Is Langkow A Buy-out Candidate?

[CastleMania]

yes but 3 more years at 3.5 per is an UGLY buyout.

Lol, but is that really as ugly as the alternative? Him playing on our team at his stupid cap hit for the next three years? The thought of that makes me sick to my stomach.

[The_People1]

We had to wheel and deal under cap constraints when Langkow got hurt for last season. If anything his injury showed us we were weaker at center than we thought. Your basic premiss to create cap space is good but not at the expense of an already weak position and not before you are certain you have something (hopefully an upgrade)to replace him with first.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say because yes, even with Langkow on LTIR last season, we were cap constraint and as a result, was not able to wheel and deal freely. Also, you can't get to second base with one foot on first. You can't be certain of any return until you are certain you have the cap space available.

For instance, if the Flames had cap space at the moment, then we could entertain the idea of attaining one of Philly's Centers since they are up against the cap and need to move bodies. We could also be in the running for Brad Richards (at least, have the luxury to tender him an offer). There's also Jason Spezza rumours ongoing.

If we were capped out, then we would have to send salary the other way. This almost always prevents trades from happening.

How about we buy out Stajan? I never understood why there's so much hatred towards Hagman, yet Stajan gets a free pass. I view Stajan's contract as the worst contract on this entire team.

Free pass?! Do you even frequent the message boards?

Stajan is not a buyout candidate because it will sting us for 6 years.

The guy is in the doghouse like hardcore.

[CastleMania]

Free pass?! Do you even frequent the message boards?

Stajan is not a buyout candidate because it will sting us for 6 years.

The guy is in the doghouse like hardcore.

Lol, I was being a tad bit hyperbolic. But we need to rid ourselves of stajan.

[CGYSTL]

I would be against buying out Langkow. I think he'll surprise a lot of you. The guy is a junkyard dog & tenacious competitor. There's no way you can keep a guy like him down. I understand the monetary situation of the Flames and as ugly as our cap is looking for the upcoming season, I would 100% rather have Langks in our lineup. I have nothing against Hagman but, think he'd be a much better candidate for a buyout (along with AK-26 of course).

[kehatch]

I thought it would be interesting to do a bit of research on offensive production from players that were 35 years old or older. The purpose is to establish a reasonable expectation of Langkow next season.

Last season there were 2 players 35 or over that put up 80-points or more. These were Selanni and St. Louis. Both of these players have put up these types of points consistently in their career. Langkow isn't in that category.

There were no players in that age range that put up between 60-70 points.

There was one player that put up between 50-60 points. That was Whitney. He plays a softer game and was a point per game player when he was younger. Again, not a good comparison to Langkow.

As you can see, there were no players comparable to Langkow that put up more then 50-points.

There were 6-players that put up between 40-50 points. Recchi, Brunette, Koivu, Bertuzzi, Morrison, and Knuble. Recchi and Bertuzzi were both big point producers when younger so can be removed from the comparison.

Brunette, Koivu, Morrison, and Knuble are left. Season point trends starting at age 30 follow:

Brunette (46, 49, 63, 83, 59, 50, 61, 46) AVG GAMES: 82 LOWEST GAMES PER SEASON: 80

Knuble (14, 59, 46, 65, 54, 55, 47, 53, 40) AVG GAMES: 75 LOWEST GAMES PER SEASON: 54

Koivu (55, 62, 75, 56, 50, 52, 45) AVG GAMES: 73 LOWEST GAMES PER SEASON: 65

Morrison (56, 51, 25, 31, 42, 43) AVG GAMES: 71 LOWEST GAMES PER SEASON: 39

Langkow (77, 65, 49, 37, 1) AVG GAMES: 62 LOWEST GAMES PER SEASON: 4

Langkow is the only player on the list that saw most of a season off. His average games played per season is the lowest. Even if you take the injury out of the equiation none of the other players saw a consistent point decline and then later recovered. Most of the players on the list were also more offensive then Langkow in their earlier years.

I like Langkow. However, the odds are stacked against him. He almost certainly won't put up 50 or more points. It is unlikely he will achieve 40-points or more.

