kehatch Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Langkow will be 35 next season. He was injured most of last season with what many thought was a career ending injury. Even prior to last season he saw his points total in decline. Prior to his injury Langkow was still a very effective defensive centre. Something the Flames dearly lacked last season. He also makes players like Bourque better. However, can he bring that level of game post injury. It may not be the classiest of moves. However, with Drury's buy-out anything is possible. They can also spin it. Langkow gets his money and gets to retire without risking further injury. If they did this they save 3-million this season. It costs them 1.5-million next season, but they have a ton of salary clearing then anyways. If you combine that with the departure of a player like Kotalik then you havee 6-million in cap savings. Enough to sign Tanguay and perhaps make a move. You can also do this immediately. You can't demote Kotalik until September limiting your options in the off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 it's a possibility, though I wouldn't like it. If it were to happen, Stajan suddenly has a role on the team again, so that's another + anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 It may not be the classiest of moves. However, with Drury's buy-out anything is possible. They can also spin it. Langkow gets his money and gets to retire without risking further injury. Spin it? What if Langkow doesn't want to retire and isn't done playing, how does it look then? I wouldn't support this idea. People like to bring up his lack of production in 09'/10', that was an extremely offensively deficient team, and Langkow was 3'rd on the team in scoring, so what does that tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted June 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Spin it? What if Langkow doesn't want to retire and isn't done playing, how does it look then? I wouldn't support this idea. People like to bring up his lack of production in 09'/10', that was an extremely offensively deficient team, and Langkow was 3'rd on the team in scoring, so what does that tell you. He saw a big decline in 08/09 as well and the team didn't have any trouble scoring that season. He saw a drop off in 07/08 as well. I am not aware of many cases where a 35 year old declines offensively in four consecutive seasons, has an injury the extent of Langkow's, and then has a big rebound season. You can probably expect 30 or so points from Langkow. If Langkow is adamant he wants to play then that is something the Flames will have to consider. However, he may be open to the oppurtunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 If Langkow is adamant he wants to play then that is something the Flames will have to consider. However, he may be open to the oppurtunity. Your stretching here. Why would he be open to the opportunity? He spent more than a year trying to recover from a serious injury in order to return to the Flames. You obviously think his contract is a burden, are are trying to think of any possible reason we could get rid of it. It's not gonna be the best contract in the world I agree with you, but it's not the worst contract we have. Also, with regard to declining production, what 35 year old had a year off to recuperate the mind and body after however many NHL seasons? Langks just might surprise you, time will tell. But I don't think a contract buy-out is something the Flames would consider. It's bad PR, bad player relations, and it isn't really necessary; we have worse contracts and Langks' contract isn't preventing us from doing anything IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted June 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Your stretching here. Why would he be open to the opportunity? He spent more than a year trying to recover from a serious injury in order to return to the Flames. You obviously think his contract is a burden, are are trying to think of any possible reason we could get rid of it. It's not gonna be the best contract in the world I agree with you, but it's not the worst contract we have. Also, with regard to declining production, what 35 year old had a year off to recuperate the mind and body after however many NHL seasons? Langks just might surprise you, time will tell. But I don't think a contract buy-out is something the Flames would consider. It's bad PR, bad player relations, and it isn't really necessary; we have worse contracts and Langks' contract isn't preventing us from doing anything IMO. I don't think Langkow is going to ask to be bought out. But I think if the oppurtunity presents itself I don't think he is going to end up on Sportnet complaining about his unfair treatment. It may be what makes the most sense for him and his family. As for a year off to recuperate? He was on light duty with almost no excercise. He lost signficant muscle mass and cardio. He was recovering from a major injury. Your fooling yourself if you think he is going to return to form because he had a year off. Is it necessary? I guess it depends. Assuming they sign Tanguay for 4-million then they are already at around 63-million. That is with Kotalik gone and without signing Babchuk. Hagman is another buy-out option, but he is a million less. That also doesn't help our logjam at centre. We make believe a bunch of salary dumps. But the reality is the Flames don't have a bunch of realistic options. Buying Langkow out is an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I don't think Langkow is going to ask to be bought out. But I think if the oppurtunity presents itself I don't think he is going to end up on Sportnet complaining about his unfair treatment. It may be what makes the most sense for him and his family. As for a year off to