Wednesday, January 26, 2011

While We Are Waiving Players Who Can't Play

You know where we are going with this, right?

Craig Conroy can't play hockey at an NHL level anymore. It's as simple as that really. You know who else can't play hockey at an NHL level anymore? Steve Staios. You know who else can't play? Raitis Ivanans (who?). More? Sure. How about Langkow? Alice Kotalik, anybody? 

(We aren't even bringing up the cats who are stealing money, like Sarich, Stajan, and Bourque.)

So to us, it is a little absurd. Feaster is waiving Craig Conroy? Why? Conroy makes the league minimum and he was on a two way contract. If he can't play, send him down to the Heat, and he will either go down to play or he will retire. Situation solved. There was no need to waive the player. Yeah, we know, you save like $200,000 by doing it. That cap space is sure going to come in handy for the Cup run...

It's fucking ridiculous, is what it is. You want to create cap space? Waive Staios! You want to create cap space? The owners should man up and pay Kotalik to play in Europe. You want to create cap space? Force Langkow to drink the reality potion, and retire. You want to create cap space? Have some six year old beat up Ivanans until he quits the team.

Because the notion of waiving Conroy for cap space is stupid, we look for other reasons to waive him. Is Conroy being waived because he is blocking a roster spot for one of our young stud prospects? Fuck no, we don't got any prospects, people! The Heat have no real offensive talent on the roster. They are last in goals for in the entire AHL. Conroy isn't blocking shit.

You wanna know who is blocking somebody? Morrison blocks somebody (Hint: he is Swedish) on the roster. Fuck, anybody on the roster over 30 not named Iggy, Kipper, or Reggie are the people who need to be cleared out if your concern is veterans blocking prospects roster spots.

So if cap space isn't really an issue, and Conroy blocking the spot of a prospect isn't really an issue, what is the deal?

Could it be that Jarome Iginla is still the de-facto GM of this team?

Here is an article that we missed about Conroy and Iginla breaking up. This happened on the 21st of January, and what, four days later Conroy is on waivers. Hmmm....

Can we be real here? Conroy couldn't play when he signed the contract. Why was he signed? For media relations purposes only. He didn't accept a 2-way contract because he had other teams beating down his door trying to sign him. He didn't sign a 2-way contract because he could still play. Conroy signed on to play here because we offered him a contract and a chance to play in 1,000 games. We can see why Conroy signed the contract. But what we can't see is why was Conroy even offered one?

The Calgary Flames are showing time and time again that winning is secondary to them. Craig Conroy wasn't offered a contract because the organization thought he would improve the team. He was signed because Ken King thought he would be able to sell some tickets if he had Conroy on the roster. Now that Conroy has done his duty, King and the organization are discarding him like so much crumpled trash.

And yeah, we find it a little...distasteful. Craig should know he can't play. But so should Langkow. You will notice that Langkow hasn't retired, even though he isn't even allowed to work out for a year. These guys hold on. In a perfect world, where Truth and Justice and Lollipops reign, Craig would have played that game in November, seen he was terrible, and retired. But because Craig is a human and Truth, Justice, and Lollipops do not reign, he decided to stay up in his seat in the press box. That's his right, he has a contract. Why is the organization forcing him to retire? Because he yelled at Iginla for not practicing hard?

In short, why is the organization not forcing Langkow to retire? Why isn't it forcing Staios to retire? Why isn't it forcing Ivanans to retire? Forcing Conroy to retire isn't a bad move. It makes the team better. We would rather ice a 20 year old who can't play over a 40 year old who can't play. But what is irritating to us is that the organization has much bigger fish to fry than Conroy, and they don't seem to have any inclination to do so. The Flames upper management would rather do the easy thing than the right thing, and that is concerning.

It's a broken record, we know. But the right things include: waiving Staios, forcing Langkow to retire, paying Kotalik to play in Siberia. The organization hasn't done these things because doing these things would be uncomfortable and expensive. In other words, they haven't done these things because it would be hard.

And true to form, the Calgary Flames seem to be allergic to anything 'hard'. Like 'hard work'.
...

Now the other take to this whole situation is that Rogers is putting pressure on the Flames to force Conroy to retire because they just lost Mike Richards and need some new talent. Who knows, right?

Probably not, because we doubt they would use Conroy for the morning show. What they could use Conroy for is to sit in the broadcast booth with whoever replaces Loubardias. Person X doing play by play and Conroy on the colour. Or they could use Conroy to do the play by play and leave Simmer and his glorious hair to do the colour.

Either way, we hope the change happens soon. It's getting to the point where we would rather eat broken glass than listen to the Rogers broadcast of a Flames game.
...

Doug Kirkwood, the city turns it's lonely eyes to you! We have been pimping pretty hard on twitter (follow us!) for Doug Kirkwood to get his old job back on the morning show. Now, we don't know Kirkwood, have never met Kirkwood, and are not being paid by Kirkwood to do this. We just like Doug, and think he would be funny and listenable on the morning show. But we are just one voice. Hit the horn, Domebeer-aholics. Send Kirch@rci.rogers.com a friendly little message about rehiring Doug Kirkwood. And demand Scott Roberts, too!
...

