Is Langkow A Buy-out Candidate?

[Flame111]

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...

I find it amusing that he can't even spell the Vancouver player's names correctly.

[Flame111]

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.

Honestly, why buy out Langks?

If you do what are you going after with the extra Cap room? It is an interesting option but does it really make sense? Langks looked like the year off did him quite a bit of good. He may turn in a great season given the year off.

Unless they have to, to make the Cap work or have a big fish to get somehow I don't see the purpose.

[bosn111]

Boomer, I stated outright at the start of my post that the pros and cons I was typing were made earlier by other posters and were not my personal concepts. The analysis below was all mine. Again I feel that certain posters are putting too much emphasis on one area or another and using too much personal emotion and attachment to a particular player.

The emotions many members put into their posts about one player or topic is sad at times but up-lifting at others. A lot of people are making good points on both sides of the argument and that is where the issues arise, both sides are thinking they are right and refuse to move one way or another.

I will not re-write my earlier post, scroll back to it to see analysis based potential possibilities rather than emotion. I did my best to answer the premise of the thread, not make a guess as to what will happen, simply what could happen and if it is feasible or not.

The theories on Langkow's health have gone back to the beginning of the season. Taking his age and injury completely out of the equation for personal reasons and guessing that he will score 50 goals with 60 assists is more far fetched than believing a player who just recovered from a serious injury and his family might consider retirement.

The difference between suggesting the protection of Langkow's health and Iginla's is based on the fact that Langkow just missed more than a full season due to a devastating injury to his neck while Iginla has suffered no such injury. The injury is also different than Roberts' as Langkow's was an acute injury sustained in a single instant while Roberts' injury occurred due to prolonged physical play.

My analysis has attempted to remove emotion from the issue and look at many different possibilities which could work. Again I do not support 1 move any more than another. They are simply paths which the Flames could possibly take. If you are going to quote me on one of my posts please do so only after reading the whole thing.

[jjgallow]

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.

My first thought is, let's Freaking sign Drury! Not to very much, but what a character addition. He probably still has 20 goals in him per season, plus he does everything else right. I know, we don't have the cap space. But a lot can happen between now and September.

As for Langkow, I would suggest any buyout discussions include Hagman, Stajan, and Kotalik as well. There is way too much other fat on this team to cut before even considering Langkow. You also have to take a good long look at Kipper's contract, to be honest.

[kehatch]

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.

Holy drama batman. The poor multi-millionaire gets paid to not play hockey and can make a decision on whether to retire / keep playing independent of having to give up 4.5 million dollars. How very classless and heartless. I don't hear any violens in the background personally.

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.

I didn't say it never happens. Some people win the lottery but I am not going to make that my retirement plan.

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?

It tells them its a business. Same thing it told them when we bought out Dawes last season. Same thing it said when Kotlik was demoted and Hagman was put on waivers and when Phaneuf was traded etc.

You try to spin it as an opportunity when it would be anything but an opportunity.

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*)

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.

I am not able to make any decision. I am a forum poster on the internet. The organization has every right to make the decision. Its in the terms of the CBA.

That said, it isn't an unfair decision. For Langkow to retire it costs him 4.5-million. If we buy him out he gets his cash and can make the decision to retire independent of the money. If he wants to continue playing I am sure there is a team that will given him 1.5 to 2-million on a single season contract.

Drop the drama already.

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?

I am not claiming anything. Langkow, Flames management, and coaching all said that Langkow has lost significant muscle mass and cardio during his time off. Yes he returned back for 4-games and looked okay, especially on his first game. But he was down at 14 minutes per night playing in a sheltered role.

And yes, its about the money related to expected performance. What else would it be about?

[kehatch]

Buying him out would be a PR disaster. Remember how POed people were when Theo wasn't signed after his comeback attempt.

People were POed, but this still made the correct decision and didn't sign him. And they still sell merchandise and fill the stadium. I think this is less about the PR issues and more about the reputation of the club by free agents and other players. However, as someone else said, demoting players like Kotalik and Hagman have as big an impact on our reputation as would buying out Langkow.

[Caelum]

Pointless to buy out the final year of a $4.5M contract so that you can take the cap hit of $1.49M over the next two seasons with one less player on the roster. Better course of action is to bite the bullet, hope his year of recovery has made him hungry for points, and evaluate his role with the club when the contract expires.

This may be a rough year, but for good or ill this team will be cap flexible at the end of it.

