only" half a point per game, he was still one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL. I'd put him top 10 pretty easily. If that's not deserving of core status, I don't know what is.

 

[herashak]

That's just it though, I don't really consider Backlund part of the core and I don't think one amazing season, with a super star rookie, playing on the only complete line on the team warrants a $6 million raise. We're at the stage of the rebuild where hard decisions will have to be made. Much like the Hawks, I don't think Backlund is anymore important to the future of the Flames than Buff, Ladd, Leddy, Saad or Campbell were.

Monahan isn't toews and frolik isn't hossa. Backlund is way more important to the flames than those players were. Unless a good young right winger is available resigning backlund is the first priority.

 

[King In The North]

That's just it though, I don't really consider Backlund part of the core and I don't think one amazing season, with a super star rookie, playing on the only complete line on the team warrants a $6 million raise. We're at the stage of the rebuild where hard decisions will have to be made. Much like the Hawks, I don't think Backlund is anymore important to the future of the Flames than Buff, Ladd, Leddy, Saad or Campbell were.

He has played an important part on this team for a few years now. While I agree he might not necessarily be worth $6 mill per, he's an incredibly underrated and strong (dare I say elite) two-way C that can flourish while matching up against top competition.

I'm way more comfortable having Backlund than without, I'm sure the coach and GM feel the same. Treliving has given himself leverage with the contracts given to the core as this should put a downward pressure on the salary range ask. If Gio and Mony make in the $6 mill range, it only seems reasonable Backs makes a little less.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

Backlund is the best center. Period!

He's has the most points by a Flames center ever!

 

[Sparky93]

He has played an important part on this team for a few years now. While I agree he might not necessarily be worth $6 mill per, he's an incredibly underrated and strong (dare I say elite) two-way C that can flourish while matching up against top competition.

I'm way more comfortable having Backlund than without, I'm sure the coach and GM feel the same. Treliving has given himself leverage with the contracts given to the core as this should put a downward pressure on the salary range ask. If Gio and Mony make in the $6 mill range, it only seems reasonable Backs makes a little less.

I agree that he has been an important put of the team, I don't believe he's elite, but I would feel more comfortable with him on the team. I'd offer $4.5/4years, with production based bonuses that could reach $5.5. That takes him to 33 and it will be time to part ways by then. It would give Back's a reasonable raise and protect the Flames if he returns to 40 point form. I do not want to end up paying a 40 point centre $5-6 million a season, no matter how many tough zone starts he gets.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I agree that he has been an important put of the team, I don't believe he's elite, but I would feel more comfortable with him on the team. I'd offer $4.5/4years, with production based bonuses that could reach $5.5. That takes him to 33 and it will be time to part ways by then. It would give Back's a reasonable raise and protect the Flames if he returns to 40 point form. I do not want to end up paying a 40 point centre $5-6 million a season, no matter how many tough zone starts he gets.

He isn't eligible for bonuses. Only players over 35, rookies or players that haven't played a certain amount of games due to injury can.

Val Filpula was a very similar player leaving Detroit several years ago and got 5.5 per. He got moved because of his NMC and the upcoming expansion draft more so than that he wasn't worth it, combined with them needing to pay their young guys.

I'm not thrilled if he goes much over the 5.5 mark, but I'd rather have him on this team than not.

 

[Sparky93]

I don't know, he's playing amazing and making a strong case for himself to be resigned, but I want no part of UFA prices for him. I think the Anisimov contract is a strong comparable, both in age and career production. He signed for less than he probably could have got because he believed he was in a spot that gave him the best chance to win. I wouldn't feel comfortable with much more.

 

[Flameshomer]

I don't know, he's playing amazing and making a strong case for himself to be resigned, but I want no part of UFA prices for him. I think the Anisimov contract is a strong comparable, both in age and career production. He signed for less than he probably could have got because he believed he was in a spot that gave him the best chance to win. I wouldn't feel comfortable with much more.

Highly doubt the flames have to go "UFA" price with Backlund- he's pretty invested in the community and seems to love being a flame. I'm not saying we're going to get a huge discount, but I can see him cutting us a good deal to keep the team good.

IMO the flames should keep him in any way possible. Backlund is still not old, and he's the type of player you win with.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I don't know, he's playing amazing and making a strong case for himself to be resigned, but I want no part of UFA prices for him. I think the Anisimov contract is a strong comparable, both in age and career production. He signed for less than he probably could have got because he believed he was in a spot that gave him the best chance to win. I wouldn't feel comfortable with much more.

