Blow It Up?

[jjgallow]

30 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Personally, I still don't see Tkachuk as a defensively smart player, but that is me.  Backlund took that role to allow him to worry about forechecking and offense.  Backlund is only now held back by Backlund.  He makes good odd man rushes on his own but rarely uses his line.  He shoots wide or mid target.  

 

He's primarily held back by being 34 years old lol.

 

He's a strange one...his production is the same as other 34 year olds that were 100 point players in their prime.

 

It's almost like....his prime was...lost.

 

Imagine if he had seasoned one more year in the AHL and then started his NHL career in the 1st or 2nd line.   I do also believe he could have been that missing center Iginla needed.   

 

But....Flames were in a rush to utilize him.   When they realized he could backcheck, he was immediately promoted for short term gain,  and trained in that role.

 

Ah well.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I agree,

 

There are no 100 point seasons playing with Bouma, or all of the mentees he had to train to play in the NHL.

 

Did he hold Tkachuk back? Or was it Tkachuk's time to take a next step?

 

tasked with defend first, he held up that part of the bargain. I wonder what it would have been like if he had another top line winger along with Tkachuk? Coleman, not a top liner, a typical 3rd or 4th liner. Frolik, maybe 2nd liner is pushing it, but definitely a 3rd liner. 
 

I fully believe players are a sum of the line's parts that they're on. While players can elevate others, those elevated players can only push a Backlund so far up. 
 

I could see him as a 60-85 point guy in the right situations with the right players. But we misused him. He could have been the C Iginla needed back in the day. 

Bakes was never a point producer pre NHL and was most likely not drafted for that reason. Trying to make him into one may have lessened his effectiveness and shortened his time with the team. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

He's primarily held back by being 34 years old lol.

 

He's a strange one...his production is the same as other 34 year olds that were 100 point players in their prime.

 

It's almost like....his prime was...lost.

 

Imagine if he had seasoned one more year in the AHL and then started his NHL career in the 1st or 2nd line.   I do also believe he could have been that missing center Iginla needed.   

 

But....Flames were in a rush to utilize him.   When they realized he could backcheck, he was immediately promoted for short term gain,  and trained in that role.

 

Ah well.

 

I dunno.  He was used for a part season when he was 20/21.

We had Langkow and Olli that year at C.

His first full season he was 21/22.

We had Olli, BMo and Stajan at C.

He was beset in 2011/12 with injuries and missed half the season.

2013/14 was the Monahan year and he was effectively passed in the depth chart, especially with an injury.

The following year his injury status impacted his games played but he had been passed by Monahan anyway.

 

So, I don't really think he was ever a 100 point player that lost his prime due to not developing in the AHL.

He may have gotten the shaft from his coach and forced to play 4th line for a stretch, but it's what he did with his time on the upper lines that points that way.    Consider him in the mold of a Bergeron.  Never really a top C for points.  Consistent 50-60's points player.  Is that bad?  Nope.  Would Backlund have 3 more good year left?  Possibly.  Do you want to pay him Bergeron money that he once deserved?  Well he didn't bring the cup to Calgary.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

He's only 19 through this season so likely a year or 2 out, but we'll see come camp. Not sure if he'll be here or back with Tappara for camp?

 

Zary was supposed to be the Backlund replacement.  He's not trending well though.

 

Dube can be a poor man's Backlund.  He has the skating.  Just doesn't have the strength.

 

And on that note, I've always felt Backlund's defense was overrated.  He's always a hybrid two-way type.  You know what hybrid means.  Jack of all trades but master of none.  He's not Stephanie Yelle or something.

 

Kadri with the Avs shutdown McDavid in the playoffs.  Danault did a great job against McDavid.  But McDavid walks all over us.  We have no answer against the best of the best and this falls on Backlund.  Again, he's just a super hybrid.  He's not a stud defending specialist.

[cross16]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Zary was supposed to be the Backlund replacement.  He's not trending well though.

