Is Langkow A Buy-out Candidate?

[The_People1]

Taking mat leave is not legal grounds to turf someone.

I meant AFTER someone returns from mat leave, not while they are on it. It could be that someone was no longer perceived as qualified for the job and got toasted. But i'm just saying, it reflects bad on the company.

[FCF]

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.

If he is cleared to play by doctors, how is that an issue? As I stated before, I think he would be a buyout candidate whether he had been injured or not. His numbers had been in decline for three straight years before he got hurt.

[FCF]

I meant AFTER someone returns from mat leave, not while they are on it. It could be that someone was no longer perceived as qualified for the job and got toasted. But i'm just saying, it reflects bad on the company.

It could be, but if there was a buyout clause in that person's employment contract it wouldn't matter anyway. When you agree to work under a certain contract, you are subject to the rules of that contract. If you have a problem with that clause you should have voted it down or refused to work under it. Otherwise both sides are contractually bound.

I think the point people are missing is that the buyout clause in the CBA is there for this exact reason. If the player is hurt it is not allowed, fair enough. If he is healthy it is allowed. Both sides signed off on the clause, and are aware this could happen, whether a person was injured or not. Langkow is free to explore other options and the Flames pay a fair price(according to the PA) to void the deal. The fact he was hurt is not an issue because he is now healthy.

Like I said to cross, his numbers have been in steady decline for three years before he got hurt. If he had not been hurt, and achieved the numbers of his last healthy year, I would buy him out as well.

[cross16]

If he is cleared to play by doctors, how is that an issue? As I stated before, I think he would be a buyout candidate whether he had been injured or not. His numbers had been in decline for three straight years before he got hurt.

Because its all perception. Players, agents, media etc I believe would look at it and see that Calgary is looking to Langkow to help their cap situation that they got themselves into it. Keep in mind I don't think buyouts ever look good for a franchise this just makes it worse.

What i'm saying is irrgardles off what side you fall on this I think the PR fall out is giong to be negative. since when does the media logically look at things and say "well he is declinning so I guess a buyout makes sense?". I firmly believe that the percpetion will be that they bought someone out after all he did to get back into game shape. Its all perception.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with buying out Langkow, i just beleive the perception of it would be very negative and the Flames simply cannot afford anything negative like that.

[Baalzamon]

according to Fester's video where he talks to the media about Karlsson, Tanguay, Irving, Mikkelson (apparently the latter two were given qualifying offers), he said he wasn't looking to use the buyout to get rid of contracts. So... that's that, I guess.

[FCF]

Because its all perception. Players, agents, media etc I believe would look at it and see that Calgary is looking to Langkow to help their cap situation that they got themselves into it. Keep in mind I don't think buyouts ever look good for a franchise this just makes it worse.

What i'm saying is irrgardles off what side you fall on this I think the PR fall out is giong to be negative. since when does the media logically look at things and say "well he is declinning so I guess a buyout makes sense?". I firmly believe that the percpetion will be that they bought someone out after all he did to get back into game shape. Its all perception.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with buying out Langkow, i just beleive the perception of it would be very negative and the Flames simply cannot afford anything negative like that.

OK, there has been a ton of sentiment in support of buying out Kotalik and Stajan. Both of them were hurt last year as well.

Would it not be bad optics to buy out Kotalik or Stajan, and keep Langkow? Should Kotalik or Stajan not have the same chance at redemption? Is a double standard not something to be concerned about as an employer?

Are there situations where the optics have to take a back seat to icing the best team possible in deference to the fans who pay the bills? How many people would change their view if Management said, 'we had to make a tough choice in buying out Langkow in order to keep Tanguay'?

I admit this situation is not ideal, but I also think people are well aware of the difficult choices a team must make when they are in a situation like the Flames. If it became policy I think it would be damaging, but in this situation I think people would understand the Flames were making a difficult decision they would rather not have to make.

[FCF]

according to Fester's video where he talks to the media about Karlsson, Tanguay, Irving, Mikkelson (apparently the latter two were given qualifying offers), he said he wasn't looking to use the buyout to get rid of contracts. So... that's that, I guess.

Yep, I just watched it and he stated he doesn't want the lingering cap hit. He is consistent in his philosophy of not indulging in deficit spending, as he alluded to when he was talking about dealing draft picks, which I like.

