Around The NHL Discussion 2019/20 - Part III

[Majorityof1]

Think his point was that if he stayed here, he would currently be in the last year of his contract. And there’s no way the Blues would waive their captain and send him to the minors in his last year. Since Boston still has him for 1 more season after this one, and since they don’t have any sentimental value with him like we would have, this is now what it has come to.

Backes wouldn't be captain anymore. At best, he'd be a permanent press box fixture and the captaincy would have been given to someone else. The Kings did it with Brown when he was bad, but he was never as bad as Backes is now. That may be worse than getting waived by a new team.

As for the extra year, Backes can always retire if he doesn't want to play it out. But now he at least has the option to earn an extra $6m

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Arvidsson fined for diving. NHL needs to be stricter on that front as I see it creeping more and more into the game.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Cautionary tale? If Backes stayed here, he still would have fallen off the cliff. He still would be sent down as we are just as deep if not deeper than Boston. Leaving here is not the reason his game fell off of a cliff. He just is not the player he was anymore. That has nothing to do with him chasing the money and term.

The only difference between signing here vs there, is now he has the extra money he definitely wouldn't have been able to secure on a subsequent contract. The only lesson from this cautionary tale is to make sure you get as much as you can while you can because who knows how long it will last. That is not a lesson we as Blues fans should want Petro to learn.

If he were here he would be treated differently. Look at Steen. Can you see us waiving him to send to minors? No, because he is a Blue and loyalty is rewarded. Backes chose to be a mercenary. His right and I don't begrudge it but teams often treat declining guys who are truly 1 of their own different than they treat free agent signings.

 

[Alklha]

I think some Boston fans are being a little too overly optimistic with ideas that he might retire. He left St. Louis for the extra year, and that's about money. He's not leaving $4m on the table.

If he were here he would be treated differently. Look at Steen. Can you see us waiving him to send to minors? No, because he is a Blue and loyalty is rewarded. Backes chose to be a mercenary. His right and I don't begrudge it but teams often treat declining guys who are truly 1 of their own different than they treat free agent signings.

Backes and Steen is interesting. If Backes had taken the four year deal here then I really wouldn't be surprised if Steen had left. We would have the veteran presence and less flexibility, the captain has been forced to only sign through 35... I think we stand firm on a three year offer to Steen in that scenario. As it was, we were in more of a position to take the risk on Steen; not wanting to lose two important players in quick succession and our internal projections had Steen as the better player in 2020/21.

 

[Alklha]

Arvidsson fined for diving. NHL needs to be stricter on that front as I see it creeping more and more into the game.

The League needs to get a handle on how their referees call diving. I can't remember the last time I seen a diving penalty that wasn't going with an opposing penalty. There are fines, but no real on-ice deterrent when the worst that happens is 4-on-4.

The real risk is that it starts to go down the road that soccer has. Referees are largely to blame for how rife it is in that sport, and it's similar in that there are fines for players and the on-field punishments are pretty rare. If you don't go down, you don't get the call. Like this. And that's a game with video review and he doesn't get the call on the field and the referee isn't notified of a mistake.

Hockey refs are better at making the calls without the need for theatrics, but if there isn't a clear on-ice derterrent then it's going to keep creeping in. Then it'll get the the point where referees will want a specific reaction to make a certain call.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Backes was a popular player here, and a good citizen.

But it's no surprise that he couldn't live up to his contract in Boston. It was for too much term, too much money, too high of expectations by everyone concerned.

Why did you do it, David? You could have finished your career here, made good money, retired with dignity intact. But, as Billy Joel lamented, you had to be a big shot, didn't you?

Was this necessary in any way? You make it sound like Backes chose the worst possible choice. Boston offered him $6 million more than the Blues, with an extra year of play time, and a built-in NMC in his contract. It's not a hard idea to wrap your head around. He chose what had more security, with more perks, with more money involved. You know, to help his family and his own well being. That sounds like the opposite of what you just described.

Quit with the theatrics and this "retire with dignity" nonsense.

 

[542365]

Was this necessary in any way? You make it sound like Backes chose the worst possible choice. Boston offered him $6 million more than the Blues, with an extra year of play time, and a built-in NMC in his contract. It's not a hard idea to wrap your head around. He chose what had more security, with more perks, with more money involved. You know, to help his family and his own well being. That sounds like the opposite of what you just described.

Quit with the theatrics and this "retire with dignity" nonsense.

"Help his family" You just can't live off $55M these days....Gotta put food on the table somehow amirite?

