[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Does it show the average Flames fan mentality or just Jason4h's mentality?

Come on man, put away the paint brush.

Just read through the thread, man.

Originally Posted by jeffman

Only for a defense. If Gio or Brodie go down we are screwed

Originally Posted by MattyC

My response from the rumour thread:

Personally, I think that if we can package Glencross with a decent prospect at a position of strength (likely looking at Sven in this regard) for either a forward who is an upgrade on Glencross, or a solid DMan that can give you a good 10-20 minutes, it would be good. No idea who that would be, but it would help for the stretch drive.

Glencross' production is not looking to be very hard to replace this season. He's been OK, but I'm not sure he's been missed all that much when he's out.

If you can't upgrade your team now by dealing Glencross, either at forward or defence, there's no sense in trading him. I know people are looking to the future, but IMO Glencross on his own won't bring back enough of a "future package" to make it worth dealing him before a drive. You need an effective roster player coming back who is, at the very least, younger and is not a downgrade in size or skillset.

Kind of a tall order, so I doubt he is dealt.

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I would deal him, but only if the return was worth it. Not worth trading a guy like him for a low draft pick when having him provides good depth on the wing for a playoff push. But I hope to hell if he stays that we don't re-sign him. I just don't see him living up to his contract as his cap hit could easily double.

Originally Posted by kermitology

Yep. As Duhatschek said on the radio, if you can get something like a 1st rounder or a defenceman for him, I move him. There are, I believe, enough parts up front to cover for his absence from the team, but they desperately need some more defencemen.

Originally Posted by debil

For overpayment yes, for fair value or less no. We are still small team and need these physical yet somewhat skilled players. i believe he can turn it around. there is some reason why many playoffs teams want him.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I said "no". the issue is about the price. I don't see value in trading him for a prospect we don't have space to develop, or for a late 2nd round pick (or lower).

If we're not going to get our asking price, his value is greater in being here down the stretch and making a run for the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

My real answer is a sitting on the fence one. We certainly don't re-sign him, only because that blocks progression of our prospects on a deep position. If he'd sign one year cheap to provide competition, fine. We all know he's going to do what he should do and get his last big payday though. That won't work for the flames.

As for trading now though, it's difficult. If you trade him you need depth for the stretch run. From an asset management in a rebuild you need the future assets from a trade. They don't match. That means the future assets from a trade need to outweigh the need for depth. He isn't going to garner a first, so we'll have to settle for a second or lower. Anything less than a second isn't worth damaging the depth we've got so you don't make the trade

Originally Posted by J pold

I say no but of course if the price is high enough obviously you pull the trigger.

To me this team making the playoffs this year will have a far greater impact on eventually becoming a contender than a market return for Glencross, and him on the roster now improves the chances of making the playoffs today.

Originally Posted by Yoho

For first rounder yes

For low second or third rounder no

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Didn't see any option that fit my opinion so never voted.

Needs to be a 1st round draft pick coming our way, otherwise we keep him for our own playoff push. A mid-late 2nd + C level prospect is not enough.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Combination of option C and D, with the caveat being 'depends on the return'. As long as the return makes sense, you move him. If not, he remains a versatile - though inconsistent - help (especially defensively) to shoulder the load and help get this team into the playoffs.

He is not a guy that you re-sign any longer as he has stated he wants 'fair market value', and I am guessing that includes term. I would call it a fair trade if Glencross returns a 'B' defensive or RW prospect. I would be ecstatic if he returned a first, or a 2nd + 'B' level prospect. Doubtful that he returns an 'A' level prospect, so I am definitely not hoping for that.

Anything lower than a 2nd by itself, or a B-level prospect, and I say keep him. Eventually he starts scoring again, and at the least he is a guy who Hartley can rotate in against the opposition's top lines.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It's absolutely fair, but considering where the Flames find themselves in the standings, they shouldn't be accepting a fair deal for Glencross. He has more value to us down the stretch and possibly in the playoffs, than a late 2nd (Hunter Smith) + C level prospect (Ken Agostino).

Overpayment or nothing, IMO.

Originally Posted by Murph

The only way I am ok with trading Glencross is if it is for a piece that helps us both now and in the future. A young defenceman currently playing 3rd pairing minutes but projected to be a second pairing guy fits that description. Simon Despres in Pittsburgh fits that description. Would Glencross + 2015 2nd get it done?

