On Mikael Backlund

Kent Wilson
September 07 2010 10:12AM

UNIONDALE, NY - MARCH 25: Mikael Backlund #60 of the Calgary Flames flips the puck into the offensive zone past Jeff Tambellini #15 of the New York Islanders during an NHL game at the Nassau Coliseum on March 25, 2010 in Uniondale, New York. (Photo by Paul Bereswill/Getty Images)

 

With the recent news that Daymond Langkow is nearing 100% and is probable to play a majority of the season (if not all 82 games), the chances that Mikael Backlund is inevtiably bound for Abbotsford are good. This will no doubt cause some consternation in a portion of the Flames fanbase. Perhaps not without reason.

The push to develop and promote youngsters in the post-lock-out NHL has a rational basis. It's something I've made noises about in the past; there's a great deal of potential value to be mined from entry level contracts. In a capped environment, a productive kid can be orders of magnitude more efficient in terms of his contribution-to-cap-hit ratio than a veteran - assuming of course he doesn't hit all of his bonuses (right Chicago?).

The recent success of franchises boasting young stars has heightened the perceived need for homegrown talent. Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin spring to mind. Stanley Cups and Presidents Trophies have accrued to the clubs with indigenous (rather than mercenary) talent bases - not only is the first three years of s fresh-faced star relatively cheap, it's a lot easier to keep them around than bid for their talents on the open market. 

Flames fans appetites for a franchise-bred forward stretches beyond general rationales, however. One can point to the teams pitiful goals for total and disappointing finish to the season last year as further impetus to aggressively promote from within, but the reality is the fanbase is starving for fresh talent because the organization has largely failed to draft and develop a forward of note for almost two decades.

Aside from some recent, moderate success stories (David Moss, Matthew Lombardi, Eric Nystrom), the Flames organization has been almost totally unable to internally generate NHL-level forward talent. The picture grows dimmer the higher up the depth chart you climb: only two legitimate, "top six" forwards have been produced by this org since 1990: Cory Stillman (selected  6th overall in 1992) and...Jarome Iginla (11th overall 1995), who wasn't even drafted by the club. That's a pretty grim record over a 20 year period (and some 200 draft picks). I haven't done an exhaustive inquiry into the rate of forward stars yielded from draft choices over that time frame, but I'm guessing the Flames are well below what one could expect from chance alone.

As such, Backlund represents a sort of messianistic bright star of hope. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be an oasis for parched fans wearily trudging through a seemingly endless desert of disappointment and mediocrity. 

The truth is, the hype and expectations surrounding the young center have been grotesquely augmented by this sustained lack of homegrown forward talent. Water is the sweetest wine to the thirsty. However, there's precious little evidence that Backlund is indeed the sort of talent that can step in and provide value at this point in his development curve. I say this having been a tireless cheerleader and supporter of the kid since he was drafted.The tools are there. The results just aren't though.

A wash-out in the lesser Swedish pro league (HockeyAllsvenskan) as a teenager, Backlund was capable but not dominant in his AHL debut for the Heat last year (15 goals, 32 points in 54 games). And while his potential was on display at times during his cup-o-coffee with the parent club, the ultimate results of his 24 game audition with Calgary were mostly underwhelming given the circumstances in which he was deployed (soft match-ups, lots of offensive zone draws, etc). With the Flames currently boasting no less than four established NHL centermen (Conroy, Langkow, Jokinen and Stajan) and the ever fading hopes of making noise in the post-season, there's little reason to expect Backlund to make the leap this year - I can't detect an internal call to develop him at the NHL level given Sutter's off-season acquisitions, nor did Backlund convince anyone last year that he was sufficiently beyond the competition at the AHL level anyways.

There's a possbility that something changes drastically once the puck drops of course: perhaps Mikael takes a step forward and knocks it out of the park for the Heat, all but forcing the decision makers to recall him. Perhaps one of the big boys goes down for an extended period of time and Backlund is able to unambiguously prove his worth in the big leagues (a la David Moss a few years ago). However, given what we know about the player and the Flames situation as a whole, I wouldn't bet on Backlund having an impact on the 2010-11 Calgary Flames.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1
September 07 2010, 06:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Thank you for this article on Backlund.

