Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: All Hail David Luiz

Lanks is gone? Meh. An Introductory Post

There was a time when Daymond Langkow for Lee Stempniak would have spurred me into a blind rage. I'd of about threatened bodily harm upon Flames management and contemplated an affiliation change. 

That time is LONG gone.

I'm not sad to Langkow go. Not a bit. In fact, I've been pushing for his trade since his last healthy trade deadline.  This point of view has cost me some credibility in the past, and numerous times, my thoughts on Lanks have earned me a stiff decline in twitter followers. That's fine.

To properly understand what drove me to these beliefs, we have to look back at the circumstances that led to my personal Daymond Langkow downfall. It all started with the hiring of Jim Playfair.

 

Star-divide

First of all - I have to thank Arik and Hayley for the opportunity to join a knowledgeable and objective group here at M & G.  I look forward to adding to the Flames content and providing another voice on the topic.  Also, thank you to Kent Wilson for pushing this idea on everyone, it's much appreciated.

 

Back to Langkow.

The hiring of Playfair was inevitable. Darryl Sutter had said so numerous times; he was being groomed to take over behind the bench once Darryl would decide to take his talents exclusively upstairs. Outside of the fact that Playfair was unable to truly adjust to the new post-lockout game, his major problem lied in the fact he had a bunch of players who needed to have their butts kicked a la Darryl, in order to get the most out of them: Huselius, Tanguay, Phaneuf etc. Despite his hard-nosed persona, accountability somehow went out the window, and the compete level began to drop. Langkow enjoyed a career year statistically - but the groundwork would be laid for what was to come in the following years.

Mike Keenan was inexplicably hired and accountability was officially and totally out the window. The Flames were transforming from a team that everyone hated to play against, into a fairly soft team, mainly concerned about righting their goal-scoring issues that had plagued them in the past. No lead would ever be safe during this 3-year stretch and the bad habits that were instilled would prove extremely hard to conquer.

Finally, Brent Sutter was brought in. What had previously been an aberration in the way the Flames were playing, had now become the norm. I believe Langkow, among many others, fell victim to this. The steady, two-way defender was still the best the Flames had in the defensive centre role, but he no longer played with that umph, or vigor... it looked like he was comfortable. Like he was settled in Calgary with a nice, lucrative, long-term deal to play in his home province. DomeBeers recently touched on this theory in his analysis of the Scott Hannan acquistion and I found myself nodding my head at different points he was making during the sarcasm-laced "quoteth" section of the entry.

Langkow officially wore out his welcome with me in the 09-10 season, his worst statistical season in 10 years. But, for me, it wasn't just about his lack of point production, jarring, as it were. It was about his effort level which, compared to his first years with the team, was lacking.  Langkow used to be counted on to go into the corner and come out with the puck, somewhere along the way, this stopped being a priority and after years of our expectations being worn down, we stopped caring.

It was about his lack of focus. Too easily could Langkow be chased off the puck and often hit to the ice. There's method to the image I chose to lead off the article as it was the one I felt was the best at describing the way I see Langkow. We don't know the circumstances surrounding Adrian Aucoin stealing the puck from him, but that sort of thing didn't happen before the reign of Playfair/Keenan.

So Langkow's in tough with a 47% offensive zone start. clap... clap... clap... Great, just the guy I want at centre in the defensive zone with the game on the line. He of the 43% faceoff winning percentage.  There are times when FO% can be overrated, this particular time is not one of them. 

Once a player has been labeled in your own mind, you tend to critique their work with a fine-tooth comb, and I have no doubts that this happened to me with my criticism of Langkow. But, when, in a second-half game against Minny in 2010, Langkow (while on the PK) literally jumped out of the way of an oncoming point shot when he had the shooting lane completely filled. That was it for me.

I'm not going to be dancing in the streets over this trade, but at this point, the opportunity to re-sign a capable 20-goal winger who's seven years younger than Langkow outweighs what he would bring to the Flames this season. Of course, Feaster should've gotten more considering the Coyotes came calling, but, get used to it - historically, and currently, the man loses trades at the same clip the Red Wings qualify for the playoffs.