[Flame111]

People were POed, but this still made the correct decision and didn't sign him. And they still sell merchandise and fill the stadium. I think this is less about the PR issues and more about the reputation of the club by free agents and other players. However, as someone else said, demoting players like Kotalik and Hagman have as big an impact on our reputation as would buying out Langkow.

I don't really think the fan reaction plays. I think it is an interesting option to consider but the bottom line question to me is how does it make the Flames a better team next year ?

It is dropping a domino that must hit a few more going forward to lead to a stronger team and I'd like to know what those secondary dominos are. Yes Langks is probably a little overpaid at the final year of his contract BUT how does buying him out make the Flames stronger for next season?

I don't think you do it strictly for the sake of creating Cap room. Unless you have some sort of Brad Richards in the pipeline or some reason where you absolutely have to buy him out to create room to do something right now otherwise why do it?

I need to hear how it makes the Flames stronger for next season, Langks did not look bad too me in the last few games of the season. I expect him to have hit the gym hard in the off-season and I expect him to have a strong season next year, not a career season but a strong season.

Unless someone can follow up the OP with "We buy out because we want to get this player or that player", I need to hear more of a case made to do this.

[DirtyDeeds]

I was wrong.

Kehatch I used to think you had a decent handle on what the Flames were about, but I was wrong.

You must be thinking of one of those other teams that do not show much class. Those teams don't have have awards like the "J. R. "Bud" McCaig Award". (Look it up Lanks is one name on that award.) "best exemplify Mr. McCaig’s enduring virtues of respect, courtesy and compassion for all individuals he encountered both in his professional and everyday life." Flames are not one of those "other teams".

It is one thing to buyout a player who is underachieving or who was not living up to expectations or who is going through the motions just to collect a paycheck. It is a totally different thing to buyout a player who is injured while playing and contributing to the team.

In 2000 Lanks 50 pt season from 82 games was a good year. It seemed to be his standard. You are trying to tell me he had a poor declining year in 2009 with 49 points in 73 games. 2010 was a bad year for just about everyone Lanks included. Team game and defensively minded will do that to stats.

[bosn111]

DirtyDeeds, I wonder why you are taking this thread so personally. Nobody is saying to do the move definitely, they are pointing out some of the benefits of what MIGHT happen. And from 1999-2000 up to 2009-2010 his point totals were as follows... 50, 54, 62, 52, 52, 59, 77, 65, 49, 37. Langkow's last season he played with Philly was 54 points, the last season he played in Phoenix he had 52. The point being that teams likely thought he was more of a 60-70 point player as shown in his first season with Phoenix and almost in his first season with the Flames, then achieved once again in his second and third years with the Flames. Langkow peaked at 77 points in 06/07 and has steadily declined since then. 08/09 and 09/10 were both shortened seasons due to injuries. If you look at the pace he had in each season his totals would have been low 50's and low 40's respectively. Again a steady decrease regardless. The decrease in those years were not the anomaly they were the pattern. Langkow's skill level in his prime had him in the 25-30 goal range and 60-70 point range. He also dropped from +23, +16 to +2, +1. I am not knocking Langlow, but your point of his 2000 season of 50 points being a "good year" is false. 50 points for Langkow over his career was average. 60+ points was "good" and 70+ points was "great". So that being said in 2009 his 49 points was therefore "average" not "good". The following season would have been considered "below average" and thus "bad". Spin it any way you want with ice time, line placement or whatever, it doesn't matter. Your logic as you wrote it was flawed.

Langkow is past his prime. He is coming off of 2 shortened seasons prior to an almost completely lost season due to injury. I am not saying he can't still play in the NHL, but it is not likely to be at his previous level. People have pointed out Gary Roberts as an example. His "continued career" was difficult and contained few full seasons. between 1991 and 2009 when he officially retired, Roberts played ONE (1) full season. Six (6) seasons he played fewer than half the games including his last 3. His peak was between 1989/1990 and 1993/1994 where his point totals were 72, 53, 90, 79 (58 games), 84. His highest goal total was 53 and he broke, or should have broke 40, 3 times. Roberts had more offensive upside than Langkow and so teams were willing to take a chance on him in case he could help the team. He was 30 ish when he had neck and back surgery but never returned to the player he had been, at least not offensively. I am not knocking either Roberts or Langkow, simply stating the facts. Langkow's injury came later in life and was different than the one suffered by Roberts. Roberts had the higher offensive upside and was at his high point when he took time off for injury. Langkow had been on a 3 year decline before injury. Roberts never got back to his level of play and it is likely neither will Langkow.