recuperate? He was on light duty with almost no excercise. He lost signficant muscle mass and cardio. He was recovering from a major injury. Your fooling yourself if you think he is going to return to form because he had a year off. Is it necessary? I guess it depends. Assuming they sign Tanguay for 4-million then they are already at around 63-million. That is with Kotalik gone and without signing Babchuk. Hagman is another buy-out option, but he is a million less. That also doesn't help our logjam at centre. We make believe a bunch of salary dumps. But the reality is the Flames don't have a bunch of realistic options. Buying Langkow out is an option. Langkow has shown zero interest and has given no signs of wanting to retire (to the outside world). So to suggest that the Flames buy him out and think that there will be no PR or player relation repercussions when Langkow comes out and says he had fully intended on playing on the team this season or signs with another club is far fetched. We are just under the presumed salary cap for next season with Kotalik and Ivanans not counting, Babchuck not resigning, and Tanguay at $4 you are right. But Tanguay will likely sign for less than $4 mil and the ownership group has shown the bankroll to put roster players in the minors, so I don't think they are as hard pressed against the cap as you make it out to be. Besides which I think Hagman has more trade value than Langkow (although both are close to, if not under 0) so Hagman to me would be the preferred buy-out option, or AHL option. I can say Langks could surprise and you can say he could disappoint, but neither of us will know until October. I suspect we'll get the chance to see how it shakes out one way or the other (because he's not going anywhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Langkow A Buy-out Candidate? Well, now that Langkow has returned to the ice, i think it would be okay to buy him out. If he was still recovering and working hard to get back into the line-up for next season and the Flames decided to cut him loose, that that would create a huge backlash in the Flames locker room. Nobody wants to lose their job after literally, breaking their back for the organization. A lot of players are watching the Langkow situation closely so from a team building perspective, it might be worth it to keep Langkow. From a hockey perspective, Langkow is totally overpaid for what he brings to the table. Why pay a guy $4.5-mil "hoping" he can return to $4.5-mil output when you can sign a UFA to $2-mil with potential for $4.5-mil output? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis23 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Well, now that Langkow has returned to the ice, i think it would be okay to buy him out. If he was still recovering and working hard to get back into the line-up for next season and the Flames decided to cut him loose, that that would create a huge backlash in the Flames locker room. Nobody wants to lose their job after literally, breaking their back for the organization. A lot of players are watching the Langkow situation closely so from a team building perspective, it might be worth it to keep Langkow. From a hockey perspective, Langkow is totally overpaid for what he brings to the table. Why pay a guy $4.5-mil "hoping" he can return to $4.5-mil output when you can sign a UFA to $2-mil with potential for $4.5-mil output? For team chemestry. Iginla and Tanguay really appreciate Langkow and if they buy him out after what he's been through, I think they would be a little bit pissed considering Langkow has only one year left and is a player that cannot hurt you even if he's overpaid. I am pretty sure he can still net 20 good goals, be a good PKer and who knows? Rarely a 2M player will play like a 4.5M one. Rather just stick to Langkow who's been well-appreciated in this dressing room for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosn111 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Wow, there are a ton of emotions for a thread premise based on a question. The facts as stated by both sides of the argument: Pro: Money saving Pro: Protect a loyal players health Pro: Fixes log jam Pro: Allows a re-signing of a top line player Con: He may not be ready to retire Con: Public relations issues Con: Player relation Issues To look at the cons first. Being that Langkow has shown his loyalties and dedication to the Flames, I am sure that they would not simply buy him out without consulting him first. As for public relations issues, the whole Kotalik situation doesn't look great as he was buried in the AHL and will likely head to the K instead of being buried again. There are too many players with too many contracts at too high of a price right now. Buying out Langkow or adding a veteran player like Hagman to the list of Buried in the AHL carry similar Player Relations issues. Calgary has no choice but to do something that may look bad in Player relations. Obviously something needs to happen with contracts. The issue comes down to this: "Who is the player that will be willing to sacrifice their place on the team for the betterment of the team?" This means who will waive their NMC, take a buyout / retire, make the choice to head overseas. Make these options available to the various players early. Openly give Kotalik, Hagman and even Stajan the option to pursue options overseas if they choose. Offer 3 possible options to Langkow other than playing out the season with the Flames. 