Is Langkow A Buy-out Candidate?

[The_People1]

I'm opposed to it because I see it as unnecessary since this team is going no where fast anyway.

If we plan on doing anything of significance next season, then i would suggest we buyout Langkow to make cap space to target somebody via trade. If not, then just play out the season and let his contract expire. After that, we can sign him to a fair long term deal and play him where he fits in, which is the 4th line as a dependable two-way veteran for about $1.5-mil per year. I like Langkow, at $1.5-mil. I think everybody does. I don't like him at $4.5-mil because he has to perform consistently at optimal output for value to be returned and i just don't see that happening. I'm sure he'll give the Flames about 25 to 45 games of optimal output but for $4.5-mil, we need more.

You can't buy experience but i think there are 4th line quality Centers at Abbotsford for below $1-mil-per.

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.

Like i was saying, OP makes sense from a numbers perspective only.

But numbers have its merit and significance in a cap league.

[BobbyB12]

I Think the Flames have more class than to buy him out. His price tag is very pricey and overpaid,"getting old", Offence numbers were on the decline all the things you can find on "paper"..But he still has great hockey sense and plays a good defensive game and does little things that count and go un noticed most ppl tend to forget these things. In the last 11 years he has never been a minus player. Yeah he's getting older..we all do lol look at Recchi and Boston they just won a cup.

That being said I understand it is a business and sometimes you need to be aggressive in this new salary cap era but I just don't think the timing is right on this one. The free agency market isn't great this off season, We don't have to many movable/trade value players to get the player everyone's been hoping for. If i were to buy out anyone it would probably be Hagman. All in all I would stick to the idea of dumping players for picks to make up cap space for now. If the Flames play how they did the last half of the season ALL of next season right from game one haha they will do pretty good, I liked how they took the 3 games at a time approach it worked out well for us, and i believe Vancouver bought into that strategy from the start of the season and they got pretty far until they Choked

[Baalzamon]

if the flames bought out Hagman and converted Stajan to LW then Langkow would fit in as the third line center. A shutdown line consisting of Stajan-Langkow-Bourque (or Glencross and/or Moss, as the case may be) would do well countering other teams' top lines. The important detail is Langkow, of course.

[Flyerfan52]

If we plan on doing anything of significance next season, then i would suggest we buyout Langkow to make cap space to target somebody via trade. If not, then just play out the season and let his contract expire. After that, we can sign him to a fair long term deal and play him where he fits in, which is the 4th line as a dependable two-way veteran for about $1.5-mil per year. I like Langkow, at $1.5-mil. I think everybody does. I don't like him at $4.5-mil because he has to perform consistently at optimal output for value to be returned and i just don't see that happening. I'm sure he'll give the Flames about 25 to 45 games of optimal output but for $4.5-mil, we need more.

You can't buy experience but i think there are 4th line quality Centers at Abbotsford for below $1-mil-per.

Like i was saying, OP makes sense from a numbers perspective only.

But numbers have its merit and significance in a cap league.

1 problem with giving the long term $1.5 million contract is he'll be 35 when this 1 ends. That would mean a +35 contract meaning the hit stays even if he retires. Players like Lidstrom, Selanne & Recchi sign 1 year contracts @ or near current worth to avoid leaving their team hamstrung. Fairer to both sides is a 1 year & then renew for as long as both sides feel it's fair value.

[JA_Boomer]

if the flames bought out Hagman and converted Stajan to LW then Langkow would fit in as the third line center. A shutdown line consisting of Stajan-Langkow-Bourque (or Glencross and/or Moss, as the case may be) would do well countering other teams' top lines. The important detail is Langkow, of course.

Been saying this for a while. You have a Glencross-Langkow-Moss 3'rd line for shutdown duties. Stajan-Jokinen-Bourque as a 2'nd scoring line. I think having a passer on Olli line might cause him to shoot a little more...which would be a good think me thinks.

If Backlund doesn't prosper on the 1'st line however, Langkow's going to be moved there (assuming we don't resign Morrison), so then you might have to juggle the lines because I'm sure you don't want Backlund playing against the other teams top line every night.