It is possible that Langkow could get back to the 40 point range, but it is unlikely that he will be the type of player we all remember from seasons gone by. He will NOT be given huge minutes or top line duties as the injury will always nag at the minds of the coaching staff no matter what the doctors or Langkow say.

I mean no disrespect but take yourself out of the equation and look at the evidence. Langkow is past his prime and coming back from serious injury. I will be pleasantly surprised if he proves me wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

[geos]

Personally I'd just write off this year and take the $1.5M I'd gain by not having the buyout next year. We're not going to advance this year with the current cap situation and lineup so why hinder further years.

Unless we're going for Richards (which I'd advise agianst), there is no reason to clear $3M this year. No reason at all. Sign Tangs if Iggy isn't on the move this year and move forward. Let the kids play. There is nothing this team has done that suggests to be they will be miles better than a 8-12 place team next year. So rebuild, focus on the future and let Langkow stick around. Seriously, unless we need the cap room, no point in turfing him. I'd much rather see Stajan or Hagman sent off to Europe than Langkow.

[bosn111]

The problem with being so tight against the cap by re-signing Tanguay alone is that there is no room to manoeuvre throughout the season. I would agree that moving other contracts such as Ivannans, Hagman and Stajan would be preferable than a buyout simply to save on the buyout's cap hit next season. That being said, 3 mil in cap space would not sign Richards, we would need no less than 7 mil at this point. If we could clear Stajan, Kotalik, Hagman and Ivannans all off the roster than I see no reason to buyout Langkow or ask him to retire. Moving those contracts alone would give us the cap space needed to trade for Weber's rights and to sign him while still leaving some extra cap space.

Tanguay / Backlund / Iginla

Bourque / Jokinen / Moss

Glencross / Langkow / Nemisz

TKO / Bouma / Jackman

JBo / Weber

Giordano / Sarich

Regehr / Brodie

Carson

I am placing D based on best fit not ice time or particularly 1, 2, 3 pairings. Essentially you are looking at 6 top 2 pairing D-men so 3 extremely solid D pairs. The forwards may not be the most fearsome looking crew, but definitely workable while the D is very imposing. Just opinion though and all based on moving large contracts.

[DirtyDeeds]

DirtyDeeds, I wonder why you are taking this thread so personally. Nobody is saying to do the move definitely, they are pointing out some of the benefits of what MIGHT happen. And from 1999-2000 up to 2009-2010 his point totals were as follows... 50, 54, 62, 52, 52, 59, 77, 65, 49, 37. Langkow's last season he played with Philly was 54 points, the last season he played in Phoenix he had 52. The point being that teams likely thought he was more of a 60-70 point player as shown in his first season with Phoenix and almost in his first season with the Flames, then achieved once again in his second and third years with the Flames. Langkow peaked at 77 points in 06/07 and has steadily declined since then. 08/09 and 09/10 were both shortened seasons due to injuries. If you look at the pace he had in each season his totals would have been low 50's and low 40's respectively. Again a steady decrease regardless. The decrease in those years were not the anomaly they were the pattern. Langkow's skill level in his prime had him in the 25-30 goal range and 60-70 point range. He also dropped from +23, +16 to +2, +1. I am not knocking Langlow, but your point of his 2000 season of 50 points being a "good year" is false. 50 points for Langkow over his career was average. 60+ points was "good" and 70+ points was "great". So that being said in 2009 his 49 points was therefore "average" not "good". The following season would have been considered "below average" and thus "bad". Spin it any way you want with ice time, line placement or whatever, it doesn't matter. Your logic as you wrote it was flawed.

Langkow is past his prime. He is coming off of 2 shortened seasons prior to an almost completely lost season due to injury. I am not saying he can't still play in the NHL, but it is not likely to be at his previous level. People have pointed out Gary Roberts as an example. His "continued career" was difficult and contained few full seasons. between 1991 and 2009 when he officially retired, Roberts played ONE (1) full season. Six (6) seasons he played fewer than half the games including his last 3. His peak was between 1989/1990 and 1993/1994 where his point totals were 72, 53, 90, 79 (58 games), 84. His highest goal total was 53 and he broke, or should have broke 40, 3 times. Roberts had more offensive upside than Langkow and so teams were willing to take a chance on him in case he could help the team. He was 30 ish when he had neck and back surgery but never returned to the player he had been, at least not offensively. I am not knocking either Roberts or Langkow, simply stating the facts. Langkow's injury came later in life and was different than the one suffered by Roberts. Roberts had the higher offensive upside and was at his high point when he took time off for injury. Langkow had been on a 3 year decline before injury. Roberts never got back to his level of play and it is likely neither will Langkow.