Hope he can make it work, but I think he will be hard pressed to improve the team unless he can move contracts in some way.

[DirtyDeeds]

according to Fester's video where he talks to the media about Karlsson, Tanguay, Irving, Mikkelson (apparently the latter two were given qualifying offers), he said he wasn't looking to use the buyout to get rid of contracts. So... that's that, I guess.

Feaster just moved up a notch if that is his thinking.

FCF: There would be a big difference for buying out Kotalik from Langkow. You buyout Kotalik because of his under performing then demotion to Abby/clearing waivers not because he was injured for a few games.

Langkow does not fit that criteria and while was not racking up big points he was earning his spot on the team in other ways like good 2 way play. His injury and work to recover, would directly infleunce how that action would be perceived if the Flames were to attempt buying out his contract.

[FCF]

There would be a big difference for buying out Kotalik from Langkow. You buyout Kotalik because of his under performing then demotion to Abby/clearing waivers not because he was injured for a few games.

Langkow does not fit that criteria and while was not racking up big points he was earning his spot on the team in other ways like good 2 way play. His injury and work to recover, would directly infleunce how that action would be perceived if the Flames were to attempt buying out his contract.

At 34 years old after three consecutive declining years, buying out one remaining year? He wasn't worth $4.5 million the last year or two he was healthy.

He may not have been under performing because of lack of effort, but he is in terms of his cap hit. Either way I don't see it as a buyout because he was hurt anymore than Kotalik would be bought out because he was hurt. Neither are worth what they are being paid. That was my point. The injury is incidental in both cases.

[DirtyDeeds]

At 34 years old after three consecutive declining years, buying out one remaining year? He wasn't worth $4.5 million the last year or two he was healthy.

He may not have been under performing because of lack of effort, but he is in terms of his cap hit. Either way I don't see it as a buyout because he was hurt anymore than Kotalik would be bought out because he was hurt. Neither are worth what they are being paid. That was my point. The injury is incidental in both cases.

Does not matter how you see it being only a buyout of overpaid players, it is obvious(from many different replies here) others also see it differently.

On a final note who would you want running your pro hockey team?

- the guy who only looks at the $$ value return from a player in points?

or

- the guy who can keep to budget yet also see a potential media nightmare?

We all know the media only prints stuff about budgets and players value while earning their contracts right?

[FCF]

Does not matter how you see it being only a buyout of overpaid players, it is obvious(from many different replies here) others also see it differently.

That is fine with me, if everyone agreed it would be boring. There were also replies that favoured the buyout.

Re:

On a final note who would you want running your pro hockey team?

- the guy who only looks at the $$ value return from a player in points?

or

- the guy who can keep to budget yet also see a potential media nightmare?

We all know the media only prints stuff about budgets and players value while earning their contracts right?

The guy who can do what is right for the team and mitigate any any negativity by explaining the fact they may be doing something they would not otherwise do in a different situation. As I mentioned, this isn't something I would be considering if I did not feel the situation was dire.

[cross16]

OK, there has been a ton of sentiment in support of buying out Kotalik and Stajan. Both of them were hurt last year as well.

Would it not be bad optics to buy out Kotalik or Stajan, and keep Langkow? Should Kotalik or Stajan not have the same chance at redemption? Is a double standard not something to be concerned about as an employer?

Are there situations where the optics have to take a back seat to icing the best team possible in deference to the fans who pay the bills? How many people would change their view if Management said, 'we had to make a tough choice in buying out Langkow in order to keep Tanguay'?

I admit this situation is not ideal, but I also think people are well aware of the difficult choices a team must make when they are in a situation like the Flames. If it became policy I think it would be damaging, but in this situation I think people would understand the Flames were making a difficult decision they would rather not have to make.

Yes actually. You may have read I'm one of the few people that actually does not support buying out players. I think overal the optics of all buyouts are poor. I view it as the organization re negging on a promise it already made. I understand its in the cba and all and i get that, I just think it always comes across as an admission of guilt that the player takes the fall for. I mean it was the club that determined the price not necessarily the player so yes I agree that in general all buyouts are not great. This is slightly different given the injury but most importantly the severity of the injury.