1 is the option to retire and join the Flames in another job like they did with Conroy, 2 is the option to outright retire and do whatever he wants, 3 is to accept a buyout. These are simply options. You ask them for their input and their willingness to examine the possibilities. By providing them with these open options, you have them make the decisions which is better player and public relations situations. Kotalik, Hagman and Stajan could easily make millions in the KHL. Maybe a year in Russia would help Stajan similar to what happened with Giordano. Langkow has the option of still making money with the Flames either through a buyout or retiring and taking a job with the organization. I could see him as a scout or assistant coach, maybe go to the Heat to help Playfair develop two way players. Giving players some specific options for trades with respect to NMC's would improve player relations rather than be a detriment. JBo, Sarich, Regehr, Bourque and Stajan could all be possibilities for this. Regehr would be the least likely in my opinion. He has played his entire career in Calgary, is a Saskatchewan boy and unless he is driven to win a cup NOW I don't see him wanting to move. Again this is providing them with the option to choose a team they would like Calgary to try and deal with, not a guarantee of a move by any means. Essentially if any of these players accept one of the options above, then you are essentially receiving the same benefits. I am not abdicating that any of these are a great option, or better than any other option. They each have merit in their own right as POSSIBILITIES. So in response to the OP's initial question of: "Is Langkow a buy out candidate?" then the answer is "yes he is a buy out candidate". Does this mean I support a buyout of Langkow, if he agrees to it then yes, if that is the only option to make cap space and still field a competitive team then yes. I do not think this is the only option and thus should not be completed until all other options are eliminated from contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhabums Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Spin it? What if Langkow doesn't want to retire and isn't done playing, how does it look then? I wouldn't support this idea. People like to bring up his lack of production in 09'/10', that was an extremely offensively deficient team, and Langkow was 3'rd on the team in scoring, so what does that tell you. Then he can sign elsewhere. The game also happens to be a business in which the employees are paid really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCF Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 I suggested this about a month or more ago, and is something I would do. Not an ideal situation, but I think it is more honourable than asking someone to waive their NTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 it's not unheard of for a player to be bought out then signed by the same team for less. just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhabums Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 it's not unheard of for a player to be bought out then signed by the same team for less. just a thought. What would this accomplish? Some savings this year, extra hit next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 What would this accomplish? Some savings this year, extra hit next year? that's kind of how it would work anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Wow, there are a ton of emotions for a thread premise based on a question. The facts as stated by both sides of the argument: Pro: Money saving Pro: Protect a loyal players health Pro: Fixes log jam Pro: Allows a re-signing of a top line player That is a terrible argument. We have been told by the Flames that Langkow is not under any increased risk of future injury because of what he's been through. By this thinking we should buy-out Iginla as well, to "protect" him from sustaining an injury Then he can sign elsewhere. The game also happens to be a business in which the employees are paid really well. You missed my intent. If he did sign with another team, the optics look horrible for the Flames because it will be well known Langkow didn't support a buy-out. it's not unheard of for a player to be bought out then signed by the same team for less. just a thought. Who has done this recently? If I recall the player only gets 2/3 of his salary on a buy-out is that correct? If so, I can see there being some hard feelings. There seems to be some real support for this. I understand where you are coming from guys, I really do. I just don't think it will come to that, I have confidence that Feaster will be able to somehow move additional salary above Kotalik's contract AND resign Tanguay and Karlsson. You can't deny the optics will look horrible if the Flames buy him out, especially if he wins the Masterson trophy. Core player the organization signed long term, fights for a year to come back from a horrific injury and then the club cuts him loose because they think he's grossly overpaid? Yikes. In any event, please stop trying to spin it like we'd be doing Langkow a favor by buying him out, because he made his triumphant return and now he should be happy to sit on the couch all day or behind a desk. He's given no indication that he plans on doing anything other than playing hockey next year, so let's assume the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Who has done this recently? If I recall the player only gets 2/3 of his salary on a buy-out is that correct? If so, I can see there being some hard feelings. The Ottawa Senators on Daniel Alfredsson. Clearly no hard feelings there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCF Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 it's not unheard of for a player to be bought out then signed by the same team for less. just a thought. Cross would probably know better than me, but I do not believe that is allowed under the new CBA. Here are the numbers: http://bit.ly/i60e4y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The Ottawa Senators on Daniel Alfredsson. Clearly no hard feelings there. That wasn't technically a buy-out, the