It is possible that Langkow could get back to the 40 point range, but it is unlikely that he will be the type of player we all remember from seasons gone by. He will NOT be given huge minutes or top line duties as the injury will always nag at the minds of the coaching staff no matter what the doctors or Langkow say.

I mean no disrespect but take yourself out of the equation and look at the evidence. Langkow is past his prime and coming back from serious injury. I will be pleasantly surprised if he proves me wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

I am not taking it personal. You are welcome to spin his numbers anyway you want, but 60+ pts is not his norm. Of the 13 years he has played he has only attained 60+ points 3 times. I'll stick with classing him as a 50 point guy and if he gets 50 points like expected then that is "good".

Langkows Career

<30 1996(4),1997(28), 1998(22) - 3 yrs

30+ 1999(33), 2007(37) - 2yrs

40+ 2009 (49) - 1yr

50+ 2000(50), 2001(54), 2003(52), 2006(59)-4yrs

60+ 2002(62), 2008(65) - 2yrs

70+ 2007(77) - 1yr

-----------------

Total Year Played - 13yrs

Gary Roberts was 30 when he was announced his retirement and Langkow was 33years of age when he went on injury resurved. DL posted a graph that showed forwards hit their prime at 28 so both were past their "prime". I was not focusing on his age as much as the injuries being very similar(career threatning). Those of you saying Langs is 35 years old are wrong as he is 34. Try adding a year to your wifes age and see how well that sits with her. (c:

I happen to support when the Flames show class when dealing with people and players. I also think you have to consider more than just the almighty $$ in this case. As Flames111 pointed out the OP didn't even have a upgrade player in mind for dumping Langkow and his salary.

[JA_Boomer]

Boomer, I stated outright at the start of my post that the pros and cons I was typing were made earlier by other posters and were not my personal concepts. The analysis below was all mine. Again I feel that certain posters are putting too much emphasis on one area or another and using too much personal emotion and attachment to a particular player.

The theories on Langkow's health have gone back to the beginning of the season. Taking his age and injury completely out of the equation for personal reasons and guessing that he will score 50 goals with 60 assists is more far fetched than believing a player who just recovered from a serious injury and his family might consider retirement.

The difference between suggesting the protection of Langkow's health and Iginla's is based on the fact that Langkow just missed more than a full season due to a devastating injury to his neck while Iginla has suffered no such injury. The injury is also different than Roberts' as Langkow's was an acute injury sustained in a single instant while Roberts' injury occurred due to prolonged physical play.

My analysis has attempted to remove emotion from the issue and look at many different possibilities which could work. Again I do not support 1 move any more than another. They are simply paths which the Flames could possibly take. If you are going to quote me on one of my posts please do so only after reading the whole thing.

1) If you write it in your own post, be prepared to talk about it. Did it occur to you that I realized you were listing pros and cons and therefore was disputing the idea that we'd be doing Langkow a favor by letting him retire instead of disagreeing with you? By mentioning the idea and not disputing it yourself, you open yourself up to the appearance that you believe it to be true and a valid comment.

2) There should be NO theories relating to Langkow's health. He has been cleared to play, end of story. I haven't heard anyone claim that he's going to post 100 point this year. It's just that many of us believe that he will be effective enough that he should not be considered for a buy-out during the summer. The buy-out analysis also includes the player/public relations considerations.

3) If Langkow is at no increased susceptibility to injury because of his previous injury, then he and Iginla are at the same risk for further injury aren't they. Therefore my suggestion that if people feel we should "let" Langkow retire by buying out his contract to protect him from further injury, then we should do the same to Iginla, because we don't want to see him have a career ending injury either, do we. Get the drift? I am not directing this directly at you, but you listed it in your pros, and are now discussing it, so I've quoted the relevant section of your post.

[The_People1]

Kehatch I used to think you had a decent handle on what the Flames were about, but I was wrong.

I think we all know what the Flames are about and that's why it was pointed out in the OP that, "It may not be the classiest of moves".

But it's the right move. I just don't think the Flames will do it because:

1. Flames have too much class.

2. The Flames aren't aiming to win the Cup next season anyways.

Marc Savard broke his leg for the Flames back in 2002-03. When he came back, he was demoted to the second line and he threw a fit. He bad mouthed the Flames on his way to getting traded. But what can you do? With Conroy-Iginla having magic together, you just have to do the right thing for the team. Sometimes the right thing and the hardest thing is the same thing.

