[News] Leafs tell Cowen to go home and await buyout

[Poe969]

I don't get the uproar around this. The leafs took him as a cap dump and they don't want him to play with their team. It's not like they're refusing to pay him, they're actually paying him not to have to work. From their point of view, they're just protecting themselves because if he got hurt, they'd be stuck with him on the books. If anything, Cowen should use this as motivation to improve. The leafs aren't the reason people are going to be shy about signing him, his horrid play will be the reason. He's been pretty bad for a while and he's in this situation because of himself. If it were the Flames in their position, I'd want them to do the same thing.

It's not like he was in the running for the Norris and the leafs sat him the last 20 games and he isn't going to win or that the first 3/4 of the season didn't matter and he's now going to show that he's worth a contract in the last 20 games.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

My issue is simply that the Leafs (or any team) should be trying to ice the best lineup of what is available to them. It is fine to trade off UFAs, sell current assets for future ones, but when looking at the players available, I think there is a duty to dress the best 23 guys. I would have thought, based on limited viewings (of mostly the leafs), that Cowen could make that group.

[Poe969]

THey should be trying to ice their best team, that's the hockey side of things. This is also a business too though, money matters the most to the owners and GM's because there is a cap and salaries matter. Say they play him and he gets hurt well then the team is being punished because they have to carry his contract and his cap hit while the owners are being punished by not being able to save money.

Didn't this happen a couple of years ago with someone else and then the NHLPA came in and let the team buy the guy out right away so he could look for a new contract?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

My issue is simply that the Leafs (or any team) should be trying to ice the best lineup of what is available to them. It is fine to trade off UFAs, sell current assets for future ones, but when looking at the players available, I think there is a duty to dress the best 23 guys. I would have thought, based on limited viewings (of mostly the leafs), that Cowen could make that group.

This post captures well the disconnect between cheering a team and building a team.

By not playing Cowen they are trying to ice their best team... in three to five years.

They don't need Cowen as an anchor on their salary structure, they traded for him for the draft picks to rebuild their team.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This post captures well the disconnect between cheering a team and building a team.

By not playing Cowen they are trying to ice their best team... in three to five years.

They don't need Cowen as an anchor on their salary structure, they traded for him for the draft picks to rebuild their team.

I understand the thought process of management in doing what they are doing, but from a league competitiveness standpoint, I don't like tanking and I don't think it should be encouraged. This is a tanking move.

For the record, I don't think selling off UFA's is tanking, or moving current assets for future ones, where the window of opportunity is later. Tanking for me is sitting available players (for which you gave up current assets) that would help the team compete. (Tanking is also trading away goalies, with no replacement in sight (looking at you, Buffalo), but that does not apply here.

[Poe969]

If the league and NHLPA said that injured players could be bought out, Cowen would be playing. This isn't on anyone else IMO because the team is just protecting themselves from a silly rule and Cowen is the one "being punished" because of it.

[Tinordi]

I wish we'd stop with all the hand-waving about "tanking." It's a concept used by fans to simply berate other teams for prudent management.

Managing with 3 years in the future in mind versus the next game is a fundamental component of a cyclical business like pro-sports with fast deteriorating and difficult to acquire assets in a zero-sum environment. And it always has been.

It's a fan fetish to label what some team is doing as "tanking." In reality no team tells its players to purposefully lose nor could they. Saying a team has tanked is a way to process and judge other teams in a consequence-free paradigm.

And every North American pro-sports league understands the cyclical nature of the business and makes concessions to the worst teams to become better thus creating an environment where teams "tank." The funny thing is that there's absolutely ZERO will to change this model because all of the owners understand that any alternate system would be worse.

[Hockey Fan #751]

If teams were allowed to buy out injured players, I think Cowen would be good enough to play for the Leafs and not in the AHL. Also, if Cowen wasn't so injury prone they probably wouldn't be going to these measures but they need to buy him out so they can sign Stamkos.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I agree with that but this is a sleazy way to get around the rule. Why should Cowen be punished because the Leafs acquired him? We demonize Drouin for not playing while under contract but it's perfectly fine for the Leafs to pull this crap? Okay then.

How is it perfectly fine? Almost every post in the thread is criticizing the Leafs - even more than what was heaped on Drouin in the other thread.

I don't see what your problem is.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I wish we'd stop with all the hand-waving about "tanking." It's a concept used by fans to simply berate other teams for prudent management.

Managing with 3 years in the future in mind versus the next game is a fundamental component of a cyclical business like pro-sports with fast deteriorating and difficult to acquire assets in a zero-sum environment. And it always has been.

It's a fan fetish to label what some team is doing as "tanking." In reality no team tells its players to purposefully lose nor could they. Saying a team has tanked is a way to process and judge other teams in a consequence-free paradigm.