It is possible he may be adequete in a defensive role. But even then that was on the decline prior to his injury. Those of you that think he will be a good point producer in a top line role are being very optimistic. With Backlund, Stajan, and Jokinen already on the roster chances are Langkow is on the third or fourth line.

One last comparison to the other players on the list. Salary:

Brunette: 2.5-million

Knuble: 2.8-million

Koivu: 2.5-million

Morrison: 1.5-million

Langkow: 4.5-million

Which is why I think Langkow is a candidate for a buy-out, even if it is just to fit a player like Tanguay on the roster and keep some cap flexibiity.

[DirtyDeeds]

Why bother Kehatch? If you are going to throw up your research of players 35+ who scored points then dismiss some because of <insert whatever reason to fit your point> why bother in the first place? You are just trying to skew those results to suit your opinions anyway.

How about redoing the survey/research and dropping the points requirement and just do players who are still playing at 35+ yrs of age and making the same money Langkow is making. Most teams have a few players just like Langkow and value them despite the fact they may not score a gazillion points at an older age.

I am curious why you want to saddle Langkow with a requirement to score lots of points anyway? We already know you don't like Langkow and his salary. It appears you are unable to recognize the value of a good 2 way player of Langkows caliber or just plain unwilling to let him show you he is still capable.

Scotty Bowman and Toe Blake both have stated the ideal line in hockey is 1 shooter, 1 playmaker and 1 checker/2-way player. Langkow can fit the 2-way/checker role, and he does not have to score lots of points. All he need do is fit in with Iggy and Tangs and their play style.

[kehatch]

I dismissed some of the players for the same reason I would dismiss Kevin Costner if I was evaluating female supermodels. They didn't fit the criteria.

I am not sure what you are suggesting I evaluate. He was a good defensive player. He may still be. But you don't earn 4.5-million for being a good defensive forward.

As for most teams having a few players like Langkow, who are they? A quick scan of players with a birth date of 1975 or earlier shows only a handful of players making 4-million or more. Alfredson, Rolston, Blake, St. Louis, and Langkow. There may be a few more I missed, but there certainly are not many.

If you are referring to good two way players then yes, many teams have them. And they are generally fast, younger, and in the 2 to 2.5 million range.

If you think there is a better analysis to be done then go do it.

[DirtyDeeds]

I dismissed some of the players for the same reason I would dismiss Kevin Costner if I was evaluating female supermodels. They didn't fit the criteria.

I am not sure what you are suggesting I evaluate. He was a good defensive player. He may still be. But you don't earn 4.5-million for being a good defensive forward.

As for most teams having a few players like Langkow, who are they? A quick scan of players with a birth date of 1975 or earlier shows only a handful of players making 4-million or more. Alfredson, Rolston, Blake, St. Louis, and Langkow. There may be a few more I missed, but there certainly are not many.

If you are referring to good two way players then yes, many teams have them. And they are generally fast, younger, and in the 2 to 2.5 million range.

If you think there is a better analysis to be done then go do it.

From your reply I guess I did not phrase my post very well. Take age out of the equation and look at all centers, only 20 players period scored 60+ points clearly not enough to go around. Most except a couple were under 30yrs old let alone 35 or older. With that in mind I was trying to ask why you were judging Langkow in a points battle and against wingers too. Decent 2 way centers will usually demand greater interest and higher pay than a comparable winger, reguardless of age.

Instead of looking for comparable in the Art Ross/Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy categories you should be checking the Frank J. Selke Trophy area for better comparables and no I am not saying he is Selke trophy next year, I am saying he is more that type of player.

[kehatch]

@DD

We will have to agree to disagree.

Point 1

Based on Langkow's age, previously declining performance, and injury history I do not believe it is likely his performance next season will be inline with his salary. It is possible that I will be pleasantly surprised, but the chances of that happening are too remote to justify carrying his 4.5-million dollar salary.

You disagree and feel his performance will justify his salary. In fact, you feel that he is essential to the team as, at a minimum, a back-up to the number one centre position.