You're assessment is dead on.

He did not show that he was NHL ready last year.

The AHL is definitely where he should be until he is ready.

Avatar
#2 MC Hockey
September 13 2010, 09:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Hi Kent, Very good article. If the first 20 games such, I wish the Flames would go into re-build mode and dump about 5 veteran forwards and 2 vet D let Backlund, Nemisz, Cameron, Wahl, Brodie, and others play already!

Avatar
#3 Gange
September 07 2010, 11:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Sadly, I agree Kent.

The best news this summer was the turnover in the scouting staff. Someone needs to ask "Who replaces Iginla in a couple years?"

Avatar
#4 Greg
September 07 2010, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"I haven't done an exhaustive inquiry into the rate of forward stars yielded from draft choices over that time frame, but I'm guessing the Flames are well below what one could expect from chance alone."

That's something I'd like to see. I feel like we're pathetic in drafting and development, but sometimes I wonder if that's just perception. The reality is we've never drafted in the top 5, and haven't had a pick in the top 20 in 7 years either. Is it possible that collective perception is more of a function of our draft position than poor selections? Is there an 'advanced stat' we could make to show that? :)

As for Backlund, I don't foresee him becoming a top line player anymore based on the results he's produced thus far. But if he can develop into a decent 2nd line player, say 50-60 points with good 2-way play, I think that's pretty good for a #24 pick.

Avatar
#5 Gange
September 07 2010, 01:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

2000 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2000e.html

2001 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2001e.html

2002 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2002e.html

2003 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2003e.html

2004 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2004e.html

2005 Draft http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2005e.html

I won't post any other years at this time but I shake my head at all the talent left on the table. Some were homeruns some were just solid talent.

What they ended up drafting was more often than not just flotsam.

May I suggest that Ryan Getzlaf would have looked great in the Flaming C especially with today's woes. Or Jeff Carter, or Zach Parise, or Corey Perry...and that's just 2003

I guess my point is that if they had the scouting in place there would have been better reads on these kids. Hindsight is 20/20 but you would think even through luck they'd get more NHL calibre players

I'd love to see a comparison of draft records and see how Calgary fares in NHL players playing more than one season for the team that drafted them

Avatar
#7 Nolan
September 07 2010, 03:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just in conjunction, i've always thought the 2 worst teams in terms of drafting are the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Calgary Flames.

Here's what I found since the 1990 draft. Yup those are the only 2 of any real note that have been brought up by the Flames. Since then the Flames have drafted about 13 D-men in the first 3 rounds, only Dion made any time of real impact, 35+ in subsequent rounds, no real impact players. They did surprisingly make over 30 picks of forwards in the first 3 rounds (most in the 2nd and 3rd) with only really 1 or 2 players of note, 80+ in the other rounds. There were 4 goalies in the first 3, (3 of them in the first), a couple have seen NHL action mostly as an emergency call up, 13 in the other rounds.

Interestingly in 1997 they had 6 in the first 3 rounds, all but 1 (a goalie) were forwards, 2 never saw the NHL. Collectively, they played 74 games scored 8 goals and had 15 assists.

In the 1996 draft the Flames selected Ryan Wade, who never saw the NHL and passed over Thomas Kaberle who was taken 2 spots later. But a less than 1% success of creating long term NHL players isnt very good. You would hope that at least out of every 2 years, 1 player would become an everyday player with maybe 1 player in 4 years would be a good player.

Also, of those about 200 players drafted 2 of them were Sutters, both in late rounds. The Flames do need better amateur scouting and the status quo wont cut it.

Avatar
#8 Monaertchi
September 07 2010, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Somewhere, sometime (but I don't remember where or when) I read something along the lines of:

If a team just stuck with the NHL's central scouting report, it would fall into just about the averge of drafting. Meaning that Calgary's scouting department has hurt this team over the years by drafting players who didn't turn out to be good, just like central scouting said they wouldn't.

