Is Langkow A Buy-out Candidate?

[FCF]

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

Still made for interesting debate.

[FCF]

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.

To me asking a player to waive is bad form. The NTC is given in lieu of money, and reneging shows the organization in a a bad light imo. Especially if there are a lot of NTCs given out as in our case.

If a player is asked to waive you are saying you would rather move him than keep him. I think whether he decides to waive or not there is a certain amount of damage done in the process.

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.

Both players and mgmt. can ask for a trade but it is bad form both ways in my view. We saw the damage to Heatley's rep when he demanded a trade out of Ottawa.

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.

I think your viewpoint is reasonable on Langkow. Whether or not the cost outweighs the benefit is dependent on the circumstances and a matter of opinion, and I understand and respect your reasoning.

However, I still see the the two positions (NTC and buyouts)as conflicting.

[cross16]

To me asking a player to waive is bad form. The NTC is given in lieu of money, and reneging shows the organization in a a bad light imo. Especially if there are a lot of NTCs given out as in our case.

If a player is asked to waive you are saying you would rather move him than keep him. I think whether he decides to waive or not there is a certain amount of damage done in the process.

I guess to a point this is true, but sometimes you want to keep the player and just trying to improvey our team and move on. For example if the Flames were to trade Jarome I dont' think its a case of them not wanting to keep him but rather its a way to improve their team. I just don't see the same issue with having dialogue and communication.

Both players and mgmt. can ask for a trade but it is bad form both ways in my view. We saw the damage to Heatley's rep when he demanded a trade out of Ottawa.

Fair, but thats also demanding a trade and holding out on a team. I think it can work very well in alot of cases. Toronto and Kaberle mutuall agreed to part ways and no one was hurt. In Baseball, Scott Rolen and Troy Glaus both went to the Jays and ask for trades even though they both had NTCs. In both cases it went well for both parties invovled. So I think it can be a fair process both ways as long as both parties keep it a fair process and thats why I have no problem with teams dicussing with players waiving their NTC. I do have a problem if a team went to the play and said we are going to trade you and please waive your NTC your not wanted here, but I think if there is dialogue back and forth it can be done with class and respect to the player. At the end of the day thats what I believe in.

[Ring-a-ding-dong-dandy]

I thought I would comment on a few things I have seen in this topic.

First would be buyouts after injury vs. people being fired after returning from mat leave. Yes it is similar, but if you were running a business and someone had returned from mat leave and they weren't performing to their pay grade would you keep them around? I know I wouldn't, bad optics or not employees are paid to do their job and if they don't live up to their wage they will be terminated, or bought out in the case of an NHL player.

Second I am with Cross when he says he is against buyout, albeit for different reasons. I don't care about the optics of a buyout as I think its an accepted protocol, I just hate the fact you have to pay for it for double the length of time. I would prefer to pay a player 6 million this year than pay them this year and next year.

Third I am fine with asking players to waive an No Trade or No Movement Clause. The clause isn't to prevent them from being traded, it's to give them control over the situation if there is a trade possibility. Personally I don't think those clauses should be negotiated into contracts, they should be automatic at a certain point like they are in baseball where if a player is a "10 and 5 man" (where they have been in the league for 10 years and have spent 5 with their current team) they get an automatic NTC. In the new CBA I'd like to see the NHL implement something similar, obviously not 10 and 5 as that' a bit high for the NHL, but maybe 7 and 4 would work.

[CastleMania]

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 ;-)

But here's where your argument fails. You are assuming that buying out Langkow will not leave a bad taste in the current Flames players mouths and likewise will not affect this teams ability to sign draft picks and free agents. If this move is one that would be looked down upon by the players in the league, then it very well could influence the business side of things.

Most businesses have come to realize in the past couple decades that the best way to conduct themselves is to remain ethical, at least in the view of external parties. IMO buying Langkow out now would not be viewed as ethical by other players in the league and would impair Calgary's ability to sign players for years to come.

If I am right about how other players will view buying Langkow out (not saying I am), then all of a sudden your desire to ignore or discount your moral obligation to the fans and the players you have inadvertantly hit your bottom line. Good ethics are necessary to breed good business. They are not sufficient, but definitely necessary.

[CastleMania]

I thought I would comment on a few things I have seen in this topic.

First would be buyouts after injury vs. people being fired after returning from mat leave. Yes it is similar, but if you were running a business and someone had returned from mat leave and they weren't performing to their pay grade would you keep them around? I know I wouldn't, bad optics or not employees are paid to do their job and if they don't live up to their wage they will be terminated, or bought out in the case of an NHL player.

Well I'm not going to get into the legal ramnifications of your words as an employer, but your decision would more than likely be a poor one.

In relation to the Langkow buyout hypothetical, this comment holds no weight. Langkow has not had a chance to show whether or not he will perform to his pay grade and so the analogy doesn't work at all.

People will argue that Langkow has been declining steadily, but simply put, Langkow had one "amazing" year and the rest he has just played to his career averages. There doesn't appear to be any real decline in his numbers, with the exception of the year he got injured. And if we are going to use that year as a measuring stick then we better buy out almost every player on the flames roster who played that year, because the team in general sucked.

[Ring-a-ding-dong-dandy]

Well I'm not going to get into the legal ramnifications of your words as an employer, but your decision would more than likely be a poor one.

In relation to the Langkow buyout hypothetical, this comment holds no weight. Langkow has not had a chance to show whether or not he will perform to his pay grade and so the analogy doesn't work at all.