I agree, you have to weight pros and cons. if the Flames were coming off a playoff showing and had a bright future I woudl probably feel differently. But when we are dealing with a club that right now does not have the best future, the best perception and is already a tough place for FA i think optics become that much more important. To risk all of that, for a one year fix when this team isn't closed i dont'see it as worth the "potential" PR mess. I guess agree to disagree, becuase i just don't see media and about 70% of fans use enough logic to evaluate decisions. I think for the msot part they think emotionally and the emotions behind a buyout of Langkow i think would be overwelmingly negative. is you disagree that's fine that just the way I see it being received.

[Flyerfan52]

The optics of buying out Stajan, Kotalik or even Hagman would be that they were players traded for that didn't live up to what was expected & they couldn't find a trading partner. Not much different then buying out Nigel Dawes because he wasn't what was hoped for as a FA signing.

With Langkow they'll dwell on a guy that worked his butt off to get back in the lineup & showed he can still play but those mean Flames decided to cut him loose. That's bad PR for media, fans (real or casual), agents & their clients. That could turn into the worst $1.5 the team will ever save.

[FCF]

Yes actually. You may have read I'm one of the few people that actually does not support buying out players. I think overal the optics of all buyouts are poor. I view it as the organization re negging on a promise it already made. I understand its in the cba and all and i get that, I just think it always comes across as an admission of guilt that the player takes the fall for. I mean it was the club that determined the price not necessarily the player so yes I agree that in general all buyouts are not great. This is slightly different given the injury but most importantly the severity of the injury.

I agree, you have to weight pros and cons. if the Flames were coming off a playoff showing and had a bright future I woudl probably feel differently. But when we are dealing with a club that right now does not have the best future, the best perception and is already a tough place for FA i think optics become that much more important. To risk all of that, for a one year fix when this team isn't closed i dont'see it as worth the "potential" PR mess. I guess agree to disagree, becuase i just don't see media and about 70% of fans use enough logic to evaluate decisions. I think for the msot part they think emotionally and the emotions behind a buyout of Langkow i think would be overwelmingly negative. is you disagree that's fine that just the way I see it being received.

Yet you have advocated asking a player to waive his NTC. That is something I am dead set against. That is reneging, and has no provision in the CBA.

In that case you give your word and write it into the contract so the player will take less money and then back out. On a team with as many NTCs as Calgary has, asking players to waive has the potential of being seen a lot more negatively within the PA than a buyout they voted to include into the CBA.

To me the two positions you support are inconsistent with each other.

Either way Feaster said it won't happen, so I defer to his expertise. However if we are not able to improve the team and miss the playoffs, again I think the damage is much more severe than buying out a player.

[DirtyDeeds]

That is fine with me, if everyone agreed it would be boring. There were also replies that favoured the buyout.

Re:

The guy who can do what is right for the team and mitigate any any negativity by explaining the fact they may be doing something they would not otherwise do in a different situation. As I mentioned, this isn't something I would be considering if I did not feel the situation was dire.

Well there is no right here. There could be a big wrong however. Yes some teams don't care about perceived problems and other teams have big PR Depts to handle problems like this or worse.

There are some companies that don't want any PR problems or negativity coming from how they operate, so they go to great lengths to be green, treat their people fairly, offer incentives to get quality people.

At this stage of the thread you can plainly see there are lots of people who feel it would be wrong to treat Langkow this way. That is why I phrased my previous post in the "who would you want running your team?" it is already plain in this thread if you were running the Flames you would have to consider the fallout of such actions, despite the agreement between the teams and league and players that buyouts as a tool can be utilized.

Now take yourself out of the Flames owners shoes, put yourself in Feasters shoes and ask yourself do you want the public opinion of you as a GM and the Flames team to be viewed this way, shortly after you get rid of the Assistant tag removed?

Flames appear to me to be one of those companies/teams that want to be viewed as a leader in all these areas and within the community. They go to great lengths to deal with people directly, fairly, participate in loads of charities and have their players very active that way too. Those type of things endear them (especially in smaller markets) to the community.

[FCF]

The optics of buying out Stajan, Kotalik or even Hagman would be that they were players traded for that didn't live up to what was expected & they couldn't find a trading partner. Not much different then buying out Nigel Dawes because he wasn't what was hoped for as a FA signing.