Whoever replaces Langkow's $4.5-mil on the cap role is going to be the right thing for the Flames. It just sucks that the Flames have become an "old boys club" with untouchables and coach's favorites. I really wish they would hit Langkow with buyout money so he can sign somewhere else at fair market value, which is about $2-mil. Langkow gets his paycheque. The Flames get the cap space they need. It's a win-win... but as if that would happen.

[bosn111]

Langkow is 34 right now, he will be 35 next season which is what people are saying. I said 60 points was a good year for Langks, not the norm. 50 points is an average season for him through his career. It is simple statistics. Yes it would be good for the Flames if he could hit 50 points again, but it would be an average season for him. It is semantics I know but everything is semantics.

The graph was posted for the average age of Forwards to hit their prime being 28, that is Hitting not ending their prime. There is usually more than 1 year of Prime play in an athlete. If you consider 4 years being the length of time a player, then Roberts was in the MIDDLE of his prime while Langkow was past his. But regardless of the AVERAGE prime of a forward (since that was used to analyze prospects not veterans), Langkow had his prime years from 05/06 - 07/08 when his 3 seasons were decently above his average season marks. Since then his production has dropped and I don't just mean points, goals, assists I also pointed out +/-.

You also missed my point on the analysis of Roberts. As you point out they were neck injuries which were possibly career ending. As I pointed out, Roberts' continued career was marred with shortened seasons, few were even close to full, and he never really made it back to his average numbers. If you want to parallel their injuries, even though Langkow's happened a couple of years later in life) then you should also be able to see the parallel in the lack of complete recovery to previous form. As Langkow and Robert's also played similar styles, though Roberts had a higher offensive ceiling, then the end result could very well be the same. Sure Langks could go on and play 10 more partial seasons, he could hit 50 points this season but the game is always changing. It is more likely that Langks would end up playing less than a full season and be in the 30-40 point range, maybe in the low +'s.

Yes you are right in that it would be classy of the Flames to honour the contract but guess what, one way or another, to fit in the cap next season, even if the cap goes up, they have to be not classy by either burying contracts or forcing players to leave the NHL. The instant they bury Kotalik and let him go to the K, that is not "classy". Same thing if they do it to Hagman or Stajan for example. If they maintain the class, let Tangs walk due to salary and play Kotalik instead, leaving prospects in the minors yet again, then they prove Erixon right that the team does not give youth a chance to play.

The team has tough choices to make. It is not about making room for a single player, it is about creating space to be able to make some decision.

Even though the thread there is redundant, I put in an analysis of the cap situation. Read it through. to be a "classy" team as you put it, Calgary would not be able to re-sign Tanguay as Kotalik would eat more than half of the available cap space while the team would still need to sign a back up goalie and at least 1 D-man. If you are happy with that, having a team right up close to the cap, not being competitive, Iggy once again having no one to really play with thats fine but I know that Feaster and Flames ownership would not be happy with that.

"Class" is moderated by the end results. A move that can be seen as "not classy" if it makes the team better both short and long term becomes an insignificant move with respect to "class". Pointing out a specific player by the OP is not required when you consider the need for cap space just for Tanguay alone.

Boomer, how about reading some other posts as well, not just the ones with your name such as the comparison with Roberts. The fact that a serious injury inevitably leads to a possibility of further injury, particularly when you play a physical style like Langkow and Roberts. I won't repost my arguments once again, go back and read them yourself. A doctor clearing him to play may mean that he is unlikely be adversely affected by the same injury during play. It does not rule out the likely possibility that further injuries occur, particularly at his age. I can argue therefore that it is more likely that Langkow suffer further injuries than Iginla and thus the conversation is completely different.

By your discussion about health theories, the first time Lindros was cleared to play after a concussion by a doctor, there should have been no theories that he might suffer a second, fair enough. What about the second, third or fourth times he was cleared to play, should there have NOT been theories about the possibility of re-injury? How about someone who had a knee injury, do we not automatically assume there could be more knee problems in the future? Humans are imperfect beings. Once we get an injury it is never truly the same again. Deep wounds leave scars, breaks remain visible in a bone etc. The human mind is programmed to learn from situations. If you cut yourself with a knife you do the best you can afterwards to avoid the same position. In Langkows mind he will always have that thought in the back of his mind. After all, he is only human.