 

Dube can be a poor man's Backlund.  He has the skating.  Just doesn't have the strength.

 

And on that note, I've always felt Backlund's defense was overrated.  He's always a hybrid two-way type.  You know what hybrid means.  Jack of all trades but master of none.  He's not Stephanie Yelle or something.

 

Kadri with the Avs shutdown McDavid in the playoffs.  Danault did a great job against McDavid.  But McDavid walks all over us.  We have no answer against the best of the best and this falls on Backlund.  Again, he's just a super hybrid.  He's not a stud defending specialist.

 

Because Sutter refused to match lines until the last 2 games. 

 

McDavid in the first 3 games:

2 Goals 9 points 13 shots

 

Last 2 once Backlund line played against him almost exclusively:

1 Goals and 3 points. 1 of the assists was in an empty net. 

 

I don't have the analytics handy by there was a shift in McDavid's game once Backlund matched up against him. 

[travel_dude]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Because Sutter refused to match lines until the last 2 games. 

 

McDavid in the first 3 games:

2 Goals 9 points 13 shots

 

Last 2 once Backlund line played against him almost exclusively:

1 Goals and 3 points. 1 of the assists was in an empty net. 

 

I don't have the analytics handy by there was a shift in McDavid's game once Backlund matched up against him. 

 

My hope is that this year we start line matching when it's needed.  PvP never was a good idea and I think teams that use it don't advance.  EDM opted to use McD vs the world, but then again he played close to half the games they played.  They could have also spread out their offense, but felt that teams couldn't defend him.  Well, they couldn't defend him 100% of the time without taking penalties.  When they got enough PP's they win.  One of the big reasons why they beat us.  Backlund was part of the PK, but couldn't stop 2 minutes of him at a time.  

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Because Sutter refused to match lines until the last 2 games. 

 

McDavid in the first 3 games:

2 Goals 9 points 13 shots

 

Last 2 once Backlund line played against him almost exclusively:

1 Goals and 3 points. 1 of the assists was in an empty net. 

 

I don't have the analytics handy by there was a shift in McDavid's game once Backlund matched up against him. 

I've always viewed Eller very similar to Backlund. Same age, excellent defensively, Eller doesn't match the point stats, but neither the PP time. I like both players quite a bit. They munch the hard minutes at C and draw O-zone draws for the "stars". Every team needs one.

The issue I foresee is the extension. He has stated he's never asked for captaincy and I assume that's true. The worry is the ask. Eller is currently at $2.45 per through the 24/25 season and I believe that should be around Backlund's number. I have a nagging suspicion (maybe unfounded) that it isn't. It has to be less than $3 per for 2 years. The, "I wanna win a Cup" stuff I find diabolical. Everyone does equally. Including fans. Gratitude isn't a 1 way street. We've compensated to the tune of about $40mil. That's a pretty good life.

I fear that he still wants $4-5 per and that shouldn't be anywhere near the table.

[cross16]

20 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I've always viewed Eller very similar to Backlund. Same age, excellent defensively, Eller doesn't match the point stats, but neither the PP time. I like both players quite a bit. They munch the hard minutes at C and draw O-zone draws for the "stars". Every team needs one.

The issue I foresee is the extension. He has stated he's never asked for captaincy and I assume that's true. The worry is the ask. Eller is currently at $2.45 per through the 24/25 season and I believe that should be around Backlund's number. I have a nagging suspicion (maybe unfounded) that it isn't. It has to be less than $3 per for 2 years. The, "I wanna win a Cup" stuff I find diabolical. Everyone does equally. Including fans. Gratitude isn't a 1 way street. We've compensated to the tune of about $40mil. That's a pretty good life.

I fear that he still wants $4-5 per and that shouldn't be anywhere near the table.

 

I have the same thoughts, I just don't think he and the Flames are on the same page with an extension. Flames are willing to do what it takes for LIndholm but I think for the players already north of 30 they are reluctant to be doing multi year deals and are pushing for 1-2 year deals. Don't blame Backlund for wanting more than that. 