People will argue that Langkow has been declining steadily, but simply put, Langkow had one "amazing" year and the rest he has just played to his career averages. There doesn't appear to be any real decline in his numbers, with the exception of the year he got injured. And if we are going to use that year as a measuring stick then we better buy out almost every player on the flames roster who played that year, because the team in general sucked.

As for legal ramifications, if the person has returned from mat leave and is given proper notice you don't even need a reason to terminate them. having a child does not make you untouchable if you aren't living up to your wage.

Langkow was showing before the injury that he wasn't living up to his contract, so the analogy works just fine. Or maybe it should be amended to say its comparable to an under-performing employee who goes on mat leave before they could be fired. My point is once a player has returned from injury they are no different than any other player, we can't dwarf our expectations based on an injury. Why does Langkow get defended when everyone rips on Stajan and Bouwmeester? His contract is just as bad as theirs, if not worse and was that way before his injury.

And you are right Langkow had an amazing year and came back to earth, but the problem is he cashed in because of that amazing year.

To be clear I am a huge Langkow fan, he has been one of my favorite players since he was acquired. His return is nothing short of inspiring, but unfortunately it doesn't change the economics of the game. The bottom line is that Langkow is our 2nd highest paid player by $1 million and he will more than likely be playing in a 3rd line role. Now if he is still a Flame come opening night I will support him wholeheartedly, but until then I do think we need to dump his contract and I would be willing to make a trade where we essentially get nothing for him to do so.

[jjgallow]

I'd just like to reiterate that:

The original question was if Langkow is a buyout candidate.

Feaster indicated that he will not be doing buyouts this year, so the answer is no.

On a second note, one would not consider Langkow as a buyout candidate before first considering:

Stajan

Hagman

Kotalik (already gone?)

Back to the first point, none of these players are being considered buyout candidates, (Kotalik a separate case), so the answer is still no.

If these players Were bought out...well then we wouldn't have a cap space problem. In which case, Langkow would not be a buyout candidate. So, still no.

Looking at Langkow on his own makes for a very interesting debate, but before it gets personal let's remember that we already know the answer and it's a simple but comprehensive answer which looks at the entire organization rather than the individual player.

[FCF]

But here's where your argument fails. You are assuming that buying out Langkow will not leave a bad taste in the current Flames players mouths and likewise will not affect this teams ability to sign draft picks and free agents. If this move is one that would be looked down upon by the players in the league, then it very well could influence the business side of things.

Most businesses have come to realize in the past couple decades that the best way to conduct themselves is to remain ethical, at least in the view of external parties. IMO buying Langkow out now would not be viewed as ethical by other players in the league and would impair Calgary's ability to sign players for years to come.

If I am right about how other players will view buying Langkow out (not saying I am), then all of a sudden your desire to ignore or discount your moral obligation to the fans and the players you have inadvertantly hit your bottom line. Good ethics are necessary to breed good business. They are not sufficient, but definitely necessary.

Read what ring-a-ding-dong-dandy says in paragraph 2. There are two points in there I made myself. For people who see it that way the optics aren't anywhere near as bad as you make them out to be.

You percieve it as morally reprehensible. But clearly others do not. And that is where your argument fails. Everyone is at a different place on the ethical yardstick. You would find that there will be people who view it as morally reprehensible at one end, of no moral consequence at the other end and all points in between. A point I tried to illustrate by posing the ethical question of who the team has a higher responsibility to, players or fans.

So you do what you feel is right for the business. If you feel eating Langkow's cap hit is what is best because doing otherwise will be a PR disaster with the fans and will seriously impact player relations that is what you do. If on the other hand you feel you can enhance your chances of winning by buying him out and that is your priority, that is what you do.

At the end of the day, 'if there ain't no audience there ain't no show'. If you keep icing a team that doesn't make the playoffs it hurts more than anything else including buying out popular players. Fans and players alike will accept and overlook a lot if it helps the team win.

However all that being said, it really is jus a matter of opinion and perception.

[FCF]

I guess to a point this is true, but sometimes you want to keep the player and just trying to improvey our team and move on. For example if the Flames were to trade Jarome I dont' think its a case of them not wanting to keep him but rather its a way to improve their team. I just don't see the same issue with having dialogue and communication.

I will concede that, but only if Jarome has indicated he would like to try to win elsewhere as well. If he indicates he wants to retire a Flame that would be the end of it forever.

Fair, but thats also demanding a trade and holding out on a team. I think it can work very well in alot of cases. Toronto and Kaberle mutuall agreed to part ways and no one was hurt. In Baseball, Scott Rolen and Troy Glaus both went to the Jays and ask for trades even though they both had NTCs. In both cases it went well for both parties invovled. So I think it can be a fair process both ways as long as both parties keep it a fair process and thats why I have no problem with teams dicussing with players waiving their NTC. I do have a problem if a team went to the play and said we are going to trade you and please waive your NTC your not wanted here, but I think if there is dialogue back and forth it can be done with class and respect to the player. At the end of the day thats what I believe in.

We have some common ground. I agree it can be situational, and at times mutually beneficial. I believe that is why it is allowed. In certain circumstances I think it is practical and acceptable.

But for the most part it is something I do not hold in high regard, and I think it hurts the team's credibility a lot when they give out NTCs like candy and then ask players to waive.

[UKFlamer]

We've got decent depth

In what reality?

We have maybe 5 decent players and another 2 or 3 who are reasonable but nothing special. The rest are a burden. The team played well beyond themselves for a good part of last season to achieve what they did. Dont expect the same next season. No chance of a play-offs spot. Bottom 10.