Again, if a player has a significant injury, their careers are typically shortened and they are often more likely to receive further injury. A doctor clears a patient on the immediate threat being his neck. It does not change the fact that he was injured the year before as well. He also had 2 broken feet in the 2000/2001 season. He also had 2 consecutive years with hand injuries. While all of these could be considered flukes, they all add up, they all show a toll taken on the body.

On the other hand, Iginla has had 1 dislocated finger and a small knee injury. Those are nothing compared to Langkow's list. The point is looking at previously medical history you can project the future and say it is more likely that Langkow will re-injure himself, particularly based on his style of play. If he changes his style to avoid injury, then he is fairly ineffective on the team.

I never said that either Langkow or the team SHOULD follow this option, simply that they COULD in discussion between player and management.

[Flyerfan52]

Thinking on it a bit further, a buyout doesn't help the Flames much. We'd carry a 1.5 hit for 2 years & still need to replace Lanks. Even if they go budget with a $1 million player that only leaves about 2 in extra space. That low priced player is unlikely to replace Langkow's production because even as the comeback kid he should be able to account for 30-35 points. & having him play out the contract means not starting next season with a 1.5 hit for no player instead of a 4.5 of free space.

They'll have to decide soon though as the buyout window is only from the end of the SCF til June 30. (I'd forgotten about that in my previous post.)

[The_People1]

Thinking on it a bit further, a buyout doesn't help the Flames much. We'd carry a 1.5 hit for 2 years & still need to replace Lanks. Even if they go budget with a $1 million player that only leaves about 2 in extra space. That low priced player is unlikely to replace Langkow's production because even as the comeback kid he should be able to account for 30-35 points. & having him play out the contract means not starting next season with a 1.5 hit for no player instead of a 4.5 of free space.

They'll have to decide soon though as the buyout window is only from the end of the SCF til June 30. (I'd forgotten about that in my previous post.)

I think you've placed Langkow too high up the depth chart. Right now, he's the 4th line Center behind Backlund, Jokinen, and Stajan, and maybe even Moss... unless we move Stajan which has been talked about to death already.

I'd also like to see what Mitch Wahl can do in a 4th line role. I think we should all be excited about that.

Moreover, we haven't signed Tanguay and Babchuk yet, so that $2-mil, as Kehatch pointed out, could go towards retaining the services of Tanguay and Babchuk.

[JA_Boomer]

Whoever replaces Langkow's $4.5-mil on the cap role is going to be the right thing for the Flames. It just sucks that the Flames have become an "old boys club" with untouchables and coach's favorites. I really wish they would hit Langkow with buyout money so he can sign somewhere else at fair market value, which is about $2-mil. Langkow gets his paycheque. The Flames get the cap space they need. It's a win-win... but as if that would happen.

That's just the thing, who do we have in mind that would be a better spending of dollars for the $3 million we'd save by buying Langkow out? And will that change give us a better chance of winning the stanley cup next year?

I think it would actually be better for the Flames NOT to buy him out this year because I don't want the empty $1.5 million cap hit in the 2012/13 season.

[JA_Boomer]

Boomer, how about reading some other posts as well, not just the ones with your name such as the comparison with Roberts. The fact that a serious injury inevitably leads to a possibility of further injury, particularly when you play a physical style like Langkow and Roberts. I won't repost my arguments once again, go back and read them yourself. A doctor clearing him to play may mean that he is unlikely be adversely affected by the same injury during play. It does not rule out the likely possibility that further injuries occur, particularly at his age. I can argue therefore that it is more likely that Langkow suffer further injuries than Iginla and thus the conversation is completely different.

By your discussion about health theories, the first time Lindros was cleared to play after a concussion by a doctor, there should have been no theories that he might suffer a second, fair enough. What about the second, third or fourth times he was cleared to play, should there have NOT been theories about the possibility of re-injury? How about someone who had a knee injury, do we not automatically assume there could be more knee problems in the future? Humans are imperfect beings. Once we get an injury it is never truly the same again. Deep wounds leave scars, breaks remain visible in a bone etc. The human mind is programmed to learn from situations. If you cut yourself with a knife you do the best you can afterwards to avoid the same position. In Langkows mind he will always have that thought in the back of his mind. After all, he is only human.

Again, if a player has a significant injury, their careers are typically shortened and they are often more likely to receive further injury. A doctor clears a patient on the immediate threat being his neck. It does not change the fact that he was injured the year before as well. He also had 2 broken feet in the 2000/2001 season. He also had 2 consecutive years with hand injuries. While all of these could be considered flukes, they all add up, they all show a toll taken on the body.