 

Keep him until the TDL. Perhaps if the team does better than he thinks he changes his stance and if not then you deal him when he is likely at his most valuable. Don't see this as a bad situation. 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I have the same thoughts, I just don't think he and the Flames are on the same page with an extension. Flames are willing to do what it takes for LIndholm but I think for the players already north of 30 they are reluctant to be doing multi year deals and are pushing for 1-2 year deals. Don't blame Backlund for wanting more than that. 

 

Eller's deal is a good base to look at.  Backlund played a lot closer to top line minutes, so the points reflect that.  I have trouble with the extension numbers, both term and dollars.  1 year starts at age 35.  Two years gets him to age 37.  Anything longer than that has to be front loaded and drop the AAV to less than 2M.  I say that because it's very possible that a 4 year deal has one year bought out.  2 years at $4M seems steep, considering the potential decline by 2025/26.

 

I view Backlund as the kind of player Eller is; a player you use to help get a winning club over the top, not the guy that helps you become a winning club.  He would be a good player for PENS, since they lack defensive players or COL, who is right there needing maybe another role player.  Dubas would probably give him 5x$4m.

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I have the same thoughts, I just don't think he and the Flames are on the same page with an extension. Flames are willing to do what it takes for LIndholm but I think for the players already north of 30 they are reluctant to be doing multi year deals and are pushing for 1-2 year deals. Don't blame Backlund for wanting more than that. 

I don't either. Our mgmt needs to have a vision. Lately the vision just looks like appeasement and that can't continue. You're only a soft market where nobody wants to play if you believe it and allow it to happen. It's not actually true but we're getting too skittish for my liking. Grab the thing and stop feeling sorry for yourself. Make your own rules and don't bend them.

[Heartbreaker]

30 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I don't either. Our mgmt needs to have a vision. Lately the vision just looks like appeasement and that can't continue. You're only a soft market where nobody wants to play if you believe it and allow it to happen. It's not actually true but we're getting too skittish for my liking. Grab the thing and stop feeling sorry for yourself. Make your own rules and don't bend them.

 

I tend to agree with this. They are in a terrible spot right now, and it's no wonder nobody wants to sign. The writing seems to be on the wall that this team isn't going to be super competitive. The problem is that nobody has cap space to make much of a splash. I am hopeful that they have their internal deadline on Lindholm.

Look, absolutely love the guy, and love the player. I will be sad to see him go - but he's not the linchpin that makes or breaks the organization. As best I can tell, he's the linchpin that maybe gets them into the playoffs, and a speedy first round exit, or maybe he's the linchpin that gets them picking 14-16. In other words, I foresee another season of mediocrity, and the time to move these guys was around last January. If he doesn't like the deal, it's no hard feelings, Bud. 

 

I don't mind moving Backlund at the deadline, although it's kind of a bummer that he'll get his silver stick early in his tenure with some other organization, but you know, we haven't successfully built a winner. I get it if he wants to chase a cup. Again, no hard feelings, Bud.

 

I think that if these guys split, others might want out, too, and I'd say, no hard feelings, Bud. Without these fellas, we're still not picking first, but we're probably picking top 10, and since we have Huberdeau for the next 8 years, lets try to be competitive at some point with him on the roster. He's a good player, seems like a decent enough guy, and it'd be great to see him play on a great team that goes deep.

 

Love.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I dunno.  He was used for a part season when he was 20/21.

We had Langkow and Olli that year at C.

His first full season he was 21/22.

We had Olli, BMo and Stajan at C.

He was beset in 2011/12 with injuries and missed half the season.

2013/14 was the Monahan year and he was effectively passed in the depth chart, especially with an injury.

The following year his injury status impacted his games played but he had been passed by Monahan anyway.

 

So, I don't really think he was ever a 100 point player that lost his prime due to not developing in the AHL.

