Player Discussion David Backes
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
- Status
RedeyeRocketeer
Registered User
I know and I enjoy reading you and your opinions. Your good 90% of the time it's that 10% we disagree I have an issue
The 10% is the spice of life
DKH, I do have a question for you that I think you're in a great position to answer because you know your hockey. Pretend Sweeney didn't have Neely breathing down his neck for the playoffs and pretend Neely didn't have the owners doing it to him. Rewind back to when Rinaldo, Bekesky, Hayes, McQuaid, maybe Miller, Liles, Moore, (I'll be consistent with this), Backes, Nash and others were signed. I won't say Krug because I do believe at the time they did it it was and still is the right choice. So undo all that stuff, now give more roster spots to kids, Reilly Smith is just a struggling but young 3rd line winger, and with all that cap flexibility and probably back to back top 10 picks, picture us going forward. You get all your Carlo's and company, your expansion draft protection is rather simple given how young the team is, AND you're now in a position to take on players that other teams can't protect because you're dripping in cap space and protection slots potentially.
Now in my bizarro world version of this where we're still bringing in all your fav kids over the next 2-3 years, do you think there's a possibility for a really good foundation for a team? We've flush with draft picks we don't waste, and the canvas to paint can really go in so many directions. Honestly we know the other version of the team misses the playoffs, and we're probably 65-70% to miss this year. So the net-net on all this is a potentially way stronger team in 2018 and for sure projecting out. And 2016-2017 goes exactly the same in the playoffs (ie none). You see that as a maybe?
Otherworld
Registered User
- Oct 26, 2016
- 6,166
- 5,771
Zebra were awful last night. I was wondering if we were playing in Montreal for a couple of minutes there .....
I don't take issue with the money so much as the term. I realize they had to give the term to get the player, but therein lies the rub. He was likely signed knowing he wouldn't be a $6M player in the final few years of the deal, and the Bruins were okay with that. I wasn't pleased with it because I didn't see the Bruins being a very competitive club when he WAS a $6M player, meaning now, and I also felt they would more likely be a highly competitive club when he was no longer a $6M player, meaning in roughly years 3,4,5.
In short, they overpaid in term to get him, and the emphasis was on competing and having him play a major role in the next few years. With that in mind, I think it's fair game to ask if everyone is pleased with how that's going.
Haven't posted here in about a decade, but wanted to comment on this: I agree with you to the extent that they are all overpaid, and also that if you shop in July 1 you will probably overpay, but in a cap world I think it makes sense to care about who makes what. Take Jimmy Hayes. He is just plain awful for us and at a 2.3 mil per season can you honestly say it is worth it? I wouldn't mind him near so much if we paid him 4th line money, but now that's 1.5 mil/yr overpay that we could spend much better.
Since this is a Backes thread, I think it is worthwhile to question the money at his age and the style of game he plays. Maybe not the money so much as the length of the contract, but it all ends up the same if we find that we have a broken shell of a player in 3 years with two years to go at that rate. It does matter.
EDIT: BP beat me to it
Backes is next in line of bad moves by this organisation since 2011, this guy have nothing special at all and should never get so much money and so long contract, now it is bad but in two years it will be desaster.
Much hockey analyst qualified backes contract has the worst signing of ufa market
I don't blame the player amd respect his heart, but he is what he is an ordinary 3rd liner
Much hockey analyst qualified backes contract has the worst signing of ufa market
I don't blame the player amd respect his heart, but he is what he is an ordinary 3rd liner
Backes' worth is in the playoffs, he is clutch and a major playoff contributor, just a shame the bruins won't make the playoffs the 5 years he's here.
Estlin
Registered User
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,688
- 9,282
He was good last season and so was Brouwer. But as far as the worth in the playoffs, Tarasenko is that guy in St Louis. Backes has 12 goals in 49 playoff games, 7 last season. Tarasenko has 19 in 33.
Agent86
Registered User
Haven't posted here in about a decade, but wanted to comment on this: I agree with you to the extent that they are all overpaid, and also that if you shop in July 1 you will probably overpay, but in a cap world I think it makes sense to care about who makes what. Take Jimmy Hayes. He is just plain awful for us and at a 2.3 mil per season can you honestly say it is worth it? I wouldn't mind him near so much if we paid him 4th line money, but now that's 1.5 mil/yr overpay that we could spend much better.
Since this is a Backes thread, I think it is worthwhile to question the money at his age and the style of game he plays. Maybe not the money so much as the length of the contract, but it all ends up the same if we find that we have a broken shell of a player in 3 years with two years to go at that rate. It does matter.
EDIT: BP beat me to it
Funny, I've lurked here for over a decade (as a guest around the time of the famous Jumbo Joe trade and finally as a member) but rarely post. Ultimately though it is the market that dictates the price/term and that isn't Backes fault. I get the risks of a five year deal but there is cap flexiblity with the team today that didn't exist just a couple years ago. As long as his production does not fall off a cliff before the last 2 years he can be moved as the contract gets cheaper in dollars, if need be. Only time will tell us that despite what our bias may lead us to believe today. I don't endorse doing business on the most expensive day of the year but given the opportunity to not shed assets to gain talent I understand why it is done.
For BP's concern - I think that management thinks they are competitive now, at the beginning of Backes's deal, given the near playoff misses of the last two seasons and the realistic shot they felt, at the time, they had in signing the former Harvard captain (oops). It is obvious that the backend needed/needs/will need addressing (and the part of the attempt at this has been made through the draft) however close to 60% of the league also needs the same thing, buyer beware. I'm sure they have worked the phones and the logical dance partners in Winnipeg, Anaheim and Minnesota will set the market and it ain't gonna be cheap.