And every North American pro-sports league understands the cyclical nature of the business and makes concessions to the worst teams to become better thus creating an environment where teams "tank." The funny thing is that there's absolutely ZERO will to change this model because all of the owners understand that any alternate system would be worse.

In some cases, they'll even admit to it, like Don Maloney:

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/960330

"Last year, we plunged. I did not do much to help our team (in) the last two months. If we were going to be bad, my attitude was, let's be real bad. There was a pretty big prize for being really bad."

But you're right, players will never stop trying. And in fact, some players will try to win even harder in order to spite management's strategy.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I wish we'd stop with all the hand-waving about "tanking." It's a concept used by fans to simply berate other teams for prudent management.

Managing with 3 years in the future in mind versus the next game is a fundamental component of a cyclical business like pro-sports with fast deteriorating and difficult to acquire assets in a zero-sum environment. And it always has been.

It's a fan fetish to label what some team is doing as "tanking." In reality no team tells its players to purposefully lose nor could they. Saying a team has tanked is a way to process and judge other teams in a consequence-free paradigm.

And every North American pro-sports league understands the cyclical nature of the business and makes concessions to the worst teams to become better thus creating an environment where teams "tank." The funny thing is that there's absolutely ZERO will to change this model because all of the owners understand that any alternate system would be worse.

Disagree. I never presupposed that management tells players to lose. The issue here is that losing in this context will provide a tangible benefit to that losing team. If the draft model is changed, behavior would change as well. There was a suggestion that the NBA should go to a "draft wheel" concept, whereby each team would draft first overall once every 30 years. (The NBA is likely more prone to tanking as I have described, as one or two players can absolutely change a team around). Making your team worse in a given year would not help provide better picks. Maybe not the best solution, but it is a potential solution.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

My issue is simply that the Leafs (or any team) should be trying to ice the best lineup of what is available to them. It is fine to trade off UFAs, sell current assets for future ones, but when looking at the players available, I think there is a duty to dress the best 23 guys. I would have thought, based on limited viewings (of mostly the leafs), that Cowen could make that group.

You could expand that reasoning to suggest things like, a team can never start their backup unless their starter is hurt, cause he's the best goalie of the two. Organizations should be allowed to manage their long term goals, not just short term success.

This is asset management by the Leafs plain and simple, and I have no issue with it. They want to buy Cowen out, which is what makes their team better long term (in their opinion) so they need to sit him to not risk injury. I have no issue with that. It's no different than the Flames deciding a young asset might need more time in the minors for his long term development and the Flames long term success, even if that player is actually better than some of the players starting for the big club. There's a line between taking and doing what's best long term, but teams shouldn't have to always, "ice their best line up".

[googol]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

In some cases, they'll even admit to it, like Don Maloney:

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/960330

But you're right, players will never stop trying. And in fact, some players will try to win even harder in order to spite management's strategy.

Of course he says that because he did not try his best to make the team better. Do you think teams that are not in the playoff race should be buying in the trade deadline to make their team have a better finish?

[sureLoss]

Cowen will get another chance with another team. He is a former high ranked draft pick that has all the physical tools you want in a NHL defenseman.

Someone will give him a NHL contract next year albeit it will be a lot closer to league minimum than his current contract.

[cannon7]

Jared Cowen is the next Cam Barker. Offensively gifted defencemen who never learn how to play the other end of the rink. These players are a product of failed coaching. Hopefully the next one is paying attention and realizes their career will be short if they can't play defense. In addition to this, Cowen's injury history has really hobbled any potential he might have had. He certainly had more hockey sense than Barker, but when the injuries pile up it quickly becomes apparent how limited a player's game really is.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I don't think this should be allowed, he should have the option to at least play in the AHL. Bush league move.

At least he gets to go home, Backstrom had been healthy and with the Wild all season long and iirc he only dressed as the backup for a game or two.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

You could expand that reasoning to suggest things like, a team can never start their backup unless their starter is hurt, cause he's the best goalie of the two. Organizations should be allowed to manage their long term goals, not just short term success.

This is asset management by the Leafs plain and simple, and I have no issue with it. They want to buy Cowen out, which is what makes their team better long term (in their opinion) so they need to sit him to not risk injury. I have no issue with that. It's no different than the Flames deciding a young asset might need more time in the minors for his long term development and the Flames long term success, even if that player is actually better than some of the players starting for the big club. There's a line between taking and doing what's best long term, but teams shouldn't have to always, "ice their best line up".

You could expand that reasoning, but it isn't my reasoning. I haven't proposed that we compel teams to dress or sit certain players and "always ice their best line up". I am proposing that the league does not need to incentivize the behavior of icing a sub-optimal lineup.