Re: David Backes is on waivers

9
1) he definitely should retire. Way too many concussions. Not worth it.

2) it also shows that Army is pretty smart when it comes to this stuff. He wouldn’t go the extra year and Backes walked......turned out to be a great move for the Blues. I feel very comfortable with what Army decides with respect to Petro. I just can’t see him going 8 years unless the dollars are right, but I’m good with whatever he decides.

Re: David Backes is on waivers

10
Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:07 pm I don't bring him back because honestly, I don't think the guy should be playing hockey anymore at this point. Take care of that brain man, you only get one.
His coach mentioned in a PD article that it was challenging to walk the line of playing him regularly with his concussion history, especially as it would likely be in a 4th line roll.

Re: David Backes is on waivers

11
Matangama wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:15 pm 1) he definitely should retire. Way too many concussions. Not worth it.

2) it also shows that Army is pretty smart when it comes to this stuff. He wouldn’t go the extra year and Backes walked......turned out to be a great move for the Blues. I feel very comfortable with what Army decides with respect to Petro. I just can’t see him going 8 years unless the dollars are right, but I’m good with whatever he decides.
Does Army get credit for being smart because Boston was even dumber than him in offering 5 versus the 4 Army wanted to give him?

That's like giving someone credit for also giving the wrong answer, but it was just slightly less wrong. Save that for the Price is Right
Just a Russian propaganda account

Re: David Backes is on waivers

12
Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:22 pm
Matangama wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:15 pm 1) he definitely should retire. Way too many concussions. Not worth it.

2) it also shows that Army is pretty smart when it comes to this stuff. He wouldn’t go the extra year and Backes walked......turned out to be a great move for the Blues. I feel very comfortable with what Army decides with respect to Petro. I just can’t see him going 8 years unless the dollars are right, but I’m good with whatever he decides.
Does Army get credit for being smart because Boston was even dumber than him in offering 5 versus the 4 Army wanted to give him?

That's like giving someone credit for also giving the wrong answer, but it was just slightly less wrong. Save that for the Price is Right
Dread, the answer would be “yes”. No, there is some truth in what you’re saying, although I think Army knew Backes wasn’t going to accept that offer. But kind of like the whole Pujols thing, the Cardinals got credit for passing on him when he very easily could have accepted their offer. Finally, I was the Valedictorian of summer school back in the day, so yes, being “less wrong” makes it right!

Re: David Backes is on waivers

14
ratonmono wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:28 pm Backes' time in the NHL is over. He was a warrior when he was here and I appreciate everything he brought but zero interest in seeing him involved with the Blues at all really other than some alumni stuff.
Dont get me wrong, I agree, 10 years is still 10 years. I'm for a 1 day contract and retirement. Everyone is always for" you have to do what's best for you and your family" and he did, hockey is a business , it doesn't take away from what he did here for years.

Re: David Backes is on waivers

15
BlueinNy wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:42 pm
ratonmono wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:28 pm Backes' time in the NHL is over. He was a warrior when he was here and I appreciate everything he brought but zero interest in seeing him involved with the Blues at all really other than some alumni stuff.
Dont get me wrong, I agree, 10 years is still 10 years. I'm for a 1 day contract and retirement. Everyone is always for" you have to do what's best for you and your family" and he did, hockey is a business , it doesn't take away from what he did here for years.
Once they leave here on their own, the door should be closed... same as with Pujols, I don't ever want to see him back here again for anything. Greed and ego can bite them both in the ass,

Re: David Backes is on waivers

17
Dave's a mess wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:55 pm I'm one who likes to have it both ways. I enjoyed beating him for the Cup, but don't mind welcoming him back. I've never said no to an extra $6 million. Besides I think he probably legitimately thought Boston was closer to a Cup. Oops!
Yeah he did, he was quoted saying "They get it" when talking about Boston after the signing.

Re: David Backes is on waivers

23
Ozzies09tc wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:43 pm
Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:07 pm I don't bring him back because honestly, I don't think the guy should be playing hockey anymore at this point. Take care of that brain man, you only get one.
We could bring him back like we did to Chris Thorburn...
Does hockey jesus have a long history of concussion issues? I honestly don't remember that storyline about him?
Just a Russian propaganda account

Re: David Backes is on waivers

24
Fuck this shit... he wasn't some second or third liner who walked away from a very fair offer from the Blues. He was the team captain who quit on his team.
He had his acknowledgement night, that's enough. No more Kumbaya moments. He moved on, and the Blues moved on... any more will just be an attempt to sell out the EC, which they don't really need any help with anyway. We are in a new era now.

Re: David Backes is on waivers

25
BillP. wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:59 pm
Dave's a mess wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:55 pm I'm one who likes to have it both ways. I enjoyed beating him for the Cup, but don't mind welcoming him back. I've never said no to an extra $6 million. Besides I think he probably legitimately thought Boston was closer to a Cup. Oops!
Yeah he did, he was quoted saying "They get it" when talking about Boston after the signing.
For the record I meant welcome him him back if he wants a non-player job. Loved his game back in the day but he's totally washed now.
...but whatever, the Blues won the Cup!!!!!