He may have gotten the shaft from his coach and forced to play 4th line for a stretch, but it's what he did with his time on the upper lines that points that way.    Consider him in the mold of a Bergeron.  Never really a top C for points.  Consistent 50-60's points player.  Is that bad?  Nope.  Would Backlund have 3 more good year left?  Possibly.  Do you want to pay him Bergeron money that he once deserved?  Well he didn't bring the cup to Calgary.

 

I hear ya, and, it's so far in the past and I'm so old now that I don't go nuts about it like I once did.

 

But, that Oli trade:   Never needed to happen.   

 

Had they given Langkow and Backlund more responsibility, imho Backlund would have developed into a serious offensive threat that would have easily exceeded anything Oli ever did here at a fraction of the cost.

 

And that draft pick we lost for Oli, could have been the difference to put us over the edge.

 

 

Multiply that by about 10 other examples, and that is what killed what could have been imho an incredible team.   BT did a good job at kicking that can down further, but it's catch-up time now.

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I tend to agree with this. They are in a terrible spot right now, and it's no wonder nobody wants to sign. The writing seems to be on the wall that this team isn't going to be super competitive. The problem is that nobody has cap space to make much of a splash. I am hopeful that they have their internal deadline on Lindholm.

Look, absolutely love the guy, and love the player. I will be sad to see him go - but he's not the linchpin that makes or breaks the organization. As best I can tell, he's the linchpin that maybe gets them into the playoffs, and a speedy first round exit, or maybe he's the linchpin that gets them picking 14-16. In other words, I foresee another season of mediocrity, and the time to move these guys was around last January. If he doesn't like the deal, it's no hard feelings, Bud. 

 

I don't mind moving Backlund at the deadline, although it's kind of a bummer that he'll get his silver stick early in his tenure with some other organization, but you know, we haven't successfully built a winner. I get it if he wants to chase a cup. Again, no hard feelings, Bud.

 

I think that if these guys split, others might want out, too, and I'd say, no hard feelings, Bud. Without these fellas, we're still not picking first, but we're probably picking top 10, and since we have Huberdeau for the next 8 years, lets try to be competitive at some point with him on the roster. He's a good player, seems like a decent enough guy, and it'd be great to see him play on a great team that goes deep.

 

Love.

 

I think we have to be a bit more brutal on what the core consists of.  While Markstrom is currently the starter, I only think he's core for another year.  And that's only because we have a rookie that has played 1 game and no other starter ready.  Huberdeau and Weegar and maybe Ras are about as close to a core as we have.  I give Hubey a bit of benefit of doubt because of the transition year and playing for a coach that misused him.  He seems to be a guy you can win with.  Lindholm is as close to a #1 as we have, but unless he turns Hibey back into a 100 point guy, I would say he is more complementary than core.

 

I think we hold onto players too long, hoping for growth, but settling for middle of the road.  We are not turning over the roster and wonder why nothing really changes.  A career year by multiple players tends to get us a playoff round and not much else.  Average seasons by most to all should get you that.  

[travel_dude]

9 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I hear ya, and, it's so far in the past and I'm so old now that I don't go nuts about it like I once did.

 

But, that Oli trade:   Never needed to happen.   

 

Had they given Langkow and Backlund more responsibility, imho Backlund would have developed into a serious offensive threat that would have easily exceeded anything Oli ever did here at a fraction of the cost.

 

And that draft pick we lost for Oli, could have been the difference to put us over the edge.

 

 

Multiply that by about 10 other examples, and that is what killed what could have been imho an incredible team.   BT did a good job at kicking that can down further, but it's catch-up time now.

 

So, we missed out on Brandon Gormley?

The biggest part of that trade was Lombardi.

I hated the trade with NY to get rid of him though.

That was pure Feaster madness.

[robrob74]

12 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, we missed out on Brandon Gormley?

The biggest part of that trade was Lombardi.

I hated the trade with NY to get rid of him though.

That was pure Feaster madness.

maybe we would have drafted someone else. Someone else might not  have drafted Gormley. 

[jjgallow]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, we missed out on Brandon Gormley?