I completely understand the defense of Langkow as well, as the underlying advanced stats bode well in his favor. It was the stuff I witnessed from my seat in the 'dome that led me to believe otherwise. Regardless of my feelings on Langkow, a gaping hole still exists on the Flames roster in that of a defensive centre capable of filling the shut-down role against the elite in the West - and it's possible Langkow could have filled that role.

"It's possible", "could", "maybe", "if he's 100%", "if he plays like 3 years ago" ... on and on and on. These are the oft-italicized phrases I keep happening on as I read the many Langkow posts. Frankly, it's going to take something a lot more definitive than that to convince me that he'll really be missed.

-----

Thanks for taking the time to read my first post on Matchsticks & Gasoline. I'm not an eternal pessimist, I'm just against constant mediocrity. I don't think the Flames need a total re-build, just a re-tooling (and let's start with upper management, please). My favorite Flame, hell, athlete of all-time is Theoren Fleury. My favorite Flames moment is sitting in my seat at the 'dome for the Game 6, OT and series-clinching Gelinas goal against Detroit, with my bro. My favorite sports moment of all time is the Joe Carter World Series-winning, walk-off HR. At the Canada-Russia QF game in Vancouver, I refused to cheer for Luongo despite the red Maple Leaf on his chest. I was born and raised in small-town southern Alberta and fortunately, my Dad was a Flames fan. I'm a HUGE sports fan, avid pro-line and sportsbook player and a film/TV buff. In addition to leaving a comment here at M&G, please feel free to email me or reply on twitter (@MG_mslepp).

Comment 14 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Welcome aboard Scott

I think you zone in on something I often think about as well.

Although I appreciate the Stat laden argument I usually caveat it because Stats are descriptive, not necessarily predicative. They describe what has happened in the past. I know I form a personal appreciation for a player but at the same time I always try to turn that off and focus on their current play. How they look to me on the ice.

Bottom line for me on Langks is that despite my own appreciation of him and what he has done in Calgary his last full season, as you point out, in 2009-10 was slippage. The question to ask is what is he going to do next year?

We all know that the season comes for a player when he loses a step. At age 35 and at 4.5 million getting a younger player works for me.

by Mitch Smith on Aug 31, 2011 9:17 AM PDT reply actions  

No lead would ever be safe during this 3-year stretch

Yay, more Keenan scapegoating.

You know, maybe that’s true… maybe no lead was “safe” (or as safe as a lead can be in the NHL) lord knows we saw the Flames blow some big ones but I remember the flip side of the coin also being true. As unsafe as any lead was for the Flames I remember it being equally unsafe for the opposition.

Now that I got that off my chest on to Langkow…

Thanks for taking the time to read my first post on Matchsticks & Gasoline. I’m not an eternal pessimist, I’m just against constant mediocrity.

No problem, glad to see interesting articules. Here’s the thing though, I’m against constant mediocrity as well but in the context of the Langkow trade I don’t see acquiring Lee Stempniak in exchange for Daymond Langkow as being a move away from constant mediocrity. I almost view it as the opposite if one is inclined to look at things from a risk v. reward perspective. In my mind Feaster took the low risk/low reward move here.

by Parallex on Aug 31, 2011 9:42 AM PDT reply actions  

I just wish we would, for lack of a better term, shit or get off the pot. I’m tired of these constant lateral moves. Either we ramp up for a run, or start the rebuild. Enough of these Fiji for Granny Smith deals. Deck chairs, titanic…something, something.

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Aug 31, 2011 10:45 AM PDT reply actions  

It has mostly annoyed me how most people’s hatred of the trade is based around stats from over 2 years ago.

There is no guarantee that Langkow would even be able to handle a shutdown role again this year. You make a trade to shake things up. There is nothing this team needs more than more shaking up, especially in the veteran core.

This team may not be good this year, but at least it’s different. Something I appreciate.

I’m personally just sick of many players on this teams ok attitude with being “meh”.

by Jeremywilhelm on Aug 31, 2011 10:46 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

If we suck…I want it to be with a goal in mind. Right now, if we suck…we’re fucked.