On the other hand, Iginla has had 1 dislocated finger and a small knee injury. Those are nothing compared to Langkow's list. The point is looking at previously medical history you can project the future and say it is more likely that Langkow will re-injure himself, particularly based on his style of play. If he changes his style to avoid injury, then he is fairly ineffective on the team.

I never said that either Langkow or the team SHOULD follow this option, simply that they COULD in discussion between player and management.

1) When there's a forum topic I'm interested in, I read all the posts.

2) When the Flames tell me that a doctor has said that Langkow's injury does not put him at an increased risk of repeating that or other injuries, that's good enough for me.

3) I'm not against this move because I think it would hurt Langkow's feeling, or even the reputation of the Flames. I just don't see how it puts us closer to a Stanley Cup. I would argue it puts of farther away, but having dead cap space in future years. Unless there's a specific player the Flames are targeting that would significantly improve the team, I don't see a point in buyout out Langkow.

Will he be overpaid, quite likely yes. Does he bring more value to the team than Ivanans, Hagman, or Kotalik: yes in my opinion. Therefore I've been operating under the assumption that Kotalik will be in Europe, Ivanans will be on LTIR or the AHL, and Hagman either gets traded or is in the AHL. I am fundamentally against buying out contracts because it creates dead cap space, when there are options available where none is created (burrying contracts). That's also why re-entry waivers scare me - dead cap space.

I see Langkow as the 3'rd line center next year. Stajan kills the puck control of TK and Jacks, so I'd like to see him tried on the LW. Ya, ya I know he's our best faceoff guy, but he can take draws and then swtich with Olli or Langks, or Olli and Lanks can try really hard to win the draw without worrying about being kicked out of the draw.

[The_People1]

That's just the thing, who do we have in mind that would be a better spending of dollars for the $3 million we'd save by buying Langkow out? And will that change give us a better chance of winning the stanley cup next year?

I think it would actually be better for the Flames NOT to buy him out this year because I don't want the empty $1.5 million cap hit in the 2012/13 season.

I am fundamentally against buying out contracts because it creates dead cap space, when there are options available where none is created (burrying contracts). That's also why re-entry waivers scare me - dead cap space.

I hear ya. I hate dead cap space too but we may need that extra money to get both Tanguay and Babchuk re-signed, as suggested by OP. A buyout may also open up the possibility of a trade with a team like Philly.

It sounds like we both agree that Langkow will be centering the 3rd liner at best next season. For that money, we may be better off auditioning Mitch Wahl or equivalent. If we move Stajan, then we won't have to worry about Langkow. I think one of the two has to go.

We're probably not gunning for any championships next season so staying put and wasting one year for contracts to expire is also a likely positive scenario we undertake.

[DirtyDeeds]

Over in the thread about Langkow returning I ran into this gem. It says differently the point I wanted to say anyway.

While he was talking to some posters who felt Langkow should retire because of his hit to our cap by returning, this is not much different here.

VERY unfair to say that Langkow has to retire to do the Flames some good. It was the Flames that dictates hid market value, not Langkow and its Langkow who has worked his arse off to come back and play. The Flames owe him every opportunity to play hockey again.

I'll admit, the thought of his 4.5 coming off the books makes the "cap" guy in me get excited. But at the end fo the day he is a human being who deserves the right to play the game he loves and is pretty darn good at.

Let's also remember that if the Flames get the Langkow of 2 seasons ago back, his price tag isn't awful. Last year was a down year across the board and a year the Flames never got it going. I think if langkow was playing right now, between Iggy and Tangs especially, he'd be on pact for around 60 point and i'm fine with that for 4.5 mill.

It likely means a good bye to eithe Glencross or Tanguay or your going to have to play hardball with Babchuck, but there is a good chance that was going to happen anyway.

There is little point my continuing to debating with people who only want to look at the $$ we would save.

There is little point in debating how much Langkow will be able to contribute next season when most of you are the same people that claimed he would not return last year.

Frankly you won't know any more than anyone else if the year off will help or hinder his play.

So I will stick to my thoughts it would be a classless thing to do to Langkow. He deserves the chance to play out his contract.

[JA_Boomer]

I hear ya. I hate dead cap space too but we may need that extra money to get both Tanguay and Babchuk re-signed, as suggested by OP. A buyout may also open up the possibility of a trade with a team like Philly.

