'Ta. I was afraid of that. He got run by somebody during the playoffs, as I remember. Scored a beaut of a power forward's goal against Chicago - cutting in from the wing and just driving to the net while out muscling the D-Man. Neely must have nudged Donny's elbow right about then.Backes has had at least 3 concussions that have caused him to miss games since 2014
There are reasons to complain about the deal, but the bolded is really stupid. Backes has a history of being a top 2 center over an extended period of time. He's 32, not 37, and is one of the better defensive forwards in the game. He's also extremely strong, and big guy.Well Backes did score less points last year than Spooner, is 8 years older, and incredibly more likely to get worse while Spooner gets better, all for 6 times the price. What an upgrade at the position.
Do they realize they still need defensemen? And wingers?
No one was forcing them to overpay. The best move is often to do nothing. How many of the contracts handed out today will be bought out in 3-4yrs? UFA's typically provide negative value because you are paying for past performance not future value. That is all but certain with the Backes signing. He will likely earn that contract for a year or two and then it is downhill. There is also zero upside to someone that has been in the league 10yrs. You know exactly what you are getting minus age regression.There are too many "I like him but 5 years is too much" in here. How many top 6 forwards who are unrestricted are going to sign 3 or 4 year todays this week? They have to overpay either in AAV or years or both with UFA.
Replacing Loui with Backes in effect is another matter. Not sure why they weren't comfortable going to 6 years with Loui. Would love to see them use Krejci for a D-man now.
Onward.
Yes, while all of that might be true, the alternative is to sign no free agents and not improve a team that needs a lot of improvement. You either overpay and bring in talent who eventually you will not want on your team, or you do nothing and bring back a team that missed the playoffs. If you get 3 good years out of Backes, then it was a good signing.No one was forcing them to overpay. The best move is often to do nothing. How many of the contracts handed out today will be bought out in 3-4yrs? UFA's typically provide negative value because you are paying for past performance not future value. That is all but certain with the Backes signing. He will likely earn that contract for a year or two and then it is downhill. There is also zero upside to someone that has been in the league 10yrs. You know exactly what you are getting minus age regression.
Backes for 3/18 would have been palatable. Those 2 extra years are going to be tough to swallow when this team is trying to compete at the end of the Bergeron era plus the influx of prospects.
This is just fantasyland though. That kind of a contract doesn't exist. It is the same as saying "If we signed him to a 5 year deal with team opt-outs after each year, it would have been a much better deal.". Sure. It would be. But it just isn't realistic in the free agent marketplace. For a top 6 forward, you have to go out 5 years and overpay. I think, if anything, it is a good deal in that they didn't go 6 or 7 years like many other teams have done already.Backes for 3/18 would have been palatable. Those 2 extra years are going to be tough to swallow when this team is trying to compete at the end of the Bergeron era plus the influx of prospects.
You can teach defense. He'll never get much bigger, but Spooner can be moved to a less defensively responsible position and be fine here, and he can be taught to play defense at his position. Backes can't get younger and faster. He is just going to get slower and less talented. The Bruins always act like young players are finished products. They're not.My problem is with your assumption or belief that Spooner is at least equal to Backes. He is objectively worse. Talent goes beyond being able to shimmy his hips and glide down the boards on the PP. Backes is a better player, and will be for the first few years of that contract. I have zero faith Spooner is going to figure out defense, although as j44thor notes, they will just move him to the LW if they can't find a deal to be had. As you correctly note, he has speed and the ability to make plays. Maybe that works better when he doesn't have to worry about his defensive responsibilities? Given his low cap hit, it's certainly worth a look if there isn't a deal to be had.
From Backes quotes, it appears the Bruins sold him on having strength down the middle with both him, Bergeron and Krejci. That certainly suggests they are going to go in with Krejci on the roster.
I am very interested to see how this works out. As cshea notes, if we keep the current roster they will have the deepest C core in hockey. That should work well for them.
Sure, and Matt Lashoff could be taught to be a better defensive defenseman. Joe Colborne could be taught to use his body. Steve Heinze could be taught how to not fall on his face for seemingly no damn reason. Lots of things can happen. That doesn't mean they will. You cannot just assume that a huge deficiency in a younger player can just be taught away, particularly when a major element of that deficiency comes from the player's body. Spooner can't be taught to be bigger. He can try to get stronger, but his frame may not hold the extra weight, and it may hurt his speed or agility. I like Spooner. His gifts on offense are obvious, but so are his deficiencies. He's just not a comparable player to David Backes.You can teach defense. He'll never get much bigger, but Spooner can be moved to a less defensively responsible position and be fine here, and he can be taught to play defense at his position. Backes can't get younger and faster. He is just going to get slower and less talented. The Bruins always act like young players are finished products. They're not.
General Fanager has him with a NMC through 2019Hopefully there's no NMC so he can be exposed in the expansion draft
If a team with Chara and bergeron has leadership issues then burn it to the ground.Sure, and Matt Lashoff could be taught to be a better defensive defenseman. Joe Colborne could be taught to use his body. Steve Heinze could be taught how to not fall on his face for seemingly no damn reason. Lots of things can happen. That doesn't mean they will. You cannot just assume that a huge deficiency in a younger player can just be taught away, particularly when a major element of that deficiency comes from the player's body. Spooner can't be taught to be bigger. He can try to get stronger, but his frame may not hold the extra weight, and it may hurt his speed or agility. I like Spooner. His gifts on offense are obvious, but so are his deficiencies. He's just not a comparable player to David Backes.
EDIT: On the Eriksson versus Backes front, you have to think locker room concerns were a big part. There has been plenty of talk that the team has lacked leadership and accountability the last couple years, and Eriksson never seemed like the "leadership" type, whereas Backes obviously has that reputaiton.
That's why I said it.There are over 100 nt an nm clauses in the nhl. It's time to stop with that narrative.
If player after player says that leadership is a problem in the clubhouse, then maybe you should actually stop and think to yourself "hmm, maybe leadership is a problem." Bergeron has never seemed to be a particularly vocal leader, and his reputation in that regard seems to agree that he's more of a "lead by example" than the "vocally demand accountability in the locker room". Even Chara seems to be more a "quiet" leader than a vocal guy. When Brad Marchand has to step up to be more vocal, you have a clear lack of vocal leadership. Backes brings that. It is absolutely a real issue.If a team with Chara and bergeron has leadership issues then burn it to the ground.
Bringing players in for their leadership or character should be about last on the list of attributes you look for, below even grit and sand paper
I mostly agree but there are exceptions. In 2011 the Sox collapsed because of chemistry rather than talent. The Bruins collapse last season to miss the playoffs seems like it could have been at least partially leadership especially after the season with Marchand's comments. The collapse was largely the defense though and they haven't improved.Chemistry follows winning, not the other way around. Why hockey is somehow different than anything else and you guys give this stuff so much weight on a supposed analytical board I have no idea.
.
I don't think you can just say that, I mean, Lackey's arm was literally hanging by a thread, Bard started to lose it, and they gave a ton of innings to 44-year-old Tim Wakefield. Pre-relief Andrew Miller had 2 terrible starts in September. That team's pitching was in really rough shape.I mostly agree but there are exceptions. In 2011 the Sox collapsed because of chemistry rather than talent. The Bruins collapse last season to miss the playoffs seems like it could have been at least partially leadership especially after the season with Marchand's comments. The collapse was largely the defense though and they haven't improved.