Point 2

Although I admit that Langkow's fight back to the ice is a feel good story, I don't think the Flames organization is under any obligation to refrain from buying him out IF they feel that is in the best interest of the Team. Buying him out will have reputation repercussions to the public, team, prospects, and players in general. However, I don't feel those repercussions are any more severe then sending Kotalik to Europe or demoting Hagman (except perhaps to the public - who I think will absorb this fairly easily).

You feel that it would morally unethical for us to buy-out Langkow and that doing so would have major repercussions to our reputation.

Point 3

I believe the Flames need to create cap space to retain key UFAs, maintain a level of cap flexibility, and perhaps bring on a player via free agency or trade that would be a better asset then Langkow. I admit that there are other options to cap relief. However, if you keep Langkow on the team past June 30 you lose the ability to remove his salary due to poor trade value and a NMC. I will also admit that if the organization doesn't need the cap space and don't have a strategy in mind then I would not buy-out Langkow for the sake of buying him out. However, it remains an option depending on management's plans.

You don't have the same concerns as I do relative to cap space and don't see acquirable players that would be better for this club then Langkow.

I don't plan on changing my stance on any of the above points. Neither do you. So there isn't really any point in debating.

[Ring-a-ding-dong-dandy]

it's not unheard of for a player to be bought out then signed by the same team for less. just a thought.

yes it is unheard of, it is not allowed under the CBA. If a player is bought out you can not sign them as a free agent in the next 12 months.

The Ottawa Senators on Daniel Alfredsson. Clearly no hard feelings there.

Alfredsson was a special case. He had 3 option years on his contract and if the Senators declined the option they had to pay him $2.1 million. That $2.1 million was spread out over the 3 seasons as a "buyout"

Hey Castlemania, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure it can be done if the player is the final year of their contract. This would prove helpful for several aging players, namely: Langkow, Hagman, Jokinen, and Sarich. Any of these players can have their contracts extended for less money. This year's bad contract would remain valid, but for cap purposes it would get diluted in the average remaining salary. Quite frankly, I would be comfortable signing Jokinen and Sarich to 2-3 extra years at a lower salary, and 1 extra year for Langkow/Hagman:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366

a player can sign an extension in the final year of their contract but it doesn't affect their Cap Hit until the new contract kicks in. For example if Langkow signed a 1 year extension for $1 million dollars it wouldn't lower the cap hit to 2.75 million over this season and next, he would still carry a cap hit of $4.5 million this season and $1 million next season.

Now for the original question, is Langkow a buyout candidate? Yes, he is almost certainly a candidate. Will it happen? Probably not, but i think there is close to a 100% chance it has been, or will be discussed between Feaster, King and the owners. In the end I think they will not buy him out because it just looks bad.

However I think him being traded is a definite possibility

[geos]

However I think him being traded is a definite possibility

What are you going to give up for a $4.5M, 35+ defensive centre that hasn't played for a year? And hasn't scored 50 points since 07/08?

The only thing we'd get is an equally ugly contract. There is no way I'd want to take on a contract beyond the end of this year to get rid of Langkow. Perhaps Drury if he wasn't bought out, but that doesn't solve any of our current year salary issues, it just makes it worse for really no upgrade.

I don't see how you could deal Langkow at all. He may only play a couple games, gets hit funny and he's toast. Too many question marks. The only way he moves is if we take an even worse contract back.

[cross16]

It would be extremely poor form for the Flames to buyout Langkow. "Hey Daymond, congrats for all your hard work and dedicated to the cause, notw here is a cheque and your contract is void, good luck!".

Some people will say things like "thats's the business" or the Flmaes need to get aggressive with their cap. Fair points, but part of the business is attracting FA and re signing people. Let's be honest, Calgary isn't the most attractive destination (confirmed by Rhett Warrener too) in the first place so IMO they can't go creating PR nightmares like this and lowering their FA status.

And I don't think for a second Langkow is a trade candidate. Even if he played last year and put up 40 ish points I don't think he is a trade candidate. His contract makes him extremely unattractive and throw in the fact that he hasn't played in a year I just don't see him as movable.