[Baalzamon]

If Backlund doesn't prosper on the 1'st line however, Langkow's going to be moved there (assuming we don't resign Morrison), so then you might have to juggle the lines because I'm sure you don't want Backlund playing against the other teams top line every night.

actually I think the first candidate might just be David Moss. Of course, that would create a bit of a confusing shift of things around. I think it would look something like this(assuming Backlund doesn't work out. I have a feeling he won't disappoint us though):

Tanguay-Moss-Iginla

Stajan-Jokinen-Bourque

Glencross-Langkow-Jackman

Kostopoulos-Backlund-Bouma or whoever was playing 4th line center

[WolfzLair]

Lanks is one of my fav's on the Flames. I hope he plays all 82 games and has a pinacle year.

[UKFlamer]

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

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.

Not quite sure what your getting at?

[FCF]

I would like some clarification from the people who think the optics are terrible, and it is bad form to buy out Langkow. Would it make a difference if he had not been hurt? Is this the problem? Because I don't think it is anything to be be concerned with. NYR are buying out Drury after injuries and I haven't seen any criticism.

To me a buyout is a legit tool which both the NHLPA and the NHL agreed to. Once the PA agrees to it that means the players think it is an acceptable alterrnative to keeping the player until the end of his deal. So if they don't have a problem with it, why should we? It doesn't say the player can't be bought out if he was previously hurt but is now healthy. If Langkow decides to retire he gets a $3 mil retirement fund, and if he decides to play he will likely be making more than if he played in Calgary. Hard to feel too sorry for him from a financial perspective. Not really ideal for CGY or Langkow, but it is a smart way to clear cap space imo. We need the dough to sign better players.

Furthermore, I have seen a lot of the same people advocating trading players with NTCs. That is reneging on a contract that was signed in good faith. How is that in any way more acceptable than using a legit out clause that the PA agreed to?

I am sorry, but I just don't get it.

For people concerned with having to forfeit the buyout cap hit in 2012-13, right now we are projected to have about $21 mil in cap space.

As for Stajan, yeah he had a rough year, but I don't think we need to write him off for the rest of his career yet. He isn't 34 like Langkow, he is only 27. As people have mentioned his buyout is ugly. However his buyout after next year is pretty decent because he will only be making $2.5 mil per. He also has a modified NTC so he can be traded. However he needs a decent year in the bank to get any interest. If he has a decent year we can decide to keep him, trade him, or if he sucks we can buy him out. I don't see him as being the albatross around our neck that most do, at least after next season.

Stajan's buyout cap numbers after next year:

■2012-13: $1,833,333

■2013-14: $1,833,333

■2014-15: $833,333

■2015-16: $833,333

We save $1.8 mil for two years then only get dinged $1.7 spread over the final two years.

[terrainman1]

Daymond Langkow has just struggled through what was supposed by some and perhaps at times he himself as a Career Ending Injury. Miraculously he healed up and came back to play by season's end to not only show all of us that he was healthy enough to play but also seeming as though he didn't miss a stride at all.

IMO this fellow through his ordeals and struggle just built himself a level of character and presence within that locker room and on the ice that is unprecedented by current league standards.

Now the question arises. Is he worth his cap hit? First off I think he certainly is worth it. From what he went through added to the fact that when he returned he showed that he hadn't slowed much if any and was ready to compete at the same level he did prior. Secondly, would it be fair to pose a buyout to a player such as Daymond who struggled through a debilitating injury off of the ice as opposed to a player that takes up a great deal of cap space and has the opportunity to perform on ice, however doesn't perform up to standards?

No absolutely not do you buy him out. Langks has been the steady unsung hero of this team for the last 4 seasons prior to injury and most certainly is worth what his cap it is even more so now with having to battle through adversity with the neck injury. Persevering through an injury like he has gives him absolutely invaluable experience to bring to his peers.

[senor_incendiarse]

I would like some clarification from the people who think the optics are terrible, and it is bad form to buy out Langkow. Would it make a difference if he had not been hurt? Is this the problem? Because I don't think it is anything to be be concerned with. NYR are buying out Drury after injuries and I haven't seen any criticism.

