[News] Flames/Glencross looking at Extension

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Yep, don't care for an extension either way, but the Flames should avoid any NMC or even NTC. I could live with a modified NTC I guess, but that's about it.

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Some people said that the room was messed up because of the leadership... I honestly see Glencross as a negative in the room. He's a perfect example of playing when you want to play and floating when you wanna float. As long as you make friends with the boss, you can do anything. I think he'll have a negative influence on the young guys coming up and would do my best to try and trade him on the current contract he's on. Time to move on

Agreed. time to move him out

[AC]

Originally Posted by Freeway

If Glencross walks, who takes his off-ice leadership role?

Was Glencross the one that Conroy flipped out at for not talking to Hanowski and the other rookies 2 seasons ago?

[Jables16]

I'd be a bit weary of re-signing Glencross. I feel like it would become our version of the Burrows contract (not person wise, Glennie isn't a whining, diving, biting POS).

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by AC

Was Glencross the one that Conroy flipped out at for not talking to Hanowski and the other rookies 2 seasons ago?

I can't recall, but he was the one running all the team-building stuff off the ice.

[Fire]

If Glencross is not willing to take a home-town discount then it's time to part ways.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Fire

If Glencross is not willing to take a home-town discount then it's time to part ways.

Can you give me one reason why his cap hit would matter? Especially with the salary we have committed next year and the year after?

[MuscleOnTheBlvd]

Good to hear the Flames and Curtis Glencross are talking extension. I don't see how the Flames don't re-sign him seeing as him, Raymond and Bollig are the only proven NHLers on the LW.

Glencross at times last year looked like the only real NHLer on the Flames wing.

He is injury prone but I think he's due for a good full season.

I'm thinking he'll get a 4 year $4-4.5M per.

I also think the Flames should pay him and not base it around that he wants to play here and should take a home town discount. I think the idea that players don't want to play in Calgary is a myth.

[cKy]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I can't recall, but he was the one running all the team-building stuff off the ice.

And people did it before Glencross joined the team. Someone will step to the plate.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

He'd get that if he hit UFA. Dubinsky is a decent comparable.

Not even close.

I can't fathom why the Flames would give Glencross a NTC at this point. He got one in his last contract because the Flames were up against the cap and he took a discount in exchange for the NTC. No cap problem now. And I don't see the team desperate to keep him as part of the long-term core. So what reason do the Flames have for giving him a NTC, and what leverage does he have to secure one? Pay him fairly on a three year deal - no NTC clause - and be done with it.

[SvenTastic47]

If he became more consistent and wasn't so injury prone then he could be a great player. When he wants, he shows excellence and I think if he played 75 games he could put up 60 points. Like you guys have been saying he signed for hometown discount when we were against the cap. We have lots of cap space right now so I would expect 3 years/12 million

[transplant99]

My guess is he will get something like 4.7 per for 4 years and a modified NMC.

Fine by me....the club needs some solid vets who want to be here and can contribute in a variety of ways. He fills all those criteria.

[StrykerSteve]

He'll get a 3-year deal worth 15M or so. But if they give him a NTC/NMC, they're crazy.

[Resolute 14]

He's going to get an NTC of some sort. Y'all might as well just get used to it.

[Geeoff]

Looking at this July 1st, Glencross is comparable to the $5.5 million players. I think you guys better prepare yourselves for a $5 million aav

[Scoreface]

The Flames have the leverage, since Glencross wants to play here and nowhere else for his ranching, etc. 2 years limited NTC. Throw him 4.5-5 per. Not gonna upset the cap cart or any of us I'd imagine.

If he gets a 4 or 5 year deal with a full NTC this place will go through the roof.

[Caged Great]

If the Flames keep him, that's fine. If the Flames trade him at the deadline, that's fine too. It's not that big a deal either way. If we flipped him at the deadline, we could go out and sign another similar player, sort of like getting Raymond.

[djsFlames]

If Glencross stays, he has to be tradable a year or two down the road. So no NTC/NMC.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Can you give me one reason why his cap hit would matter? Especially with the salary we have committed next year and the year after?

Glencross wouldn't sign anything less than a 3 year extension. He would go to the UFA market before doing that. For the first 2 years of his extension it wouldn't be a problem cap wise but anything after that you might start regretting the deal.

At year 4 of the rebuild you will have Gaudreau, Monahan and Giordano up for new contract. The Flames will probably be looking to add some impact UFAs as well to make them legit playoff contenders.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but wondering. One thing we might not be factoring in here, is that negotiations for a contract extension may be something the Flames really need to do, even if they are thinking of moving Glencross.

Fact is, he's a UFA at the end of the year, so if teams know that the Flames or Glencross himself aren't even talking about an extension or keeping him as an option, I would think that would weaken our trade position and reduce value for him in a trade. We would immediately be in the "desperate to move an asset we will lose for nothing at the end of the year" camp if teams don't think that keeping the asset for ourselves is a realistic option for both sides.