Of course, I could be imagining the whole thing.

Avatar
#10 JF
September 07 2010, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Yes, the Flames Draft record is horrible. I can't tell you how annoyed I was when Sutter said that Karil Kabanov was the kind of player you only take when you have an excess amount of top 100 picks... um' why? if your top pick is a third rounder with a statistical likelihood of being a NHL'er at around 5% you have to assume that in all probability the guy you take is going to bust so why not take the guy with top of the line-up ceiling?

It really grinds my gears when I see the Sutter apolagists declaring that he's had to draft "safe" picks... no guys, if he were drafting "safe" picks we'd be seeing a higher ratio of pick to legit NHL player (even if they were of the 3-4 line/4-6 d-man variety)... instead all he's been doing is drafting mid-low ceiling guys without, seemingly, a higher floor.

Avatar
#11 Austin
September 07 2010, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Unless backlund wows people at training camp, he'll be sent to abbotsford. There's always the probability that one of the four steady centers (joker, connie, stajan and lanks) could get injured for an extended amount of time, then, Backlund would surely be the call up guy. Maybe if even one of the wingers gets injured but thats very doubtful.

Maybe with our new scouts we signed this year , we can get something done! UGH! It kills me to see all of the wasted drafts, now i know why sutter gives away all his draft picks (he still shouldn't though)

Avatar
#12 the-wolf
September 07 2010, 04:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JF

Passing on a guy with consensus top 5 talent in the 3rd round was ignorant. Especially with 2 picks there.

It'd be interesting to compare a team that swings for the fences vs. one that plays it safe to see who has more success. Hard comparison to come by though over any length of time.

As for NHL Central Scouting, you'd probably do even better as a team with the THN Draft Preview.

Avatar
#13 walkinvisible
September 07 2010, 04:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

it frustrates me to no end that old man conroy will get playing time over mickis not because he's better (which is debatable), but simply because he's CHEAPER.

this team is so cap-pressed, that i'm not even sure mickis'll be the first call-up if someone goes down with injury. there just won't be the cap space left for replacement players of his ilk (or pelech's) without some SERIOUS salary restructuring in the next weeks.

i'm lookin' at you, staotalik.

Avatar
#14 Luc
September 07 2010, 05:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

# 10 Calgary Eric Nystrom # 11 Buffalo Keith Ballard # 12 Washington Steve Eminger # 13 Washington Alexander Semin # 14 Mtl. Canadiens Chris Higgins

2002 draft.

dont get me wrong i liked nystrom but good lord.

Avatar
#15 JF
September 07 2010, 07:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@

I dunno, I think he did show that he's NHL ready... he didn't show that he was top 6/tough comp ready but I thought he showed that he could play in the NHL.

Avatar
#16 Austin
September 07 2010, 07:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JF

He IS NHL ready, I agree 100 percent. He should go on the third line, unless thats the 'heavy lifting line' thats not what Backlund does. I really hate the Sutters for re-signing Jokinen. Since its only for two years, if he does not whats expected, he won't be resigned, and Connie is going to retire after this season. There'll definately be openings after this season.

Avatar
#17 SmellOfVictory
September 07 2010, 07:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
walkinvisible wrote:

it frustrates me to no end that old man conroy will get playing time over mickis not because he's better (which is debatable), but simply because he's CHEAPER.

this team is so cap-pressed, that i'm not even sure mickis'll be the first call-up if someone goes down with injury. there just won't be the cap space left for replacement players of his ilk (or pelech's) without some SERIOUS salary restructuring in the next weeks.

i'm lookin' at you, staotalik.

The difference between Conroy and Backlund, though, is that you can throw Connie to the wolves without having to worry. Even if Backlund has the potential to handle that kind of pressure, I think most people can agree he hasn't reached it, and full sink-or-swim is a risky way to develop a prospect.