The biggest part of that trade was Lombardi.

I hated the trade with NY to get rid of him though.

That was pure Feaster madness.

 

Doesn't work quite like that, 

 

The constant patch-jobs skew our draft picks too.   Various short-term trades like this kept us out of the top 10  picks, which is where we should have naturally been.

 

So we most likely lost out on Fowler or Granlund.   But again, there were muliple moves like this, it could have been Taylor Hall or Seguin too.      However you slice it, we paid a steep price for that rental, both in terms of Backlund's development and likely minus one key core player.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

maybe we would have drafted someone else. Someone else might not  have drafted Gormley. 

 

Give the 1st round pick history from 2004 onward:

2004 - Chucko 

2005 - Pelech

2006 - Irving

2007 - Backlund (good pick but other rafted later also had great careers)

2008 - Nemeisz

2009 - Erixon

2011 - Baertschi

2012 - Janko

 

Not exactly earth shattering.  A missed 1st back then seems to have far less impact than one post 2012.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Doesn't work quite like that, 

 

The constant patch-jobs skew our draft picks too.   Various short-term trades like this kept us out of the top 10  picks, which is where we should have naturally been.

 

So we most likely lost out on Fowler or Granlund.   But again, there were muliple moves like this, it could have been Taylor Hall or Seguin too.      However you slice it, we paid a steep price for that rental, both in terms of Backlund's development and likely minus one key core player.

 

Can't also suggest that we missed out on Granlund or Fowler, since we failed to fail.  

We had Kipper, so I doubt that keeping the pick and not making the trade gets us top 10.

Once he walked away, the problems with the team for far more obvious and we started picking top 10.

[jjgallow]

15 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Can't also suggest that we missed out on Granlund or Fowler, since we failed to fail.  

We had Kipper, so I doubt that keeping the pick and not making the trade gets us top 10.

Once he walked away, the problems with the team for far more obvious and we started picking top 10.

 

You're saying we couldn't finish top 10 at the draft with Kipper's .906 that year, at the age of 33.

 

I'd agree that I can't prove it, but I think I got a case to suggest it lol

[Heartbreaker]

43 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Can't also suggest that we missed out on Granlund or Fowler, since we failed to fail.  

We had Kipper, so I doubt that keeping the pick and not making the trade gets us top 10.

Once he walked away, the problems with the team for far more obvious and we started picking top 10.

 

And if we're going to complain about draft picks - I don't recall there being a whole lot of angst over trading a second to get Miikka Kiprusoff. It was a high second, too, which would seem like a steep price for an unknown goaltender that was largely thought to be a stop-gap. Furthermore, the guy that the Sharks selected with that pick had a damn fine career. I still make that trade every damn day.

 

Love.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

And if we're going to complain about draft picks - I don't recall there being a whole lot of angst over trading a second to get Miikka Kiprusoff. It was a high second, too, which would seem like a steep price for an unknown goaltender that was largely thought to be a stop-gap. Furthermore, the guy that the Sharks selected with that pick had a damn fine career. I still make that trade every damn day.

 

Love.

 

True.   Now,  you could do the stats to show they traded foe the best goalie in the AHL. 

 

That's worth a 2nd.   The fact that he was 25 was definitely an eyebrow raiser.   I agree.

 

 But it's still a long ways away from justifying a 30 year old winger.  

[conundrumed]

Sutter came from SJ so we were afforded his insight. Kiprusoff wasn't luck or good fortune, he was very well known by Sutter.

I get that most think that there is nowhere to go but down in losing Lindholm, Backlund and Hanifin, but I'm doubtful that will be the case. We get glued to our own players and can't see past them. Enough of the top players have said that the gap between the best player in the league and the worst player in the league is not the massive gap that everyone thinks it is, it's a lot closer. We should actually hear what they are saying. How did Chicago get semi-hot at the end of the year? How did Nashville trade big assets and stay in the hunt?