Dome Beers is going to place a bet on the Super Bowl. You see, A Z R is a Steelers honk, while the FAN960's Andrew Walker (Domebeer-aholic) is, for some unfortunate reason, a fan of Favre's old team. Yeah, we know, Lombardi has been dead for like 41 years. We don't know why Walker cheers for them, but we do know that he is about to have his heart broken, because there is no way in hell that Green Bay beats the Steelers.

Anyways, we are telling you this because we need stipulations. Should the Steelers win, Walker will do X, should the Packers win, Dome Beers will do X.

We are thinking about asking for an interview when the Steelers win. Should we go with something different? Let us know.
...

Oh God, we were about to publish this when Feaster came on the radio and said he wants to play guys from the Heat, not because they can play, but because...because. Oh boy.

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.

12 comments:

  1. First richards gone now conny! Shitty week although the steel curtain made up for it a bit!

    ReplyDelete
  2. obviously you know that players not on entry level contracts must be waived to be demoted (unless they're doing a conditionning stint like mikkelson did a few weeks back).

    i'm also pretty sure you can't force a guy on LTIR to retire.

    staios, on the other hand....

    and kotalik ? does it hurt anyone besides me that kotalik was a healthy scratch in NY riiiiight around this time of year last season, and sutter thought he'd somehow be the second coming of gretzky if he put on a red shirt ? fuck. how he was allowed to make that deal is shocking. and i'm not even gonna get started about prust.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A guy on LTIR doesn't impact the cap anyway. The team is allowed to go over the cap by whatever the LTIR player's contract is so it isn't as though his contract affects the cap space available.

    Now Staios on the other hand . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Packers are three-point favourites over the Steelers, bitches.

    And yeah, you can force someone to retire ... 'force' is just a nasty euphemism for 'convince.'

    There are two evils at play in the whole Conroy thing. The Flames have basically said 'thanks, fucker, there's the door,' while Conroy was hanging on for dear life when he should have hung 'em up after his 1,000th game.

    No sympathy for either party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LTIR isn't real cap space. A team is allowed to go over by the LTIR (as far as I understand) to replace the player that is on the LTIR. It isn't 4.5 million in free space, it's a 4.5 million dollar credit.

    So from what I understand, if the Flames have x number of players on the roster (ie: Langkow's 'spot' is filled) they wouldn't be able to use the LTIR to bring in a free agent if that free agent put them over the (pre-LTIR credit) cap. As far as I understand, could be wrong.

    I do stand corrected on Conroys two way. I thought he would be able to go down without clearing but reading the CBA (which I probably should have done before writing) it just means he has two different salaries and indeed must be waived. My bad.

    And I think Angela kind of hits it head on. It's just that this shit should have been spelled out to both parties. Hey Craig, we are going to let you get 1000 games but then you are going to retire. Would have been less messy.

    There is no way the Pack should be favoured. Helps my ticket out, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this is how it works. The cap is 59.4M. If Langkow's Cap hit is 4.5 million they are able to spend to a total of $63.9M and not have Langk's cap hit count towards the cap as long as he is on LTIR.

    Go here. You can see that the flames' spending is just over $63M.

    When you go here you can see that there is a figure on LTIR which isn't counted towards the cap which is Langkow.

    Now I see why you're a Steelers fan DB.

    Of course I'm sure I messed up the embedding links bit so you can mock me for that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Roster spots are a different beast of course but as long as Langks is on LTIR his salary doesn't impact the cap but they still have to pay him. The problem arises if they take him off LTIR after they have brought in some warm body to fill his spot. If he comes off LTIR they can't go over the cap and will have to clear some cap space to get under the $59.4M.

    You dig?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even if you are on a one way contract you have to clear waivers to go to the minors once you are passed the first 3 years of the entry level deal (or with some minor exceptions for pluggers who have spent a ton of time in the minors after logging a certain number of NHL games). The two way contract just changes what the guy gets paid and doesn't change his waiver status.

    Come on DB, be better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Need to be much better.

    Actually went to the CBA (section 50 d!) and it looks like you are right but all the scenarios they use are one year ones. the third clause about aggregate salary of the replacement player not exceeding that of injured player had us concerned about the ability to sign a big ticket player but the way it reads its aggregate for the season. Our bad.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think a team actually pays the salary of guys on LTIR.

    I'm pretty sure its insurance company does.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Only if they had a policy. Typically the case on big ticket players but the premiums are wicked expensive so for mid level players (likely in the $4M range) they sometimes aren't insured.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey morons, the real issue isn't details of the cap. Flames fans know that's not a requirement for the team. Its that if Lanks is on LTIR and doesn't retire, the team cannot make LONG TERM plans for his 4.5m in cap space. They have to go day by day, month by month, year by year, to check up on Lanks. Its like partying with a buddy, who become crippled. You cant ditch him, and replace him until he dies!

    !!!!IGGY FOR MVP WHEN WE MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!!

    ReplyDelete