Originally Posted by Journey17

Really have to know what the return is. I wouldn't trade him for a low 3rd round pick as he is more valuable to the team than that return. Hard to evaluate without that info. I don't really know that the Leafs trade set the bar for a Glencross return.

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

There are too many people in the "trade him because we don't want to lose him for nothing" camp.

I think we don't get anything more than a second round pick. In my opinion, a draft pick that is somewhere near 45th overall (middle of the second round) is pretty much "nothing" anyway, so why get rid of him down a playoff drive? I think the experience in the room to help the younger guys develop is worth more than a second round pick.

Originally Posted by Buff

I couldn't decide upon which yes to select. At any rate I would only trade him for a fair offer. Just like Burke did last year with Cammalleri, Treliving shouldn't trade Glencross just for the sake of trading him. Something meaningful has to come back to Calgary.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not against it, but it depends on the return.

For me, a late 2nd isn't enough - it would have to be more or I would rather retain him for depth for the playoff run.

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I said "Yes, asset management and a rebuild timeline says move him" because if he doesn't re-sign here then they should get something for him. If they can sign him before the deadline, he doesn't get moved and he stays here for a playoff run.

I would prefer that he is traded for some help on the back end, maybe another pending UFA, but just don't sell the future for the playoffs this season. He should only be moved if it can help us now or is a 2nd rounder or better.

If that isn't an option, then maybe he is part of a larger package to get a better top 4 defenseman, someone who can be a part of the rebuild and help us now. The price will be high but would likely jump our rebuild ahead a bit.

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I picked #3 but with and astrix that only if the offer is a good one (ie 1st to mid 2nd or equivalent prospect).

IMO his impact on the team for the playoff push, and potential playoffs is more valuable than lottery ticket picks or marginal prospects.

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

What I'm saying is relevant to our push for the playoffs. If he can return to previous avg. the previous 4 years, he can contribute 8 goals down the stretch. If he continues on this years pace you get 4. Likely what will happen is somewhere in the middle, but even that isn't poor and 6 would be equal to an 18 goal scorer. We do not have such replacement on the farm.

And that is what we need to consider

Originally Posted by #-3

I'm in the yes camp if it is a clear big win for us, or the team can get better on D right now.

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

As we fight for a playoff spot how do you trade away the players that got you there? Sends the wrong message to the team dont you think? Its the way I think.

If we can upgrade on Glencross then yes go for it, sends the right message. Yet for a draft pick it worsens the team and moral.

I am neither a Glencross hater or worshipper. Year two of a rebuild and we are fighting for a playoff spot. Who saw that coming? I want to trade Glencross, Stajan, Jones, Bollig etc. I dont know about the character of these guys in the locker room though. Something is working right, its dangerous to mess with that!!!

Can we afford to lose Glencross? If we make the playoffs he is a guy I want there. Can he be replaced with Sven or Wolf or add name here? Sure he can be.

Is trading Glencross good asset management? Absolutely! Same can be said for Ramo! Yet I would prefer to have the guys walk away after the season and get nothing for them than break up the team right now.

Year two of the rebuild and we are talking playoffs, we shouldnt be. Something is working and the Hockey Gods are fickle. Dont mess with what aint broke!

Originally Posted by Daradon

Obviously the question depends on the deal.

But I said no. Gotta keep some vets, playoffs or not. Glencross is the kinda guy you want on the team. They keep telling us it's about building culture, and that seems to be doing great so us so far, keep the guy. Not only is he good on the team, good in the room, good for the city, young guys may start to feel a bit less like buying in if we just ship 'good value' for 'assets'.

I don't get how Glencross became the goat around here this year. Especially when he was a cult hero for so long. I also don't get the constant need for turnover. Managing every 'asset' like you need to get something new and shiny for it. We're swamped with up and comers. We don't need any more. Asset management doesn't just mean turning in the 'old' for the new. That'd be 'asset turnover'.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Do you really believe a late 2nd rounder is going to have much to do with the rebuild? It is a crap shoot at that point of the draft to even get a player who will play 100 games.

If you're saying you wouldn't move Glencross except for a 2nd you might as well say you would only move him for a 1st, or for a superstar.

The realism here is that the Flames should be looking to unload him almost regardless of return because he won't be back next year. Same with Ramo.

Instead there is a lot of couching of statements like it's more valuable to retain him for the 'run' etc.

Just look at the references for sacrificing the future to placate the now.