Backes is a 3rd liner
Yeah I mean what's special about a power forward who can line up and be used in literally every situation
Backes is a 3rd liner
Yeah I mean what's special about a power forward who can line up and be used in literally every situation
Yeah, Blues captain for 5 seasons, over 20 goals each of the past three seasons, grit and heart, can play center or wing, PP, PK, yeah you're right, nothing special here. Can't believe we signed him. WTF!!!
Agree, I was happy we signed him, but since this is the Backes thread and he is on that sort of deal, it is worth discussing. As much as I like the what he gives us, it comes with a bit more obvious risk than I'd like to see in a signing (I know they all have risks attached what with injuries, gelling etc.). But you're correct, if he gives us 3-4 good seasons (and why not 5?) it will have probably been worthwhile.
They didn't need a 3rd line center and he now has 6 points in his last 17 games at wing. I'll give him slack due to Krejci's recovery and a poor PP,but that's lousy production.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,716
- 25,234
Yet, if you factor in pre-season, he has 9 pts. in 5 games as a center.
I've said it before, he was effective in St. Louis as a winger and a center. Their best player in last year's playoffs, as a winger.
But for whatever reason in this system, on this team, it's not working for him as a winger. And I can't blame it all on Krejci even if I wanted to.
But Claude refuses to change it.
I've seen you say it before about his preseason and it's barely meaningful. We know he's not a 9 point 5 game player without being a 9 game 0 point player for balance. The big problem is that Krejci needed a winger and they predetermined that Backes was it. Now you have an underperformance by Backes and so we make him a center with who for wingers? Krejci is the superior center so he gets the better candidates,of which there aren't any. Backes is a problem at the moment,not a solution. I keep him with Krejci as he continues to progress with his health.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,716
- 25,234
How is it barely meaningful.
I'm not trying to argue he's a 2 PPG player at C. His pre-season production as a winger stunk to.
But relative to his production at wing, it does indicate he'd be more productive at C on this team than his 7 points in 17 games as a winger.
How does keeping something going that clearly isn't working a good idea.
Krejci's health improving isn't going to make Backes as his winger any better fit.
This whole argument that "well if you take Backes away from Krejci what's he going to do?" is BS. They'll never know unless they admit it isn't working and try something different.
Personally I have no sympathy for Krejci and he's gotten a free pass from this coaching staff for far too long. I'd have no issue making him the 3rd line C, and pairing him up with Belesky for the duration. The sooner people get over the fact that he's a no longer the guy from 2011 or 2013 the better off they will be.
Well I disagree with nearly everything here. The reason that pre season is mostly meaningless is quality of competition,the point of the games and what everyone is trying to achieve,mainly, is to prepare and build a team. If Krejci's lack of health is not a factor in how he or his wingers produce then.... Also,he should be getting 1/3rd of his points off the PP. Krejci now has 9 points in his last 10 games and he's coming off a season in which he was healthy for 50 games,but still had 63 points. When healthy he's the same player,he had 48 points in the first 50 games last year before the hip problem. In your world you would put him with Beleskey and keep him there no matter what? You might get your wish and then we can revisit it as Krejci continues to improve but is playing with who?
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,716
- 25,234
If pre-season is so meaningless, than why even have it then? One purpose of pre-season is to try different things and see what clicks. Backes at C with Pastrnak did, Backes at wing with Krejci didn't, both judged in pre-season so the variables are relatively the same.
And I didn't say his health wouldn't impact production, I said it doesn't impact the chemistry. Krejci isn't about to change "how" he plays once he is healthier. So even with a healthy, 100% Krejci, it still would be a bad fit. He's still going to slow the game down to a crawl with the puck on his stick regardless of his health. And for whatever reason this isn't gelling well with the way Backes plays.
And me pairing him up with Belesky has more to do with Belesky's production and getting the most out of him as it does Krejci. They've shown chemistry, and Belesky's production alongside Krejci, he goes from a 20 pt per season player to a 40 pt per season based off what they did last year together.
So you have statistical evidence that Krejci with Backes at RW doesn't work, Belesky with any other Bruin center doesn't work, Backes at C with Pasta does (albeit smaller sample size), as does Belesky with Krejci as his center.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,716
- 25,234
Why wouldn't you?
It's not like pre-season is a different sport.
As long as you take the quality of competition into consideration, it's worthwhile data.
If you just use pre-season, he had 6 pts. in 2 games as a center.
Now Backes isn't a PPG center in the regular season, let alone a 3 pt. PG one.
But I'd be willing to bet he's more than the 6 pts. in 14 games he's put up as a winger.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
It's actually worth less than nothing, because people falsely put any credence into it and it can sway them to make bad decisions.
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,688
- 9,282
I agree 100%. The fact some preseason games don't even have box scores should show how little value is placed on them.
A preseason game is nothing like a regular season NHL game.
Now, I think Backes should try some games a center, but his preseason stats have absolutely nothing to do with why.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,716
- 25,234
Well you should let NHL coaches know so they stop basing any decisions on it.
So how come when it leads to teams making good decisions, see Brandon Carlo for example, pre-season has value. Or was the coaching staff making a good decision just a fluke?
But because they can also make bad decisions based on pre-season (and they can), it no longer has value.
Can't have it both ways.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I'm not having it both ways. Pre-season games and stats are some of the worst tools for evaluation we have.
Plenty of players have looked good in pre-season yet they still didn't make the team. That's because the team is factoring in far more meaningful indicators of readiness, and that's why Carlo made it.
And even in the pre-season, you can see if a guy is physically ready for the NHL at practice and camp. Games against half squads played at half speed are a terrible way to judge something.
- Status