Talk about theatrics....

 

[Mike Liut]

Most of us saw the writing on the wall with Backes. He had a good playoffs his last year here, but he wasn’t his normal self throughout the year. He just wasn’t hitting like normal. You could tell he wasn’t the same player. One of my favorite Blues ever, but I wanted no part of a long term deal.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

"Help his family" You just can't live off $55M these days....Gotta put food on the table somehow amirite?

Talk about theatrics....

Are you really laughing at the thought that professionals in any field would reject more money with more added benefits to their employment because they would do it for their family? What, when you hit a certain income, does that thought just disappear from your mind?

I know that $50+ million is a lot of money, but I don't see how these thoughts would somehow become irrelevant. If Backes were that type of man, one that would make decisions without looking at the impact of the people that are closest to him, I think I would lose respect him as a human being as opposed to a hockey player.

 

[Renard]

Was this necessary in any way? You make it sound like Backes chose the worst possible choice. Boston offered him $6 million more than the Blues, with an extra year of play time, and a built-in NMC in his contract. It's not a hard idea to wrap your head around. He chose what had more security, with more perks, with more money involved. You know, to help his family and his own well being. That sounds like the opposite of what you just described.

Quit with the theatrics and this "retire with dignity" nonsense.

I thought this was a forum where we get to state our opinions. I just stated mine.

You think he did it for his family? You make it sound like Backes and his family have been living in a cardboard box under a viaduct.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Would be cool to see Backes with the Blues again, but in a different role than being a player. I recall DA saying that one of the hardest things he had to do was letting Backes walk because he respected him so much.

As to DeBoner going to Vegas.....pffttt....my view of VGK is diminished.

I liked the whole Gallant / Vegas expansion story. I still think he's a very good coach. Sad to see all that come crashing down. I think the VGK owner is making rash decisions lately. The Sharks whinny old coach replacing Gallant is a downgrade IMO.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I thought this was a forum where we get to state our opinions. I just stated mine.

You think he did it for his family? You make it sound like Backes and his family have been living in a cardboard box under a viaduct.

Thanks for doing the owner’s dirty work for them. You must feel proud.

 

[Renard]

Thanks for doing the owner’s dirty work for them. You must feel proud.

Management can be greedy and I don't like it any better when they are. I had great respect for former Blues owner Mike Shanahan, but as an already wealthy man, he pleaded guily to securities fraud, and had to make restitution of $8 million. Why, Mike?

And I don't think you can make comparison between ordinary labor/management relation with NHL teams/players. In many cases, it's rich guy vs rich guy. With the ticket-buying public paying much of the tab for both parties.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

I thought this was a forum where we get to state our opinions. I just stated mine.

You think he did it for his family? You make it sound like Backes and his family have been living in a cardboard box under a viaduct.

Hmm, between you and the other one, I’ve learned that hockey players apparently sign contracts without their family in mind. What a fool I’ve been for assuming that loved ones were important factors for choice in workplace and employment.

 

[542365]

Are you really laughing at the thought that professionals in any field would reject more money with more added benefits to their employment because they would do it for their family? What, when you hit a certain income, does that thought just disappear from your mind?

I know that $50+ million is a lot of money, but I don't see how these thoughts would somehow become irrelevant. If Backes were that type of man, one that would make decisions without looking at the impact of the people that are closest to him, I think I would lose respect him as a human being as opposed to a hockey player.

Yes I’m absolutely laughing at your ridiculous notion. YES when you reach a certain income concern over money should absolutely disappear. You can only buy so much stuff in your lifetime. The difference between having made $55M and $60M is inconsequential. You’re set for life regardless. You make it seem like he’s an accountant being offered a raise from 60K to 80K to move across the country. That I could understand because it would allow his family to live a more comfortable life and would have a substantial impact on their life.

David Backes had made over $30M by the time he was a free agent and was offered $24M more to stay in St. Louis. He would be set for life with that money, as would his kids and maybe even his grandkids if they were smart with it. They’re guaranteed contracts so he’s getting that money regardless how he plays(unless he violates the contract somehow, which he obviously wouldn’t).

It’s honestly insulting to suggest that Backes needed that extra year to “help his family”. He has more money than 99.8% of people in the world. If he can’t make that amount of money work for his family then he’s an idiot. Now he gets to ride busses around the AHL for a year and a half and had to watch his former team lift the Cup on his home ice. I’m thrilled that he has to suffer through these last couple years. Greed and selfishness should be punished.

