The crux of the argument isn't about re-signing him. I think that everyone (? at least the vast majority) on here would NOT want to see Glencross re-signed for the money (and likely term) that Glencross wants.
It comes down to 'how much can the Flames trade him for'? vs. "what is the message that trading him away (especially if it is a futures-only deal) to the rest of the players on the team who have worked so hard to get into a playoff spot this year".
Lots of teams are inquiring about Glencross not because he can put up 25 or more goals. Yes, the scoring depth he can provide a team is crucial of course to the interest, but it is the other 'intangibles' that make him a still (more or less) highly coveted acquisition. He does have pretty good wheels, he is gritty, he is versatile, he is good defensively and is able to play on both special teams. During long playoff runs, teams definitely try and find players like Glencross. Injuries happen, and having a guy that can move up and down the lineup and slot in on either wing, or on special teams, etc., are (IMO) very crucial.
Now how much value does Glencross hold in today's market (today including from now right up until the trade deadline) is what is arguable. The Flames are NOT contenders this year (and nobody is arguing otherwise). However, they are in a very good position to make the playoffs, and jettisoning him for futures only may negatively impact the room. It MAY take the 'wind out of the sails' so to speak.
It is a fine line that Treliving is walking. He is in a fairly unique situation this year when it comes to Glencross, and the position the Flames are in. A rebuilding team that is on the cusp of making the playoffs. How much do you deviate from the plan (if at all?). Does he take the stance that regardless of the team's performance, there is absolutely no change?
I now personally think that unless a first was involved (or a fairly highly rated prospect who is NOT ready to contribute to the NHL this year), that Treliving will not make a trade based on 'futures-only'. However, if he can trade Glencross for a package including a player in return that is young, but can at least slot in for added depth today - even if it is only 'potentially' - then I think he makes the trade.
It would not surprise me if this deal becomes a 'larger' deal where Treliving includes a decent prospect or two that is currently buried in the depth chart for a prospect that is closer to the NHL, or one that is a definite 'blue-chip' from a team with excess (like one of Pittsburgh's defensive prospects). It won't be anywhere close to Fowler (a young guy who already has a place on the team and is making an impact). However, it may include another winger or bottom-pairing defender who is on that particular team now, but is seen as possibly expendable.
Just my thoughts anyways. The more I do think about it, the less likely Treliving makes a futures-only deal (unless it is a huge win), and will not trade Glencross away unless a trade package provides help now for their playoff push. I do think they should be careful about the optics of such a move - not to the fans and media, but to the players on the team.
|