Avatar
#18 Austin
September 07 2010, 08:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@SmellOfVictory

agreed, we don't wanna just throw away our top prospect. By the way, I don't know how close Wahl and Nemisz are to making the jump, or if they even will. wat do u guys think

Avatar
#19 robficiur
September 07 2010, 09:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The real question is what is best for Michael Backlund's career.

If he was not a point per game player in the AHL in one year. 32 points in 52 AHL Games... That is okay, but not dominating.

Realistically most players are going to get more AHL points than NHL points. So based on last year Backlund in 52 NHL games would get somehwere between 20-25 points.

He won't get power play time in Calgary. He will be third line with limited offensive linemates.

However, in the AHL he would have a second season to estbliash his skill and build his confidence. In 2012, he would have the confidencen and skill to make the NHL as a second line center. (maybe) He is 21 now... that would make him 22. Not ideal but still doable.

In conclusion I think of Jimmmy Carson. Only two players have scored 100 NHL goals before they were 20 years old. Jimmy Carson did that with the LA Kings. By the time he was 25 he had lost all his confidence (for whatever reason) and was trying to make it wherever...

Better to build the player slow and get it right than the destroy his confidence by rushing him.

Avatar
#20 Section 216
September 07 2010, 09:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Most if not all Hockey previews have Backlund in the Calder hunt.

I think he'd be valuable on the Flames, just because he brings that youthful skill type of player the Flames have been lacking. I hope he'll be in Flames colors come October 7th and I think he'll show enough at Training Camp and in the preseason to show the Sutter Brain Trust he deserves to be here.

Avatar
#21 walkinvisible
September 08 2010, 12:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@SmellOfVictory

The difference between Conroy and Backlund, though, is that you can throw Connie to the wolves without having to worry. Even if Backlund has the potential to handle that kind of pressure, I think most people can agree he hasn't reached it, and full sink-or-swim is a risky way to develop a prospect.

agreed to a certain extent.... but at some point you have to give your draftees a chance and shake loose the vets (even the good ones like conny). i'm not saying this is mickis' year, but i'm suggesting that actual in-game NHL experience is something that the flames rarely give their youngsters, and is mandatory for the natural growth of a club.

Avatar
#22 SmellOfVictory
September 08 2010, 01:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
walkinvisible wrote:
The difference between Conroy and Backlund, though, is that you can throw Connie to the wolves without having to worry. Even if Backlund has the potential to handle that kind of pressure, I think most people can agree he hasn't reached it, and full sink-or-swim is a risky way to develop a prospect.

agreed to a certain extent.... but at some point you have to give your draftees a chance and shake loose the vets (even the good ones like conny). i'm not saying this is mickis' year, but i'm suggesting that actual in-game NHL experience is something that the flames rarely give their youngsters, and is mandatory for the natural growth of a club.

Agreed on that. If he could be put on a sheltered line/PP unit (with solid linemates) for 15 min a game in the NHL, that would be awesome.

Avatar
#24 Nolan
September 08 2010, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

While I want to believe Backlund has the tools, I hate how the Flames squander these prospects in the A or putting them on the lower lines and stunt their growth. I dont' think he is a superstar but I believe he has the ability to be a top 6 forward. Unfortunately for cap reasons he'll be playing in Abbotsford because Darryl cant' manage the cap.

Avatar
#25 Marcus
September 08 2010, 10:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't know why this kid's numbers are what people evaluate to give final word on his near future. The kid played major third line minutes on the farm in order to get seasoned and when he played with Jarome he was almost a point a game. He may play wing if he has to but Sutters know hockey and they see current potential in this kid that most of you don't. Conroy can take a bow with his horrible plus minus and lack of scoring to balance it out Mark my words he does not make this team out of camp.

Avatar
#26 icedawg_42
September 08 2010, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think Connie plays his 9 games for his silver stick, then heads to BC.

Avatar
#27 calgary 6 edmonton 0
September 08 2010, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What more does Backlund have to do??? He played his heart out to make an impression on the Flames only to be brushed aside for who? 38 year old Conroy? He's already on his second year of his contract and when it comes time to renew his contract he's gonna harness resentment toward the club and milk them! If he doesn't play this year it may send the wrong message to him and affect his progression as a player. Maybe.