With Langkow they'll dwell on a guy that worked his butt off to get back in the lineup & showed he can still play but those mean Flames decided to cut him loose. That's bad PR for media, fans (real or casual), agents & their clients. That could turn into the worst $1.5 the team will ever save.

They would save $3 mil this year which is why I think it makes sense. Next year we have more flexibility.

Daymond worked his butt off to resume his career. With a buyout provision in the CBA, there is no guarantee it will be with the Flames, and buying him out doesn't hinder his ability to resume his career. It just means his agent will have to find him another deal.

I don't see it as an ideal situation, but don't think it would have any lasting impact on the Flames reputation, which has been stellar. Fans and media alike have short attention spans, it may be news for a week but they will find something/someone else to criticize fairly quickly.

I would hope most people would realize it isn't a shallow way to do business, it is within the rules of the CBA. The player isn't injured anymore. If he has 35 points this year and we miss the playoffs, the media will have a lot more to say about it as we saw last year, and the ability to attract players is hurt as well.

Anyway that is my position. I respect and understand the other viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

[FCF]

Well there is no right here. There could be a big wrong however. Yes some teams don't care about perceived problems and other teams have big PR Depts to handle problems like this or worse.

There are some companies that don't want any PR problems or negativity coming from how they operate, so they go to great lengths to be green, treat their people fairly, offer incentives to get quality people.

At this stage of the thread you can plainly see there are lots of people who feel it would be wrong to treat Langkow this way. That is why I phrased my previous post in the "who would you want running your team?" it is already plain in this thread if you were running the Flames you would have to consider the fallout of such actions, despite the agreement between the teams and league and players that buyouts as a tool can be utilized.

Now take yourself out of the Flames owners shoes, put yourself in Feasters shoes and ask yourself do you want the public opinion of you as a GM and the Flames team to be viewed this way, shortly after you get rid of the Assistant tag removed?

Flames appear to me to be one of those companies/teams that want to be viewed as a leader in all these areas and within the community. They go to great lengths to deal with people directly, fairly, participate in loads of charities and have their players very active that way too. Those type of things endear them (especially in smaller markets) to the community.

Yes, but they also favour asking people to waive their NTCs. If you (or anyone else)feels buying out a player within the rules of the CBA is detrimental to the team's rep, I would expect that they would feel the same way about reneging on a NTC and potential fallout. Especially the way we hand them out. That, imo, would hurt us a lot more than following the rules.

That is not what I am seeing though. There is a huge concern about buying out a player within the rules of the CBA but people feel it is OK to ask a player to waive after they agreed to a NTC and took less money. To me that is an underhanded way to do business.

I sympathize with the viewpoint and understand the logic, but I also think because we are all Flames fans we care a lot more about what happens to Langkow than anyone else, and the optics would be worse on the home front than around the league. I also think there would be minimal if any long-term damage.

I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. Others are certainly entitled to their own, I am not looking for converts.

[CastleMania]

I would hope most people would realize it isn't a shallow way to do business, it is within the rules of the CBA. The player isn't injured anymore. If he has 35 points this year and we miss the playoffs, the media will have a lot more to say about it as we saw last year, and the ability to attract players is hurt as well.

Anyway that is my position. I respect and understand the other viewpoint, I just don't agree with it.

You seem to be of the opinion that something being within the rules makes it less of a morally reprehensible act. But that's not the case. Just because something is within the rules doesn't mean it is morally right, and you need to stop beating that point to death.

Well this is just my opinion on ethics, I believe it has a much broader appeal than the Friedmanesque ethics that you are touting.

I'm not going to bring in pointless analogies in order to prove my point. And quite frankly, I understand your position. I just think you are looking at this from the perspective of assets and liabilities and not from the perspective of people. Unfortunately in pro-sports, your assets are your people and you can't treat them like they are just another financial project or else they won't perform for you.

[senor_incendiarse]

Either way Feaster said it won't happen, so I defer to his expertise. However if we are not able to improve the team and miss the playoffs, again I think the damage is much more severe than buying out a player.