To me a buyout is a legit tool which both the NHLPA and the NHL agreed to. Once the PA agrees to it that means the players think it is an acceptable alterrnative to keeping the player until the end of his deal. So if they don't have a problem with it, why should we? It doesn't say the player can't be bought out if he was previously hurt but is now healthy. If Langkow decides to retire he gets a $3 mil retirement fund, and if he decides to play he will likely be making more than if he played in Calgary. Hard to feel too sorry for him from a financial perspective. Not really ideal for CGY or Langkow, but it is a smart way to clear cap space imo. We need the dough to sign better players.

If you haven't heard the latest is Drury cant be bought out due to injury, but there is a massive difference. Drurys best years as a Ranger have been quite worse than Langkows best as a Flame, and Drurys worst has still been quite worse than Langkows worst and there is over a 2.5 million dollar difference is salary. As I said earlier New York can do things that other teams can't because New York will always be an attractive destination for players.

I don't see why having the extra cap space going to July 1st is gonna really help this team, simply put bidding wars happen and guys get over paid for. I also don't see too many free agents out there that are gonna really help this team especially saving only 3 million from doing that. Last year 3 million got you Olli Jokinen or Colby Armstrong and we need a lot more than that type of player, and neither are drastic upgrades over Langkow.

[march1]

There is no question that the Flames have to dump salary, otherwise we'll just be a more expensive version of last year's team. If you can dump Stajan and Hagman, then I'd be fine with letting Langs ride out the last year of his contract here.

If it came down to it, I'd rather trade him than buy him out.

[FCF]

If you haven't heard the latest is Drury cant be bought out due to injury, but there is a massive difference. Drurys best years as a Ranger have been quite worse than Langkows best as a Flame, and Drurys worst has still been quite worse than Langkows worst and there is over a 2.5 million dollar difference is salary. As I said earlier New York can do things that other teams can't because New York will always be an attractive destination for players.

I hadn't heard that, thanks for getting me up to speed. As for comparing the performance of the two players or their relative worth: that was not something I was trying to do. Just their situations, but that was also before I knew Drury's buyout was nixed.

I don't see why having the extra cap space going to July 1st is gonna really help this team, simply put bidding wars happen and guys get over paid for. I also don't see too many free agents out there that are gonna really help this team especially saving only 3 million from doing that. Last year 3 million got you Olli Jokinen or Colby Armstrong and we need a lot more than that type of player, and neither are drastic upgrades over Langkow.

I don't see any extra cap space. We have 18 players under contract and only $3-6 mil in space. That isn't enough.

[Artanthos]

its easy for people to come on these boards and discuss moving players like they're pawns..

but really put yourself into his shoes. he's spent a very large portion of his career here in calgary.. he got hurt seriously hurt here in calgary... almost lost his career due to that injury on a few occasions.. Lanks manages to battle through and come back. given the severity of the injury that's a feat few NHL players are able to match.

why the hell would we reward that with buying him out and forcing a retire. everybody here is commenting on his age. Mark Recchi is 43, just won a cup, and had some killer post season production. they're both grinding defensive forwards. i figure lanks has 5 more years of nhl caliber play..

seriously why the hell would anybody think of askign him to retire.. that's like asking iggy to retire (he's only 2 years younger). you guys are friggen idiots. or Kipper who's only a single year younger.

we're choking on some massively bad contracts, and the OP decides lanks is the one to banana about? get you're head on straight buddy. lanks is on a recovery season. calgary flames WILL have the class to see THEIR commitment TO HIM through... he's a hard worker, took a massive injury for us. and battled back. Langkow deserves our respect and the opportunity to get his career back on track. we owe him that.

as a fan i think the OP should've been beaten in the vancouver riots. the lack of class even asking this question is epic. GTFO.

that said. maybe we should turn our attention to the handful of horrible contracts we're choking on and work on them first.