Avatar
#28 Greg
September 08 2010, 04:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

I think Connie plays his 9 games for his silver stick, then heads to BC.

I don't think it'll be after 9 games, but yes, I could definitely see him being a healthy-scratch/farm-hand by the end of the season in favor of some younger blood. Will still be nice to see him get his silver stick though.

For those still lamenting Kabanov, I'm not a Sutter defender (any more) but I've said before, there were 60+ picks made before where every other GM passed on him too, and it says a lot that the Islanders were the team that finally bit. I don't think you can harp on Sutter for that. Now as for everything else he's done in 2010, be my guest...

Avatar
#29 Greg
September 08 2010, 08:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Sounds like Dawes has finally been picked up... 2 way - $600K (or $100 in the A) with Atlanta. Boy am I ever glad Sutter bought out this contract, that $250K we were over paying for him was killing our cap position. Oh wait, now we're overpaying him $142K... for 2 more years. ???

What would be perfect now is if Atlanta sent him to the farm, and the flames claimed him off waivers. We'd save about $100K on the cap, and we could add to our collection of former players we ran out of town and then brought back for cheaper this season. :)

Interestingly, Potulny signed for a very similar contract today too, and his stats were nearly identical, so that must be the right number for that type of player in this market. Puzzling that Sutter could spot that price correctly, yet completely blow it on the Staotalik contract.

On a more serious note, I didn't realize Dawes' shooting percentage was nearly 15% this past season. How come no one has commented on that and a likely regression-to-the-mean for him this year?

Avatar
#30 M F
September 08 2010, 09:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Greg

It's likely that his shooting percentage will drop somewhere near his career mean next year (11.5%), but that wasn't the reason we were angry when he got bought out. He played pretty tough minutes a lot of the season and didn't get his head bashed in, which is pretty reasonable when you are paying the guy 850K. He also had the best relative CORSI of full time forwards and had a positive penalty differential (+9).

Avatar
#31 Austin
September 08 2010, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@M F

He's a good 2nd or third liner to have around, do you think he'll crack the second line full time in Atlanta??

Avatar
#32 SmellOfVictory
September 08 2010, 11:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
M F wrote:

It's likely that his shooting percentage will drop somewhere near his career mean next year (11.5%), but that wasn't the reason we were angry when he got bought out. He played pretty tough minutes a lot of the season and didn't get his head bashed in, which is pretty reasonable when you are paying the guy 850K. He also had the best relative CORSI of full time forwards and had a positive penalty differential (+9).

Don't get me wrong, I wish the Flames still had Dawes, but the guy spent the majority of the season with Calgary's two best possession forwards. You could probably put Ivanans with Langkow and Bourque and his advanced stats would look reasonable. Good value for the contract, but I feel as though people might be overstating his abilities a little.

Avatar
#35 Danny Lawson
September 09 2010, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Backlund has yet show he belongs with the Flames and with the clubs current salary cap problems, he's a player that can be easily moved to Abbostford. The Flames prospects cupboard is very marginal at best and will take a few years to be stocked. IMO the Flames are an injury away to a key player, i.e. Kipper or Jarome, from finding themselves in Oiler-like trouble this season. Should that happen, the club could be a contender for a lottery pick which could mean, a blue chip prospect.

Avatar
#36 PrairieStew
September 10 2010, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I am all for Backlund staying in Abbotsford - because - as I said at M & G, with the centres on the roster now he'd be playing on the 4th line with Thing One and Thing Two getting maybe 6 minutes a game, and that is nonsensical. If one of the top 3 guys gets hurt, then OK - bring him up, but I'd almost prefer Stone to fill in if it is short term. I'd like to see Backlund get 20 + minutes for a whole year so it can be determined if he is a player or not.

The secondary thing is there is bunch of new guys in Abby this year all in that 20-22 age bracket - perhaps they can grow together and make the jump over the next 1-3 years.

Comments are closed for this article.