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Aug 31, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

How so? If we suck, there is already in place a huge change coming next offseason. 23 million off the books next year will make sure this team is no longer the same next year no matter what.

by Jeremywilhelm on Aug 31, 2011 10:53 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Ps. If your goal is a top 5 pick, that is a terrible idea.

That leads to a culture of pathetic losing in the dressing room and gives the prospects and the players the wrong idea for the future.

Better to keep trying to compete and let changes occur naturally and in due course.

by Jeremywilhelm on Aug 31, 2011 10:56 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Not my goal at all. The Regehr trade and this one, both had the potential to bring us in decent prospects. I just don’t think Stempniak is a big enough upgrade on what we have now to justify trading Langkow for him and not a kid. I may be wrong about Stempniak…I hope so.

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Aug 31, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Who is gonna give up a prospect for him? Probably no one. Which is why Feaster didn’t get one. Langkow is old and for his salary, if he didn’t have a bounce back season, it would be ridiculous for him to be playing on the 4th line.

Stempniak is basically getting an extended tryout with the team to fill in if Moss isn’t able to step up and get re-signed for next season.

That’s it. Plus the added bonus of cap space if the team knocks it out of the park first half and needs some reinforcements.

It’s win win.

by Jeremywilhelm on Aug 31, 2011 11:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Fair point about Langkow being old and busted. I just think we’re weaker down the middle now without getting an equitable amount better on the wing. Cap issues aside, I just don’t think it makes us a better team. I totally see your arguments, though.

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Aug 31, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

I should point out that I believe Langkow is a great guy in the room. That adds to his value to me. I have no evidence to believe Stempniak isn’t…just not sure.

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Aug 31, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nice post Scott. Glad to have you on board.

“It’s possible”, “could”, “maybe”, “if he’s 100%”, “if he plays like 3 years ago” … on and on and on.


I actually think this phrase is pretty fair. I’m a stats-driven guy, but it’s really hard to project a player who’s 35 and has been out of commission for a whole season. It’s highly unlikely that he is able to maintain his former level of play, so hoping he’s 100% is probably a pipe dream. In that respect, the trade didn’t hurt the Flames.

My big worry is the lack of guys with the proven ability to play tough minutes. Hell, Moss might be able to pull it off, but it’s uncertain. That said, it’s not a deal changer either way since both guys are off the books after this season.

Ryan Popilchak

Matchsticks & Gasoline, Artic Ice Hockey, &Hockey Prospectus. My twitter handle is @sprtopinionated

by SO_RyanP on Aug 31, 2011 2:56 PM PDT reply actions  

nice time, I’ll try not to hit the quote button twice. fail.

Ryan Popilchak

Matchsticks & Gasoline, Artic Ice Hockey, &Hockey Prospectus. My twitter handle is @sprtopinionated

by SO_RyanP on Aug 31, 2011 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah agree and agree but...

I agree that it is not the end of the world and getting rid of Lanks is fine but it strikes me like the Regehr trade. A pretty good piece that may have got more (Lanks at the deadline me thinks). I know it’s a gamble with his injury but it’s not like you picked up a great piece in Stempniak.

It’s all a wait and see but I see this as overall a bad move. Not a stinky move but not good.

by 44stampede on Sep 2, 2011 10:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Calgary Flames.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Dsc03339_small
Sven, Sven, Sven Baertschi
Small
Roman Cervenka's Contract Structure and Why He's Worth Every Penny
Small
Erixon and Schultz.. The two bastards

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

37 - 29 - 16

Won 2


Certified Executives of the Office of Management

Photo_71_small Hayley

Officiants of the Bureau of Editing

E571c235251f6540d35494b73d613163_small Justin Azevedo

Ryan_small SO_RyanP

Dsc03339_small Mitch Smith

Bureaucrats

Luongo_small DownGoesLuongo

Redfordnewmanbutchcassidy19_small Scott Lepp

Mcinnismonday_small BookoflooB

381858_721102932987_120603131_37270080_1092957201_n_small LaToya12