JBo, and Staios come to mind first

[JA_Boomer]

its easy for people to come on these boards and discuss moving players like they're pawns..

but really put yourself into his shoes. he's spent a very large portion of his career here in calgary.. he got hurt seriously hurt here in calgary... almost lost his career due to that injury on a few occasions.. Lanks manages to battle through and come back. given the severity of the injury that's a feat few NHL players are able to match.

why the hell would we reward that with buying him out and forcing a retire. everybody here is commenting on his age. Mark Recchi is 43, just won a cup, and had some killer post season production. they're both grinding defensive forwards. i figure lanks has 5 more years of nhl caliber play..

seriously why the hell would anybody think of askign him to retire.. that's like asking iggy to retire (he's only 2 years younger). you guys are friggen idiots. or Kipper who's only a single year younger.

we're choking on some massively bad contracts, and the OP decides lanks is the one to banana about? get you're head on straight buddy. lanks is on a recovery season. calgary flames WILL have the class to see THEIR commitment TO HIM through... he's a hard worker, took a massive injury for us. and battled back. Langkow deserves our respect and the opportunity to get his career back on track. we owe him that.

as a fan i think the OP should've been beaten in the vancouver riots. the lack of class even asking this question is epic. GTFO.

that said. maybe we should turn our attention to the handful of horrible contracts we're choking on and work on them first.

JBo, and Staios come to mind first

Easy there cowboy.

Although I don't think Langkow should be bought out, buying him out of his current contract does not mean he has to retire. He would become a free agent and be able to do whatever he likes (although he can't re-sign with the Flames for a year).

Secondly, a Langkow buy-out is the most attractive form of creating cap space for this team (because we don't really know what will happen with Kotalik and Hagman). Both in terms of the cap space it frees up and the term, it's the best option.

I don't think we have to do it, but some people think it's a valid option to create space, and I think you went over the line slamming them for suggesting such an idea.

[The_People1]

Would it make a difference if he had not been hurt? Is this the problem? Because I don't think it is anything to be be concerned with.

I guess it's like watching a co-worker come back from Maternity Leave and get fired right away. As an employee of the company, you're watching the situation closely because you want to be sure that your employer treats its staff with respect and fairness. You also want to feel confident that you won't get fired under the same circumstances.

Langkow went out and broke his neck for the team. Other players on the team want the security of knowing the team won't cut them off the roster for risking their necks too. In the NHL, we need players giving 110%. So, buying out an injured Langkow becomes a question of team morals and ethics.

[LouCifer]

Saw some ideas for lines in this thread, but no one has mentioned the OMG line. Keep olli moss and glenX together. If olli gets waived, mosser steps in (both are centermen). GlenX offers that X factor that teams have to look out for. They were a defensively responsible and offensively dangerous line last year. Carried the team thru various stretches of games especially when we had many games in a single week

[Kipper14]

Langkow has shown a ton of heart and dedication in coming back from his injury, and it would be a slap in the face to him, and a classless move by the organisation to all of a sudden buy him out if you ask me, especially for a team that has next to no expectations this year, most people will pick us to miss playoffs again. The guy is a warrior and I highly doubt he will come out next season and have a brutal season. Even if his points dip, as people have already mentioned, he does stuff defensively and away from the puck that are super valuable that you don't always see. He would also provide a great deal of inspiration in the locker room all season...you can't discount that kinda stuff.

The way I see it, start him on our second line with Bourque, move Stajan to the wing, and we'll have an offense that looks something like this (given we resign Tangs)

Iginla/Backlund/Tanguay

Bourque/Langkow/Stajan

Moss/Jokinen/Glencross

Jackman/rookie/Hags or Kotalik

If you ask me, that's not a terrible offensive lineup.

[JA_Boomer]

Saw some ideas for lines in this thread, but no one has mentioned the OMG line. Keep olli moss and glenX together. If olli gets waived, mosser steps in (both are centermen). GlenX offers that X factor that teams have to look out for. They were a defensively responsible and offensively dangerous line last year. Carried the team thru various stretches of games especially when we had many games in a single week

I agree that the OMG line last year was very good. But the thing is Olli was the shutdown centerman with the team last year. Langkow is much better suited for that role. So unless Langkow winds up on the 1'st line to start the season (which could very well happen) then you have to break up the OMG line in my opinion. That's because the best wingers for a shutdown role are Glencross and Moss in my opinion. Bourque is freed up to be on a second scoring line with Olli, and Stajan can go on the other wing. Olli and Langks can be aggressive on the faceoffs because you have Stajan or Mosser coming in to take the draw should they get waived.