 

[542365]

Hmm, between you and the other one, I’ve learned that hockey players apparently sign contracts without their family in mind. What a fool I’ve been for assuming that loved ones were important factors for choice in workplace and employment.

The straw man is strong in this one. Somehow my argument went from “he and his family are set for life regardless” to “hockey players’ loved ones aren’t important”. Just give it up, dude Once you start venturing down this road it’s clear you lost the argument. Just sit a few plays out here.

 

[Majorityof1]

Yes I’m absolutely laughing at your ridiculous notion. YES when you reach a certain income concern over money should absolutely disappear. You can only buy so much stuff in your lifetime. The difference between having made $55M and $60M is inconsequential. You’re set for life regardless. You make it seem like he’s an accountant being offered a raise from 60K to 80K to move across the country. That I could understand because it would allow his family to live a more comfortable life and would have a substantial impact on their life.

David Backes had made over $30M by the time he was a free agent and was offered $24M more to stay in St. Louis. He would be set for life with that money, as would his kids and maybe even his grandkids if they were smart with it. They’re guaranteed contracts so he’s getting that money regardless how he plays(unless he violates the contract somehow, which he obviously wouldn’t).

It’s honestly insulting to suggest that Backes needed that extra year to “help his family”. He has more money than 99.8% of people in the world. If he can’t make that amount of money work for his family then he’s an idiot. Now he gets to ride busses around the AHL for a year and a half and had to watch his former team lift the Cup on his home ice. I’m thrilled that he has to suffer through these last couple years. Greed and selfishness should be punished.

People always want more. Backes may have more money than 99.8% of people, but then he wants more than 99.9% of people. That might not even be greed. Backes is very involved in charitable work. Maybe he wants to donate another couple million to helping animals. Or maybe he also wants to set his future generations up for life, Now he needs to have enough money to keep pace with inflation. $55M (of which he has much less when you account for taxes, agent fees and living expenses) won't be near as much 70 years from now when his grandchildren are retiring.

Granted, if he hasn't spent a ridiculous amount, and given some prudent investing, he should be able to do that now. But why begrudge him getting a little more if that is what he wants? I never hear fans calling the owners greedy for wanting a little more and setting the salary cap where it is. The owners are super rich already, more so than the players. They don't need any more for their family. Why can't they raise the cap to give more to their players who have put their bodies on the line for them? Or why should the SUPER rich owners charge us poor fans so much for tickets when they have enough money to live comfortably forever.

If your company is paying you a living wage, why would you consider going to another company for a promotion and raise? Who gets to decide when enough is enough and you have to than start valuing loyalty over financial gain. Why does loyalty only go one way? Why don't we chide the super rich Blues ownership group for not offering their captain as much as a random other team would? At every level, people always want and are entitled to earn more if they can command it. That is the very nature of a capitalist society. What they do with it is not your concern. Whether they provide for their extended family, create 100s of animal shelters or swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, its their right to earn what they can.

 

[Stealth JD]

I think the Lightning may be ready to show that last year's post-season was a fluke. They're just destroying teams lately. Glad the Blues don't have to worry about them until possibly June.

 

[Dbrownss]

I think the Lightning may be ready to show that last year's post-season was a fluke. They're just destroying teams lately. Glad the Blues don't have to worry about them until possibly June.

They did that last year too. Not disagreeing with last year being a fluke...but they look like the same ol lightening to me

 

[542365]

People always want more. Backes may have more money than 99.8% of people, but then he wants more than 99.9% of people. That might not even be greed. Backes is very involved in charitable work. Maybe he wants to donate another couple million to helping animals. Or maybe he also wants to set his future generations up for life, Now he needs to have enough money to keep pace with inflation. $55M (of which he has much less when you account for taxes, agent fees and living expenses) won't be near as much 70 years from now when his grandchildren are retiring.

Granted, if he hasn't spent a ridiculous amount, and given some prudent investing, he should be able to do that now. But why begrudge him getting a little more if that is what he wants? I never hear fans calling the owners greedy for wanting a little more and setting the salary cap where it is. The owners are super rich already, more so than the players. They don't need any more for their family. Why can't they raise the cap to give more to their players who have put their bodies on the line for them? Or why should the SUPER rich owners charge us poor fans so much for tickets when they have enough money to live comfortably forever.

If your company is paying you a living wage, why would you consider going to another company for a promotion and raise? Who gets to decide when enough is enough and you have to than start valuing loyalty over financial gain. Why does loyalty only go one way? Why don't we chide the super rich Blues ownership group for not offering their captain as much as a random other team would? At every level, people always want and are entitled to earn more if they can command it. That is the very nature of a capitalist society. What they do with it is not your concern. Whether they provide for their extended family, create 100s of animal shelters or swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, its their right to earn what they can.