[geos]

It would be extremely poor form for the Flames to buyout Langkow. "Hey Daymond, congrats for all your hard work and dedicated to the cause, notw here is a cheque and your contract is void, good luck!".

Some people will say things like "thats's the business" or the Flmaes need to get aggressive with their cap. Fair points, but part of the business is attracting FA and re signing people. Let's be honest, Calgary isn't the most attractive destination (confirmed by Rhett Warrener too) in the first place so IMO they can't go creating PR nightmares like this and lowering their FA status.

I don't buy this for a second. It's no worse (and in fact probably more justifiable) than burying Kotalik or even worse Stajan (who was JUST signed) in the minors. That's far worse. I think alot of players will understand the circumstances of a $4.5M guy coming off injury at 35+. Players will be much more turned off by a team that buries handfuls of players (one of which is recently signed) in the AHL. That's a big problem.

The NYR just bought out their captain under similar circumstances, I don't think many players would hestitate going to NYR as a result. In fact, the Drury move was even bolder than buying out Langkow.

I'm opposed to it because I see it as unnecessary since this team is going no where fast anyway. I'd rather have the $1.5M next year and perhaps Langkow back at $1.5M or something. But if the team did it, I doubt it'd have any long term impact on FA interest in the team. 35+ injured guys may be hestitant, but other than that, no one cares.

It's much worse to be burying guys in their 20s on a regular basis in the AHL.

[cross16]

I don't buy this for a second. It's no worse (and in fact probably more justifiable) than burying Kotalik or even worse Stajan (who was JUST signed) in the minors. That's far worse. I think alot of players will understand the circumstances of a $4.5M guy coming off injury at 35+. Players will be much more turned off by a team that buries handfuls of players (one of which is recently signed) in the AHL. That's a big problem.

Which is why burying STajan in the minors is not justifiable IMO.

And how is someone who worked for an entire year and busted his apple just to be able to play the game the same as two people who played all year and could not live up to their contracts? Langkow has not been given an opportunity to earn his contract Kotalik has and it didn't work. Was given multiples chances as a matter of fact.

The NYR just bought out their captain under similar circumstances, I don't think many players would hestitate going to NYR as a result. In fact, the Drury move was even bolder than buying out Langkow.

Again how is it similar? Drury didn't live up to this contract, Langkow got hurt. And first off, you cannot compare NY to Calgary in terms of FA desitnation anyway.New York presents an attractive market for alot of players, Calgary does not. My point is that Calgary's reputation as a FA market place is not high to begin with so lowering it has a great affect. Not the same in New York.

I'm opposed to it because I see it as unnecessary since this team is going no where fast anyway. I'd rather have the $1.5M next year and perhaps Langkow back at $1.5M or something. But if the team did it, I doubt it'd have any long term impact on FA interest in the team. 35+ injured guys may be hestitant, but other than that, no one cares.

You cannot resign playes once they are bought out for at least a year. I think you underrate the impact of how an organization treats its players has on Free agents when they are looking at a place. Money talks obviously, but when money is the same (as it often is in today's game) the reputation of the organization becomes that much more important. You've got to allow players to play and earn their keep and if you do and it doesn't work out you hav eoptions. As of now Langkow has not been afforded that opportunity. Yes he was struggling two years ago, but having a year and a half off and releaseing them to save their own hide is not doing anyting for the player.

[Ring-a-ding-dong-dandy]

What are you going to give up for a $4.5M, 35+ defensive centre that hasn't played for a year? And hasn't scored 50 points since 07/08?

The only thing we'd get is an equally ugly contract. There is no way I'd want to take on a contract beyond the end of this year to get rid of Langkow. Perhaps Drury if he wasn't bought out, but that doesn't solve any of our current year salary issues, it just makes it worse for really no upgrade.

I don't see how you could deal Langkow at all. He may only play a couple games, gets hit funny and he's toast. Too many question marks. The only way he moves is if we take an even worse contract back.

1st Langkow is 34. 2nd I never said it would be a trade for value. Teams may be willing to take on his salary if they gain on it. Essentially give them a pick to take him. Burke has said in the past the Leafs would be willing to do this. We could offer Langkow and a pick for a conditional pick in 2012.