Imagine being in Anaheim's shoes. What do you pay Zegras? He's maybe a $5mil player tops if you watch him beyond the highlights. But he's the pretty face, fun highlight reel franchise guy. Yet he's not a great player in reality. If we traded Hanifin for him straight across I'd be choked.

We'll be fine. It will be Huberdeau's team if we actually let the concrete dry on the foundation. We knew adjustments would take a while but we have zero patience. Win now or sell everything isn't a great philosophy. Again folks, are you not watching Detroit losing every lottery? Getting Seider and Raymond was scouting alone. Edvinsson and Kasper should be really good players, but it's still a wait after 9 years of no playoffs. Rebuilds are clearly being romanticized by the occasional successful one. Everyone remembers the outcome, not the long-endured AHL-quality product for years prior. Nor do they care to bat an eye at the more prominent unsuccessful rebuilds.

To be honest, "I want to win a cup" makes me vomit. Look at Dylan Larkin. He's completed 8 years in this league and he's a top C and leader now for my money. He's never even played a playoff game.

Not a peep out of him that he's "earned" some dreamed up right to play for a cup-contender. Perspective.

That's a team leader. Not demoralizing his teammates that they aren't good enough for him.

[jjgallow]

12 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Sutter came from SJ so we were afforded his insight. Kiprusoff wasn't luck or good fortune, he was very well known by Sutter.

I get that most think that there is nowhere to go but down in losing Lindholm, Backlund and Hanifin, but I'm doubtful that will be the case. We get glued to our own players and can't see past them. Enough of the top players have said that the gap between the best player in the league and the worst player in the league is not the massive gap that everyone thinks it is, it's a lot closer. We should actually hear what they are saying. How did Chicago get semi-hot at the end of the year? How did Nashville trade big assets and stay in the hunt?

Imagine being in Anaheim's shoes. What do you pay Zegras? He's maybe a $5mil player tops if you watch him beyond the highlights. But he's the pretty face, fun highlight reel franchise guy. Yet he's not a great player in reality. If we traded Hanifin for him straight across I'd be choked.

We'll be fine. It will be Huberdeau's team if we actually let the concrete dry on the foundation. We knew adjustments would take a while but we have zero patience. Win now or sell everything isn't a great philosophy. Again folks, are you not watching Detroit losing every lottery? Getting Seider and Raymond was scouting alone. Edvinsson and Kasper should be really good players, but it's still a wait after 9 years of no playoffs. Rebuilds are clearly being romanticized by the occasional successful one. Everyone remembers the outcome, not the long-endured AHL-quality product for years prior. Nor do they care to bat an eye at the more prominent unsuccessful rebuilds.

To be honest, "I want to win a cup" makes me vomit. Look at Dylan Larkin. He's completed 8 years in this league and he's a top C and leader now for my money. He's never even played a playoff game.

Not a peep out of him that he's "earned" some dreamed up right to play for a cup-contender. Perspective.

That's a team leader. Not demoralizing his teammates that they aren't good enough for him.

 

Completely agree

[The_People1]

On 7/20/2023 at 3:23 AM, conundrumed said:

but it's still a wait after 9 years of no playoffs. Rebuilds are clearly being romanticized by the occasional successful one. 

 

I can't believe you celebrate mediocrity.

 

It's been 34 years since the last Cup win and that's the only number that matters.  Who cares if you've been on 34 dates or went on a cold spell for 9-years.  You still didn't score.  That's the only number that matters.

 

You are basically saying it's better to lose with some playoff years mixed in rather than lose for 9-years straight but in the end it's all still losing.

[jjgallow]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I can't believe you celebrate mediocrity.

 

It's been 34 years since the last Cup win and that's the only number that matters.  Who cares if you've been on 34 dates or went on a cold spell for 9-years.  You still didn't score.  That's the only number that matters.

 

You are basically saying it's better to lose with some playoff years mixed in rather than lose for 9-years straight but in the end it's all still losing.

 

I read what he was trying to convey a little differently. 

 

If we back up for a second..

 

Who was Marcel Dionne?