It sounds like we both agree that Langkow will be centering the 3rd liner at best next season. For that money, we may be better off auditioning Mitch Wahl or equivalent. If we move Stajan, then we won't have to worry about Langkow. I think one of the two has to go.

We're probably not gunning for any championships next season so staying put and wasting one year for contracts to expire is also a likely positive scenario we undertake.

Maybe we should just play musical chairs to see who gets bought out haha. It's pretty clear a few of Ivanans, Hagman, and Kotalik are going to get the shaft, and maybe even one of Stajan or Langkow.

I've lost all hope that Babchuck can be resigned at a value and term that suits the Flames. There's been no positive info on that situation for weeks, so I've written him out of my personal Flames plans. Like I said I'm operating under the assumption that Ivanan, Kotalik, and Hagman won't be counting against the cap next year, but I'll have to wait and see if that pans out.

[kehatch]

I fully agree with what Flames111 and others are saying. That is an argument I can live with and has a lot more credibility then "we can't pay the millionaire to not play because it isn't classy, but lets force Kotalik off the team and demote Hagman" argument.

There does need to be an objective to buying Langkow out. You don't just do it to have cap space. I suggest those objectives can be one of four things:

1) Make cap space to retain a key UFA

2) Make cap space to bring on a new player

3) Make roster space to bring up a prospect

4) Replace Langkow with a more appropriate player

Lets evaluate each in turn.

1) Retain UFA

Without signing another UFA the Flames are currently at 60-million. Tanguay will fall between 3 and 4 million and is probably a mandatory signing if the club will be competitive next season. I don't expect to resign Babchuk, and although I would like to have him I don't think his salary demands will be in line with his defensive production.

If you assume that Kotalik and Ivanans are demoted, bought out, or sent away then it brings them to just over 62-million using cheap roster replacements. The club is probably aiming to be in the 58-59 million range at season start to allow for call-ups and to have some cap flexibility.

People are assuming Hagman will get demoted. Perhaps. But he brings similar offense as Langkow per season and he does it in a position where the Flames lack depth. Langkow is better defensively, but I would rather see Hagman and his 3-million on the third line then have Langkow and his 4.5 million on the fourth.

-EDIT- Note: You can't demote Kotalik until season starts. If they don't buy-out at least one player they are going to be dangerously close, or even above, the 10% over the cap limit upon signing Tanguay. They pretty much HAVE to buy someone out to have any flexibility over the summer.

2) Bring on a new player

If the Flames plan on making any sort of run they still need to bring on a top line centre. Connolly, Richards, Carter, Spezza, etc are all names floating around. Some of them may be unattainable, some of them you can make a case wouldn't be a good fit, but the fact remains the Flames need someone. Buying out Langkow gives you the cap space and the roster spot to attempt to bring on someone.

Conolly in particular is a guy I wouldn't mind to see them go after. Yes he lacks consistency and is injury prone. But he is a younger better version of Langkow for a similar salary and would complement Iggy well.

3) Make space for the kids

We have players like Wahl and Armstrong that deserve a spot on the fourth line. I would also hate to see Backlund parked on the fourth line so a guy like Langkow can take up ice time on the final year of his contract.

4) Replace him with someone more appropriate

If you aren't going to play the kids then a Maholtra caliber player is half the price, much better defensively, and gives you similar offense.

But 1.5 million next season

Who cares about the 1.5 million cap hit next season. We are going to see over 20-million fall off our salary next season and have almost no key free agents to retain. I don't think the million-five is going to have much impact on our cap next season.

[kehatch]

Over in the thread about Langkow returning I ran into this gem. It says differently the point I wanted to say anyway.

While he was talking to some posters who felt Langkow should retire because of his hit to our cap by returning, this is not much different here.

There is a key difference between expecting the player to retire and forgo 4.5-million versus paying him the dollars and giving him the option. I don't think Langkow has any obligation to retire and will argue with anyone that says different. I also don't think the Flames have any obligation to keep him. Your clearly missing the distinction.

Buy-outs happens all of the time. Players on two way contracts get paid squat to play on their affiliate club because of a coaching decision. Players like Kotalik are given the indignity of being parked in a lower club. Players are put on waivers. Players aren't retained. Players are traded. Its a tough business. Oh well.

I have no idea why you would feel sorry for a guy who would be paid millions of dollars with no return expectation. He doesn't have to retire. He can still play Hockey.

Your being silly. You have zero argument and clearly irrational and emotional on the subject.