[Baalzamon]

yes it is unheard of, it is not allowed under the CBA. If a player is bought out you can not sign them as a free agent in the next 12 months.

Alfredsson was a special case. He had 3 option years on his contract and if the Senators declined the option they had to pay him $2.1 million. That $2.1 million was spread out over the 3 seasons as a "buyout"

a player can sign an extension in the final year of their contract but it doesn't affect their Cap Hit until the new contract kicks in. For example if Langkow signed a 1 year extension for $1 million dollars it wouldn't lower the cap hit to 2.75 million over this season and next, he would still carry a cap hit of $4.5 million this season and $1 million next season.

ALL of this was resolved several posts ago.

[geos]

You cannot resign playes once they are bought out for at least a year. I think you underrate the impact of how an organization treats its players has on Free agents when they are looking at a place. Money talks obviously, but when money is the same (as it often is in today's game) the reputation of the organization becomes that much more important. You've got to allow players to play and earn their keep and if you do and it doesn't work out you hav eoptions. As of now Langkow has not been afforded that opportunity. Yes he was struggling two years ago, but having a year and a half off and releaseing them to save their own hide is not doing anyting for the player.

No, I think we should keep him this year at $4.5 since there is nothing really we can do this year anyway. Sign him next year when he's a FA to a $1.5M deal 1 year deal, rather than give up $1.5m of 2012-13 cap space for nothing.

I don't think it's a big deal to buy him out, but that doesn't mean I think we should.

And Drury was hurt last season too, not a perfect comparison (and Drury was $7M), but it's similar. And he's the captain.

[senor_incendiarse]

And Drury was hurt last season too, not a perfect comparison (and Drury was $7M), but it's similar. And he's the captain.

The Rangers can survive something like that and the Flames will be affected by one big difference. New York vs. Calgary. The city more than anything else is what brings players to it, Calgary on the other hand doesn't have the same power as a city, but what the Flames do have is players past and present speak highly of how the organization has treated players, if they lose that then we become Edmonton. The Kotalik excuse falls simply on himself, what the Flames are doing to him now isn't much worse than what the Rangers did to him.

[jjgallow]

You can negotiate an extension on the final year of a players contract but it doesn't impact the cap hit of the previous contract.

If they extended Langkow for a season at 2-million then the cap hit this season would be 4.5 million and the cap hit next season would be 2-million. It wouldn't be an average.

Thanks kehatch...partly for the valuable information, and partly for Ruining my Suggestion, lol

What to do now? I guess I should go riot in the streets, seems like the most logical next step...

[DirtyDeeds]

I was over in the Canucks forums and skimming over a few topics and getting into the feel of their big unraveling they have going on. You know the pointing fingers and laying blame etc. So I got to thinking that is all just a start of the recovery process, you know the 12 steps an alcoholic goes through? Starts with admitting you have a problem........

So one thread is about how Lou lost the series and the shock that the elite goalie they signed for a cap hit of 5.3m until the year 2022. I ponder if I will still be around and kicking by the time his contract is up.

So there is/was in the middle of that thread the flavor of the month "Can you say buyout?!!!!! ". I immediately thought of this thread. Sure it is different reasons and different players but I am going to chalk this thread up to "Flavor of the month". Frankly in Langkows case there is nothing much to be gained with a buy out, and it is highly unlikely to happen. In the end we need something exciting to talk about, good or evil, because hockey fans don't take well to boring or bland.

The OP's suggestion here rates right up there on the excitement meter, right along side with saving $2 on a business lunch using a coupon.

Now keeping Langkow here, and giving him a chance to perform and actually seeing him do well...... Now that is something we can all sink our teeth into and talk about for years to come. People write songs to record the history, for stuff like that.

[UKFlamer]

Calgary just need to ride things out. They have a roster of absoloute rubbish and there is nothing that can be done about it. Getting rid of langkow, or stajan, isnt going to improve the team enough to justify the cost. The flames need to figure out a long term rebuilding plan.