That's how I see it shaking out anyways. I just don't want to see Stajan centering the 4'th line anymore, as he kills the puck control generated by TK and Jacks.

[BobbyB12]

its easy for people to come on these boards and discuss moving players like they're pawns..

but really put yourself into his shoes. he's spent a very large portion of his career here in calgary.. he got hurt seriously hurt here in calgary... almost lost his career due to that injury on a few occasions.. Lanks manages to battle through and come back. given the severity of the injury that's a feat few NHL players are able to match.

why the hell would we reward that with buying him out and forcing a retire. everybody here is commenting on his age. Mark Recchi is 43, just won a cup, and had some killer post season production. they're both grinding defensive forwards. i figure lanks has 5 more years of nhl caliber play..

seriously why the hell would anybody think of askign him to retire.. that's like asking iggy to retire (he's only 2 years younger). you guys are friggen idiots. or Kipper who's only a single year younger.

we're choking on some massively bad contracts, and the OP decides lanks is the one to banana about? get you're head on straight buddy. lanks is on a recovery season. calgary flames WILL have the class to see THEIR commitment TO HIM through... he's a hard worker, took a massive injury for us. and battled back. Langkow deserves our respect and the opportunity to get his career back on track. we owe him that.

as a fan i think the OP should've been beaten in the vancouver riots. the lack of class even asking this question is epic. GTFO.

that said. maybe we should turn our attention to the handful of horrible contracts we're choking on and work on them first.

JBo, and Staios come to mind first

I basically said the same thing minus all the hostility and rudeness

Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:22 PM

I Think the Flames have more class than to buy him out. His price tag is very pricey and overpaid,"getting old", Offence numbers were on the decline all the things you can find on "paper"..But he still has great hockey sense and plays a good defensive game and does little things that count and go un noticed most ppl tend to forget these things. In the last 11 years he has never been a minus player. Yeah he's getting older..we all do lol look at Recchi and Boston they just won a cup.

That being said I understand it is a business and sometimes you need to be aggressive in this new salary cap era but I just don't think the timing is right on this one. The free agency market isn't great this off season, We don't have to many movable/trade value players to get the player everyone's been hoping for. If i were to buy out anyone it would probably be Hagman. All in all I would stick to the idea of dumping players for picks to make up cap space for now. If the Flames play how they did the last half of the season ALL of next season right from game one haha they will do pretty good, I liked how they took the 3 games at a time approach it worked out well for us, and i believe Vancouver bought into that strategy from the start of the season and they got pretty far until they Choked

FLAMES FAITHFUL

as for Staios his contract is up........

[FCF]

I guess it's like watching a co-worker come back from Maternity Leave and get fired right away. As an employee of the company, you're watching the situation closely because you want to be sure that your employer treats its staff with respect and fairness. You also want to feel confident that you won't get fired under the same circumstances.

Langkow went out and broke his neck for the team. Other players on the team want the security of knowing the team won't cut them off the roster for risking their necks too. In the NHL, we need players giving 110%. So, buying out an injured Langkow becomes a question of team morals and ethics.

I don't see the similarity between firing someone after coming back off of mat. leave and buying out a player. Taking mat leave is not legal grounds to turf someone. You have to have cause to fire someone and if you can't show cause you are open to a wrongful dismissal suit. A buyout conversely is not an underhanded tactic, it is reasonable use of a clause in the CBA complete with predefined severance benefits for the player.

We can't buy out Langkow if he is still injured, and rightly so. If we were trying to do that I see the ethical argument and mat. leave comparison, but that is not the case. Langkow wouldn't be bought out because he was hurt, he would be bought out because he isn't perceived to be worth his cap hit.

