Bruins sign David Backes

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,393
Park Slope, Brooklyn
Backes has had at least 3 concussions that have caused him to miss games since 2014
'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.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
I love Backes' game, we desperately need a power forward to drive the net and be a net front presence. The deal itself is 1-2 years too long but it would have been very difficult to get him on a 3 year deal.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
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?
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
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?
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.

Spooner is one of the softest players I have ever watched. He has great speed, but in his own end of the ice is a complete and utter disaster. His defense, or complete lack thereof, is why they are having such a hard time moving him. He's a liability when he's on the ice, to the point where I think his best use is as a 4th line center and PP specialist. He is simply so bad in his own zone that it overwhelms any offensive contribution he can provide.

As for the defenseman thing, I agree. I think that is part of what they are doing now. Backes, FWIW, would slide right in as a RW if they can't get a deal. I agree with Flawless that exchanging out Backes for Eriksson is likely a net negative move. Although Backes physicality and leadership intangibles may prove more important in the short term than Eriksson's skill. Still, I think Donny is burning up the phones to trade for a defenseman, but is finding the prices are ridiculous.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I'd agree with that, I'm not much of a Spooner fan. He gets cratered in at 5x5, 46.8% CF. chase, chase, chase. He'a good off the counter and on the PP, but a liability in the defensive end.

We'll see what Sweeney says, but in all his interviews today, Backes has said that he's primarily here to play C. My reaction to that is that A) in the short term, the Bruins now have one of, if not they, deepest C trio in the East, and B) Spooner is gone.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Your part about Spooner is why I have never understood why the FO refused to play him at anything other than C. He does not fit the C position in Boston. Perhaps in DAL or another team with less defensive responsibility but he isn't a two way C which is more or less required in Boston. They move Seguin to W without a second thought but steadfastly refuse to move Spooner to W even though his most productive position is playing RW on the PP.

Biggest issue with Backes is he should be more or less graded on the Lucic age curve. Big strong PW just don't age like a Pavel Datsuyk. Backes may be 32 on paper but is probably closer to 34/35 healthwise. Just don't see him being productive beyond 2-3 yrs.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
Spooner is young, fast, and talented. Sweeney said he wanted the team to add speed and skill. Then they sign Backes. I like Backes 5 years ago. If we signed him to a deal like this then, I would agree he was a top 2 center I would have loved to add. He isn't going to be a top 2 center level talent for much of that contract. He might not be that level of talent for any of the contract. So you can enjoy watching the team get slower and less talented if you want, but I don't have to like it. This is exactly the type of player the Bruins have been chasing after for years and getting worse with.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
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.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
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.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
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.
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.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
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.
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.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
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.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
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.
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.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,874
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
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.
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
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
There are over 100 nt an nm clauses in the nhl. It's time to stop with that narrative.
 

PedroSpecialK

Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL sa
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2004
27,164
Cambridge, MA
Something Kirk has alluded to that I buy is the lack of guys like Ference, Recchi, and Thornton over the past few seasons. Even when Kelly was hurt, his absence in the room was felt (I doubt Rinaldo, Kemppainen, or Hayes were giving rousing speeches in his stead).

Backes is more vocal than Chara or Bergeron, and has been a respected leader for the better part of a decade. While I hate the 5 year term of this deal, I can appreciate the short term impact of having a guy like him in the fold - and I know it'll be nice watching him in years 1-2 of this deal at the very least.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,874
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
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.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Not to mention we have no idea what goes on in the locker room. I remember a lot of people were surprised that Kelly was given an A after his first year but I also recall several guys, Boychuk in a particular T&R interview for some random reason, pointing to Kelly as being one of the best locker room guys he had played with. We perceive Bergy and Z as good leaders but that's primarily because they're the best players and they wear the letters on their jerseys. But the letters don't always correspond to the best leaders and there can sometimes be serious internal damage if you remove one from somebody.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
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.

The team had supposed glue guys in Kelly Campbell and Thornton for years and they both won and lost with them, exceeding expectations at times and disappointing at times. It matters on the margins but it's incredibly overrated by lazy writers and Pierre McGuire.

Anyway, this is an overpay like most UFA deals, but if the plan is to trade Krejci for a defenseman then it makes some sense - Basically trading Krejci for Backes and say Shattenkirk seems like a good deal to me and you'd still have cap space, not that there's anyone else left.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Because the game, and any sport for that matter, isn't played by robots so analytics are only a part of the equation.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,232
Falmouth
Hockey is different from a cultural standpoint as well as a stylistic one. Additionally, analytics are very new to hockey and face significant challenges to measuring the game given its fluidity.

Also kenneycb.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,323
Boston
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 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.
 

McDrew

Set Adrift on Memory Bliss
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,060
Portland, OR
After looking at the breakdown of the contract (8/8/6/4/4), that's a very friendly trade-to-a-team-at-the-cap-floor contract after the first 3 years. Yes, he can limit his destinations, but still.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
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.
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.

Certainly chemistry has some role. But even going with that, how do we know that Backes will get along with the players already here? It's not like a guy has a "ChemCorsi" score, it's a complicated relationship of personalities between the new player(s), the current players, the coaches, and so on. And we think the FO can predict that?

Why didn't cup champion Max Talbot help last year?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Just because you cannot quantify something, doesn't mean it is bullshit. Player acquisition is about risk taking. They took a risk on a guy with a good reputation as a leader. It's not like they brought in Joe fucking Corvo to bend the locker room into shape. Recchi was a good risk, for example. As was Chara and immediately handing him the C.

Comparing Backes to Talbot is lazy and dumb, so I'm not even going to address that point.