I'd be beyond thrilled if we could lock him up to an identical contract to Anisimov. That would be beyond a slam dunk. It would be the half court hail mary throw that goes in for the win in OT as the buzzer goes.

 

[Sparky93]

I'd be beyond thrilled if we could lock him up to an identical contract to Anisimov. That would be beyond a slam dunk. It would be the half court hail mary throw that goes in for the win in OT as the buzzer goes.

I don't think it's really that unrealistic. He'd probably get a Filppula type offer on the open market, maybe a little more, based on prior production. Factor in hometown discount, a NTC for security, the opportunity to play with guys he has great chemistry with, on a team that's trending upwards and you get the Anisimov deal. A good portion of cap is already tied up with the younger core, if he wants to stay, that's what he'll sign. A NTC holds a lot of weight for players in the 29-35 range.

I'm sure Nielsen is missing the Islanders right now. Backs has spent a good portion of his career on a losing team. I'm sure the thought of leaving now, to another loser team, for an extra $800 000, probably sends shivers on his spine.

 

[Kovaz]

Here's a head to head comparison of Backlund vs an unnamed player from another team (revealed at the bottom of this post, along with which team is which).

When these players are on the ice, here's how their teams have done:
Team A: 61.03 CF/60, 52.27 CA/60 (53.87%). 57 GF, 37 GA (60.64%, +20)
Team B: 61.60 CF/60, 51.15 CA/60 (54.65%). 36 GF, 28 GA (56.25%, +8)

When they are off the ice, here's how their teams have done:
Team A: 52.51 CF/60, 55.35 CA/60 (48.68%). 68 GF, 74 GA (47.89%, -6)
Team B: 53.10 CF/60, 54.13 CA/60 (49.52%). 65 GF, 79 GA (45.14%, -14)

So, looking at those stats, both Team A and Team B have the puck a lot more when Backlund/Player X are on the ice, generating about 15-20% more offensive shot attempt while also reducing the amount given up. And as a result they have positive goal differentials, both teams over 20 goals stronger with the player than without, achieved sustainably through having control of the puck.

When these players are off the ice, both teams have struggled comparably. They're outshot and out-possessed, and as a result have negative goal differentials. Team B also generally has weaker percentages than team A, although they're slightly better in possession.

If you haven't guessed, Team B is the Flames with and without Backlund. Team A? The Oilers with and without Connor McDavid. Calgary with Backlund is comparable to Edmonton with McDavid across a variety of different metrics. And, Calgary without Backlund is comparable to Edmonton without McDavid. Backlund is absolutely essential to this team.

 

[Sparky93]

Here's a head to head comparison of Backlund vs an unnamed player from another team (revealed at the bottom of this post, along with which team is which).

When these players are on the ice, here's how their teams have done:
Team A: 61.03 CF/60, 52.27 CA/60 (53.87%). 57 GF, 37 GA (60.64%, +20)
Team B: 61.60 CF/60, 51.15 CA/60 (54.65%). 36 GF, 28 GA (56.25%, +8)

When they are off the ice, here's how their teams have done:
Team A: 52.51 CF/60, 55.35 CA/60 (48.68%). 68 GF, 74 GA (47.89%, -6)
Team B: 53.10 CF/60, 54.13 CA/60 (49.52%). 65 GF, 79 GA (45.14%, -14)

So, looking at those stats, both Team A and Team B have the puck a lot more when Backlund/Player X are on the ice, generating about 15-20% more offensive shot attempt while also reducing the amount given up. And as a result they have positive goal differentials, both teams over 20 goals stronger with the player than without, achieved sustainably through having control of the puck.

When these players are off the ice, both teams have struggled comparably. They're outshot and out-possessed, and as a result have negative goal differentials. Team B also generally has weaker percentages than team A, although they're slightly better in possession.

If you haven't guessed, Team B is the Flames with and without Backlund. Team A? The Oilers with and without Connor McDavid. Calgary with Backlund is comparable to Edmonton with McDavid across a variety of different metrics. And, Calgary without Backlund is comparable to Edmonton without McDavid. Backlund is absolutely essential to this team.

So Backlund is equal to McDavid???? I'm too lazy to look it up and crunch the numbers but I'd be curious to see the difference between Backlund and Frolik with Bennett/Tkachuk, verses without them. Two years worth of data, Backlund and Frolik being the constant. One would think the rookies should drag down their numbers.