I disagree with the damage bit, how are things much worse if we keep Langkow, all bad contracts come off next year. With or without Langkow they are a fringe playoff team at best. I don't see how the making taking 3 million off the cap for next year will somehow get us the 3 or so good players we need to be a contender.

[DirtyDeeds]

Yes, but they also favour asking people to waive their NTCs. If you (or anyone else)feels buying out a player within the rules of the CBA is detrimental to the team's rep, I would expect that they would feel the same way about reneging on a NTC and potential fallout. Especially the way we hand them out. That, imo, would hurt us a lot more than following the rules.

That is not what I am seeing though. There is a huge concern about buying out a player within the rules of the CBA but people feel it is OK to ask a player to waive after they agreed to a NTC and took less money. To me that is an underhanded way to do business.

I sympathize with the viewpoint and understand the logic, but I also think because we are all Flames fans we care a lot more about what happens to Langkow than anyone else, and the optics would be worse on the home front than around the league. I also think there would be minimal if any long-term damage.

I could be wrong, but that is my opinion. Others are certainly entitled to their own, I am not looking for converts.

I did not say that buying out any player within the rules of the CBA is detrimental to a teams rep. I said that buying out Langkow in this case and at this time would be. It has nothing to do with asking people to waive NTC's either. Langkow is a special situation and your repeated attempts to group him in with the rest of the pack(Kotalik and Stajan in your case) is shortsighted.

*Note* I never brought NTC's into this thread for discussion or comparison so don't tell me I should feel the same about them too.

I could say the reverse to you in that, if you feel asking people to waive NTC's is an underhanded way to do business, you should feel the same way about buyouts.

Thanks for your input, I am not looking for converts either. I also realize there are a few people unable to look at these types of situations from anything but a $$ perspective, but I will sleep well tonight assured that your views are not the same as the Flames views.

[FCF]

You seem to be of the opinion that something being within the rules makes it less of a morally reprehensible act. But that's not the case. Just because something is within the rules doesn't mean it is morally right, and you need to stop beating that point to death.

Well this is just my opinion on ethics, I believe it has a much broader appeal than the Friedmanesque ethics that you are touting.

I'm not going to bring in pointless analogies in order to prove my point. And quite frankly, I understand your position. I just think you are looking at this from the perspective of assets and liabilities and not from the perspective of people. Unfortunately in pro-sports, your assets are your people and you can't treat them like they are just another financial project or else they won't perform for you.

You do not need to bring in analogies to buttress your point, I understand it. I just think your viewpoint lacks balance.

Difficult decisions have to be made in business every day and in situations like this there is a trade-off. Not only are players people, so are the fans, they are just lower profile people. Someone running a business has to strike a balance between their obligation to the players/employees and their obligation to the fans/customers.

Is it ethical to cater to a player because of his personal situation and ice a team that could be better at the expense of the fans who pay the bills? Putting a millionaire player's personal situation ahead of some guy who can barely afford his seasons tickets because he was perhaps injured on the job like Langkow was, and forced to draw compo for a year? Now the ethical waters become muddy, and from the fan's perspective your ethics may seem skewed. It cuts both ways.

In the end all that is left without dispute is the health of the business, and ethics have to give way imo, because an employer by nature is conflicted. Although it is dispassionate, by discounting the moral responsibility to the fan and the player as well, and concentrating on what is best for the business, the moral dilemma is avoided. Is this fair? I think it is.

That leaves the debate, would buying Langkow out be good or bad for business. A complex question probably best left for the people who run the business...and us ;-)

[FCF]

I did not say that buying out any player within the rules of the CBA is detrimental to a teams rep. I said that buying out Langkow in this case and at this time would be. It has nothing to do with asking people to waive NTC's either. Langkow is a special situation and your repeated attempts to group him in with the rest of the pack(Kotalik and Stajan in your case) is shortsighted.

It isn't shortsighted it is unbiased. Your viewpoint is biased imo because you feel Langkow's situation is special. I try not to look at it that way because it discounts the other players' recovery/situation. I don't feel it is fair to make that type of distinction.

*Note* I never brought NTC's into this thread for discussion or comparison so don't tell me I should feel the same about them too.

I didn't tell you you should feel the same way. I said I would expect someone to feel the same way. Two entirely different things. I don't tell people what to do or think, the most I would ever do is make a suggestion.