[Crzydrvr]

Calgary just need to ride things out. They have a roster of absoloute rubbish and there is nothing that can be done about it. Getting rid of langkow, or stajan, isnt going to improve the team enough to justify the cost. The flames need to figure out a long term rebuilding plan.

Hold on just a ding-dong minute....

Good. Teams 'owning' players isnt right and i'll support any player who sticks to fingers up to that idea.

I'm not one to dig up the past, but....

You sound like a pretty smart guy, and now I'm wondering where this quote came from.

[kehatch]

I was over in the Canucks forums and skimming over a few topics and getting into the feel of their big unraveling they have going on. You know the pointing fingers and laying blame etc. So I got to thinking that is all just a start of the recovery process, you know the 12 steps an alcoholic goes through? Starts with admitting you have a problem........

So one thread is about how Lou lost the series and the shock that the elite goalie they signed for a cap hit of 5.3m until the year 2022. I ponder if I will still be around and kicking by the time his contract is up.

So there is/was in the middle of that thread the flavor of the month "Can you say buyout?!!!!! ". I immediately thought of this thread. Sure it is different reasons and different players but I am going to chalk this thread up to "Flavor of the month". Frankly in Langkows case there is nothing much to be gained with a buy out, and it is highly unlikely to happen. In the end we need something exciting to talk about, good or evil, because hockey fans don't take well to boring or bland.

The OP's suggestion here rates right up there on the excitement meter, right along side with saving $2 on a business lunch using a coupon.

Now keeping Langkow here, and giving him a chance to perform and actually seeing him do well...... Now that is something we can all sink our teeth into and talk about for years to come. People write songs to record the history, for stuff like that.

Yes. Me making a comment 2-months after missing the play offs to buy-out a 35 yo player, following a season long injury, with declining performance, and one season on his contract is exactly the same as Canuck's fans making the comments 1-day after losing in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals to buy-out their 32 yo elite goaltender, who is in the Vezina runnings, and has 11-seasons left on his contract.

Do you even think before you hit add reply? Seriously.

[DirtyDeeds]

Yes. Me making a comment 2-months after missing the play offs to buy-out a 35 yo player, following a season long injury, with declining performance, and one season on his contract is exactly the same as Canuck's fans making the comments 1-day after losing in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals to buy-out their 32 yo elite goaltender, who is in the Vezina runnings, and has 11-seasons left on his contract.

Do you even think before you hit add reply? Seriously.

I am beginning to think English is not your first language because you show signs that you don't understand it well. Do I need to use smaller words??

What part of "it is different reasons and different players". did you not understand? I was in no way trying to compare the two, just suggesting that that thread made me think of this thread. Duh !!

Fact still remains your OP and suggestion has about as much excitement as the paint flaking off my deck, which was the point of that particular post.

[jjgallow]

It would be extremely poor form for the Flames to buyout Langkow. "Hey Daymond, congrats for all your hard work and dedicated to the cause, notw here is a cheque and your contract is void, good luck!".

Some people will say things like "thats's the business" or the Flmaes need to get aggressive with their cap. Fair points, but part of the business is attracting FA and re signing people. Let's be honest, Calgary isn't the most attractive destination (confirmed by Rhett Warrener too) in the first place so IMO they can't go creating PR nightmares like this and lowering their FA status.

And I don't think for a second Langkow is a trade candidate. Even if he played last year and put up 40 ish points I don't think he is a trade candidate. His contract makes him extremely unattractive and throw in the fact that he hasn't played in a year I just don't see him as movable.

SUCH a good post. It's a business built around a game. As soon as you take out the game, you don't have a business. Business needs hockey more than hockey needs business.

Funny thing...

We (myself included) have all been complaining about the Flames being too old to compete, and then watched the Boston Bruins, with an average age on their team of 29.5, WIN the Cup.

Now what? Seriously, I'm asking...because Age does not explain away the Flames problems anymore.

We just watched a 35-year-old captain, a 43-year-old assistant captain, and a 37-year-old goalie Steal the Show (and win the Vezina).

Let's all just hold off on this "Langkow is Old" thing...we all have some thinking to do, myself included.