I never took issue with Backes wanting to get more money, but let's be honest about what it was. He's earning well beyond a "living wage". It wasn't to "help his family" as if they would have to take a second mortgage on the house to pay for Christmas bills if he stayed in St. Louis. It was to go from exceedingly wealthy to even more exceedingly wealthy. The difference is negligible. I'm fine with players getting their money, but let's not kid ourselves here. If he only had the Blues' offer and nobody else offered him a dime, he and his family would be perfectly secure financially. Let's not pretend otherwise, or act like the Blues lowballed him. The deal the Blues offered honestly would've ended up being terrible, and Army knew it, but he bit the bullet for the captain and popular player. It wasn't enough.

 

[Twisted Blue]

"Help his family" You just can't live off $55M these days....Gotta put food on the table somehow amirite?

Talk about theatrics....

Easy to judge a man for making a decision, but I have no doubt that Backes did what he thought was best for himself and his family. He loves St. Louis and was/is still part of our community. You may scoff at his motives but many teammates, media and people in the community have said he is a great guy. He may end up back in St. Louis when he retires and I hope that happens whenever he wants to hang them up, not forced out of the game he loves.

 

[542365]

Easy to judge a man for making a decision, but I have no doubt that Backes did what he thought was best for himself and his family. He loves St. Louis and was/is still part of our community. You may scoff at his motives but many teammates, media and people in the community have said he is a great guy. He may end up back in St. Louis when he retires and I hope that happens whenever he wants to hang them up, not forced out of the game he loves.

I know Backes is a great guy. Again, never faulted him for doing what he thought was right. My issue was always with the idea that his family needed help and the only way to do that is by taking 36 million dollars over 30 million as if that had any significance to his or his family’s quality of life. It’s silly. He chose Boston I’m sure for many reasons, but not a single one of them was because he felt his family wouldn’t be financially secure otherwise. That’s just nonsense.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

People always want more. Backes may have more money than 99.8% of people, but then he wants more than 99.9% of people. That might not even be greed. Backes is very involved in charitable work. Maybe he wants to donate another couple million to helping animals. Or maybe he also wants to set his future generations up for life, Now he needs to have enough money to keep pace with inflation. $55M (of which he has much less when you account for taxes, agent fees and living expenses) won't be near as much 70 years from now when his grandchildren are retiring.

Granted, if he hasn't spent a ridiculous amount, and given some prudent investing, he should be able to do that now. But why begrudge him getting a little more if that is what he wants? I never hear fans calling the owners greedy for wanting a little more and setting the salary cap where it is. The owners are super rich already, more so than the players. They don't need any more for their family. Why can't they raise the cap to give more to their players who have put their bodies on the line for them? Or why should the SUPER rich owners charge us poor fans so much for tickets when they have enough money to live comfortably forever.

If your company is paying you a living wage, why would you consider going to another company for a promotion and raise? Who gets to decide when enough is enough and you have to than start valuing loyalty over financial gain. Why does loyalty only go one way? Why don't we chide the super rich Blues ownership group for not offering their captain as much as a random other team would? At every level, people always want and are entitled to earn more if they can command it. That is the very nature of a capitalist society. What they do with it is not your concern. Whether they provide for their extended family, create 100s of animal shelters or swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, its their right to earn what they can.

Yep, you can feed a lot of dogs with a few million dollars. It worked out best for the Blues and it worked out best for Backes. The only entity that came out worse for this is the Bruins.

No reason for Blues fans to hold any resentment towards anyone when it comes to this.

 

[stl76]

All this talk of Backes and nobody has mentioned that the desire to win a cup probably factored into his decision? Obviously didn't work out great for him/them, but I think it's highly likely Backes thought Boston had as good or better a chance of winning it all.

More money + more term + 3 years NMC + (wrong) belief in better chance to win cup = tough but straightforward decision.

 

[BlueDream]

All this talk of Backes and nobody has mentioned that the desire to win a cup probably factored into his decision? Obviously didn't work out great for him/them, but I think it's highly likely Backes thought Boston had as good or better a chance of winning it all.

More money + more term + 3 years NMC + (wrong) belief in better chance to win cup = tough but straightforward decision.

But when you look back to 2016, Boston wasn’t really a contender. In fact a lot of people thought their window was closing.