I could say the reverse to you in that, if you feel asking people to waive NTC's is an underhanded way to do business, you should feel the same way about buyouts.

Why? Buyouts are provided for in the CBA, because both sides acknowledged the need for them. Asking someone to waive is not; it is imo a cheap tactic used to avoid honouring a contract. Perhaps you disagree, but that is my viewpoint.

I apologize for continuing to mention our responsibility in terms of the CBA, but that is what I feel we should be guided by to avoid subjectivity, preferential treatment and ethical dilemmas.

Thanks for your input, I am not looking for converts either. I also realize there are a few people unable to look at these types of situations from anything but a $$ perspective, but I will sleep well tonight assured that your views are not the same as the Flames views.

You are welcome.

See my post to Castles to try to understand why I look at it the way I do if you remain interested. It isn't about money per se, it is about balancing responsibilities to the fans and players. If you don't agree that is up to you and suits me fine.

I hope you have a good nights sleep and my views haven't upset you too much. It certainly wasn't my intention to piss people off.

[FCF]

I disagree with the damage bit, how are things much worse if we keep Langkow, all bad contracts come off next year. With or without Langkow they are a fringe playoff team at best. I don't see how the making taking 3 million off the cap for next year will somehow get us the 3 or so good players we need to be a contender.

I believe we could ice a better team by spending the $3. mil we would save elsewhere and have a better chance of making the playoffs. I agree it wouldn't make us a contender.

[kehatch]

Buying out Langkow made a lot of sense when the cap was expected to be 61 or 62 million and Tanguay was a lock to sign. With the cap now pretty much confirmed at 64-million and signing Tanguay now being less then certain it makes less sense to buy him out. (To put it in perspective, the difference in expected to actual cap hit is pretty much what would have been gained in buying Langkow out.)

A simple demotion of Kotalik should get them under the cap if Tanguay gets signed. If Tanguay doesn't sign they have even fewer cap issues. They also have options such as demoting Hagman if a key UFA becomes available.

I am not convinced 35 yo post injury Langkow will play like 33 yo Langkow did. I am even less convinced that he will play to his 4.5-million dollar salary. But I am convinced he won't be a liability so if the cap space is available then there isn't any point in buying him out.

Regardless, Feaster confirmed he isn't planning any buy-outs so the topic is now moot.

[cross16]

Yet you have advocated asking a player to waive his NTC. That is something I am dead set against. That is reneging, and has no provision in the CBA.

In that case you give your word and write it into the contract so the player will take less money and then back out. On a team with as many NTCs as Calgary has, asking players to waive has the potential of being seen a lot more negatively within the PA than a buyout they voted to include into the CBA.

To me the two positions you support are inconsistent with each other.

That's because we differ on the interpretation of a NTC. I interpret the No trade clause (and yes I am aware this is going to sound funny given it is a NO - Trade clause) not to say we will never trade you, but rather if it needs to come to that you have the option to refuse and your choice. I view them as given the player power and control over his future and for that they give some money back. It becomes a joint process rather than the team just going hey we are going to trade you and you have no say. If the player wants to stay he stays, end of story.

I don't see anything wrong with asking a player if he wants to move on becuase all your doing is asking. Your not negotating a deal and then coming to the player to ask him to waive. The power and control the player has in the shared negotiation to me is worth the discount they give the team back. I don't beleive it should mean that there is no way in heck you can be traded, and if it did than Players should not be able to ask for trades either. Yet there have been occasions where players with NTC have asked the team to be moved. If we are going to apply a definite defintion of No Trade clause meaning No trade then it should work both ways. I just don't view it that way, so therefore I see my positions as not been dissimilar. At the end of the day I think you have to do right by the player and be fair and consistant in your process. I think its unrealistic to avoid ALL negative PR I jsut think you pick your battles and with Langkow I just don't see it being worth it. I am not in favor of buyouts in general but there could come a time and place where they are necessary, just like there is a time and place that asking a player to waive a NTC is necessary. Langkow I view as a different case because of the injury and I dont' think the benefit outweighs the cost. You get 3 million this year, but then your also negative 1.5 next year so really your not up 3 million. That combined with his injury situation does not make me think it is worth the negative PR that I believe would be quite strong.