club/player optional years on his old contract were not enacted so that they could sign him to a new contract, but this incurred a small salary payment as a "penalty" for not exercising the options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_incendiarse Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 No players can't return after being bought out, if it was possible then it would have already happened ex. McCarty. I don't think he needs to be bought out, or that it fixes a log jam at center. If anything he is the guy who can fill more roles than any of the others. I mean do people want Stajan as a checking line center, or how about keeping Jokinen matched up against other teams top lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The 4 games @ the end of the season were a test. I prefer he tests himself @ the beginning of the season & we let him decide for himself. If he's doing well we've got a good player back. If he finds it too hard & realizes he can't contribute anymore he'll probably opt for retirement. I see him as 1 of those players that has too much pride to simply play out the string & be remembered as someone that tried to stay too long. He might even decide during training camp that he can't handle this for 82 games & approach management about a buyout with him supporting it in the media with a good spin on it. If he decided after 10 or so games we've suddenly got cap space to make trades or offers to the UFAs that weren't signed over the summer (& after sitting/waiting that long they'll usually sign fairly cheap as they want to play). Buying him out would be a PR disaster. Remember how POed people were when Theo wasn't signed after his comeback attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharding21 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 are team is strawberry we need to build are team like the canucks the sedins are awsome keslers a beast bieksa would skate laps around any of are d men screw lankow screw kipper we should just trade iginla to vancouver for balard so maybe he could win a cup because he deserves it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 There is so much wrong with your suggestion kehatch I don't know where to start. How about your suggestion is not only classless but heartless as well, lets start there. I am not aware of many cases where a 35 year old declines offensively in four consecutive seasons, has an injury the extent of Langkow's, and then has a big rebound season. You can probably expect 30 or so points from Langkow. How easily we forget kehatch. Or maybe you were not around back then. We had a very similar case with Gary Roberts. Declined in his early to mid 30's for consecutive years, had a horrendous back/neck injury that people thought he would never play again. He went on to have banner years his first 2 years back from injury and played for another 12 years. As much as it appears you want to put a value on Lanks next year, you can't. His feel good example for the rest of the team is priceless. Are you ready to pass that up to save a few bucks? Shame on you. You have to give him the chance to find out what level he can compete at and contribute. What would you be saying to our young players doing this buyout? Well don't get seriously injured guys, because we don't want to have to deal with it after? Fine message to send the rest of your team that will surely garner lots of trust and loyalty from them won't it kehatch? If Langkow is adamant he wants to play then that is something the Flames will have to consider. However, he may be open to the oppurtunity. You try to spin it as an opportunity when it would be anything but an opportunity. It may not be the classiest of moves. However, with Drury's buy-out anything is possible. They can also spin it. Langkow gets his money and gets to retire without risking further injury. If they did this they save 3-million this season. You talk about further injury when the injury report already said it has healed and that injury can't be reinjured with regular play. You go on about saving money... (*makes note about it really being about the money*) It may be what makes the most sense for him and his family. As for a year off to recuperate? He was on light duty with almost no excercise. He lost signficant muscle mass and cardio. He was recovering from a major injury. Your fooling yourself if you think he is going to return to form because he had a year off. Is it necessary? I guess it depends. Assuming they sign Tanguay for 4-million then they are already at around 63-million....... I would ask when you earned the right to make decisions on what is best for Lankow and his family? Short term or long term you are talking out of your butt here because you don't know and it is none of your business. He is a small guy to begin with and you are claiming he is out of shape lost muscle mass etc...blah blah blah.. You don't know, he got into good enough shape to play again at the end of the year and how would you know about what shape he will be in the start of next season? You go on about the money.... smoke and mirrors it is all about the money......Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 are team is strawberry we need to build are team like the canucks the sedins are awsome keslers a beast bieksa would skate laps around any of are d men screw lankow screw kipper we should just trade iginla to vancouver for balard so maybe he could win a cup because he deserves it... You go back to the Vancouver board & play with your little buddies. Come back when you learn to spell & understand at least a little about hockey. Shoo now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhabums Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 are team.. Strike 1, you're out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.