Admittedly this is due to a mistake made by the guy who signed him and rectified by the new guy as per the CBA. That is exactly why the owners wanted the clause in the agreement. The owners and players both gave up the right to renegotiate and agreed to this alternative. Should owners or the team be held in low regard for using a clause the players signed off on?

As for risking their neck, that is a chance they take and are paid millions to do it. They all know that going in. Construction workers do it for $30.00 an hour.

I still don't see the argument.

[Coolie]

I really don't mind our lineup. We've got decent depth. I think now that the cap has been raised we will be able to resign Tanguay.

[CastleMania]

I don't see the similarity between firing someone after coming back off of mat. leave and buying out a player. Taking mat leave is not legal grounds to turf someone. You have to have cause to fire someone and if you can't show cause you are open to a wrongful dismissal suit. A buyout conversely is not an underhanded tactic, it is reasonable use of a clause in the CBA complete with predefined severance benefits for the player.

We can't buy out Langkow if he is still injured, and rightly so. If we were trying to do that I see the ethical argument and mat. leave comparison, but that is not the case. Langkow wouldn't be bought out because he was hurt, he would be bought out because he isn't perceived to be worth his cap hit.

Admittedly this is due to a mistake made by the guy who signed him and rectified by the new guy as per the CBA. That is exactly why the owners wanted the clause in the agreement. The owners and players both gave up the right to renegotiate and agreed to this alternative. Should owners or the team be held in low regard for using a clause the players signed off on?

As for risking their neck, that is a chance they take and are paid millions to do it. They all know that going in. Construction workers do it for $30.00 an hour.

I still don't see the argument.

If you're going to bash the maternity leave anecdote, don't bring in the construction worker anecdote that is equally incomparable. You can't fire a construction worker once they come back from on the job injury either, even if they can't perform.

[cross16]

I don't see the similarity between firing someone after coming back off of mat. leave and buying out a player. Taking mat leave is not legal grounds to turf someone. You have to have cause to fire someone and if you can't show cause you are open to a wrongful dismissal suit. A buyout conversely is not an underhanded tactic, it is reasonable use of a clause in the CBA complete with predefined severance benefits for the player.

We can't buy out Langkow if he is still injured, and rightly so. If we were trying to do that I see the ethical argument and mat. leave comparison, but that is not the case. Langkow wouldn't be bought out because he was hurt, he would be bought out because he isn't perceived to be worth his cap hit.

Admittedly this is due to a mistake made by the guy who signed him and rectified by the new guy as per the CBA. That is exactly why the owners wanted the clause in the agreement. The owners and players both gave up the right to renegotiate and agreed to this alternative. Should owners or the team be held in low regard for using a clause the players signed off on?

As for risking their neck, that is a chance they take and are paid millions to do it. They all know that going in. Construction workers do it for $30.00 an hour.

I still don't see the argument.

I agree with alot of what you say, but this is the part where I can't get past. to me the perception is going to be the Flames are buying him out and releasing him becuase they are projecting or assuming he won't be worth his cap hit becuase of his injury. Thats not really giving Langkow a chance to earn his contract and thats where I think the differences between he and Drury lie. Drury was injured off and on, but overal had several years to live up to his contract and really never did. Langkow had 1 pretty poor year, followed by a huge injury that he worked extremely hard to get back from, and then the Flames are going to buy him out before giving him a chance to redeem himself becuase they project he won't be fair value? That's where I see the bad optics coming into play. Whether its right or wrong, and I would agree that the act of buying him out if not "wrong", I just think the optics and how the media/NHL players are going to view the optics is that problem. Right or wrong is pretty irrelevant when it comes to optics and how people view something.

[FCF]

If you're going to bash the maternity leave anecdote, don't bring in the construction worker anecdote that is equally incomparable. You can't fire a construction worker once they come back from on the job injury either, even if they can't perform.

I wasn't bashing anything or anyone. I was explaining why I was having difficulty seeing a parallel between a buyout which is a part of the CBA and a case of wrongful dismissal(mat leave) which is against labour laws.

The comparison between the construction worker and hockey player had nothing to do with being fired, it was a comparing two occupations which have inherent risks that go along with the job.

I thought I was quite clear on both counts.