[Trade] Glencross to Washington for a 2015 2nd and 2015 3rd round pick (WSH) (Archive)

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Sven, Poirier, Bennett, and Granlund could easily replace his numbers in the top six, and Wolf/Arnold (if healthy) could play in the NHL as well although in a depth position.

The Flames have depth, but for the time being they are being brought along slowly in the AHL, which is the proper thing to do. Eventually, they will replace the vets as time goes on.

Interesting…..

Glencross 48GP 26PTS

Granlund 33GP 13PTS (A PACE OF 18.9PTS per 48GP)
Baertschi 15GP 4PTS (A PACE OF 12.8PTS per 48GP)
Poirier 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Bennett 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Wolf 2GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Arnold 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)

So if my math is correct All 6 of these players can't even make up for Glencross' production combined.

I guess this is why we aren't the best team in the league, here for a second I thought I should start a Fire Burke, Treliving thread.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's unlikely any of them could be stay defensively like Glencross is now. Maybe in a year or two, but I think Glencross adds more this year

I agree, it would be a hit to the roster, but not a "Huge" one. The asset acquired should more than help to buoy that hit.

It isn't like the difference between winning a playoff series and losing it will hinge solely on the contributions of Glencross.

[Mattman]

People saying that Curtis Glenncross only pulls in a 3rd or only a 2nd are going to be way off if he is traded.

A comparable LW trade in recent time was Ryane Clowe back in 12-13. He had an injury riddled couple of season previous and before that trade he had 11 pts (assists) in 28 games and he was UFA that next summer. Clowe was traded for a 2nd, 3rd and a conditional 2nd to a playoff team.
Reminder that his highest points in a season was 38 in a FULL 82 games.

Sure Glenncross is 2 years older than Clowe was when traded but Glenncross puts up better numbers, is an assistant captain, plays top 6, and has a less lucrative salary hit than Clowe did.

Based on that IMO Glenncross will fetch:
A) a 1st alone
B) a 2nd and B prospect
C) packaged with another player and picks for an A- or B+ player

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I agree, it would be a hit to the roster, but not a "Huge" one. The asset acquired should more than help to buoy that hit.

It isn't like the difference between winning a playoff series and losing it will hinge solely on the contributions of Glencross.

Totally agree here, but I still would only trade Glencross if that asset does buoy the hit. To me that's a 2nd and decent prospect. I'm not sure anyone would pay that

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

My understanding (and I could certainly be wrong) was that Burke had a deal in place with a single team and waited right up to the end before they backed out...then he had no time left to properly shop Cammi to the rest of the league (and many teams had already traded for similar UFAs by that point.

I think you're mixing up two different stories.

Burke had a deal in place with a specific team, but it was conditional upon the other team completing a separate deal with a third team. When the other team was unable to complete their other deal, they no longer needed to make the deal with the Flames.

Speculation at the time was that it was a deal that would have seen Heatley come to Calgary from Minnesota so that Minnesota would have had the cap space to acquire Vanek from the Islanders. The Wild would have sent something additional to the Flames (likely a pick or prospect) for taking Heatley's contract. When Vanek went to Montreal, the Wild didn't need to clear the cap space, so they called off the Heatley deal. The deal would have been entirely about freeing up cap space for Minnesota. Calgary wouldn't have been sending much of value the other way.


Trading Cammalleri didn't happen because there were too many rental wingers on the market last year and Cammalleri was struggling in the weeks leading up to the deadline, so he wasn't at the top of any team's list. A few teams had kicked the tires on Cammalleri, but all were waiting to see if they could land one of the bigger fish. The other players went so late (and Kesler didn't go at all) that there was no time to get a deal done for Cammalleri.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by The_Future

HOLY COW! How come we are not the first overall in the league then? We should surely fire everyone responsible for keeping these 6 players out of our line up.

Originally Posted by The_Future

I guess this is why we aren't the best team in the league, here for a second I thought I should start a Fire Burke, Treliving thread.

I really don't like you.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Interesting…..

Glencross 48GP 26PTS

Granlund 33GP 13PTS (A PACE OF 18.9PTS per 48GP)
Baertschi 15GP 4PTS (A PACE OF 12.8PTS per 48GP)
Poirier 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Bennett 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Wolf 2GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Arnold 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)

So if my math is correct All 6 of these players can't even make up for Glencross' production combined.

So Bennett has played zero games, but the expectation is zero points if he played 48 games? Not sure I understand the math....

Remember, when Glencross was on the IR.... Flames were fine in terms of production.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I can't say a single slightly negative thing about Iginla without someone coming to his aid on CP. It's becoming very tiresome..

When you think Iginla do you think 'passer' or 'sniper'. Sniper, which is why he and Tanguay were always a great pairing. I'm not saying he can't pass, but it's not his strongest ability. The last year Iginla played with Cammy, he also played with Tanguay since they were both shoot first type players.

The previous poster decided to say that Glencross' success was due to Iginla's passing and I was calling him out on it.

Pointing out he's an adept passer is stating the obvious.

He's a shooter / scorer first, but he's an above average passer as well. Glencross definitely benefited from his vision and passing in their time playing together, and over-all, Iginla is an above average passer.

Any way you shake it, your simplistic comments downplaying his play-making were off the mark.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Interesting…..

Glencross 48GP 26PTS

Granlund 33GP 13PTS (A PACE OF 18.9PTS per 48GP)
Baertschi 15GP 4PTS (A PACE OF 12.8PTS per 48GP)
Poirier 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Bennett 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Wolf 2GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Arnold 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)

So if my math is correct All 6 of these players can't even make up for Glencross' production combined.

I guess this is why we aren't the best team in the league, here for a second I thought I should start a Fire Burke, Treliving thread.

Wow, McDavid won't make up for that production either, by that logic.
Going forward, there is a reasonable expectation that Glencross' point production could be replaced. No guarantees, but there is reasonable depth to make a trade and be better for it in the long run, without killing our playoff chances.

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I agree, it would be a hit to the roster, but not a "Huge" one. The asset acquired should more than help to buoy that hit.

It isn't like the difference between winning a playoff series and losing it will hinge solely on the contributions of Glencross.

Agreed, exactly what I have been saying. If the price is right we should move any player. Only if the price is right.

Glencross' contributions might not lead to the losing of a playoff series. However the lack of what an AHL player will bring to the team in the event we lose Curtis for some picks might.

We have nothing to lose with the team we have on the ice now, and no reason to move anyone out unless we are overpaid for them

[getbak]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Granlund 33GP 13PTS (A PACE OF 18.9PTS per 48GP)
Baertschi 15GP 4PTS (A PACE OF 12.8PTS per 48GP)
Poirier 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Bennett 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Wolf 2GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)
Arnold 0GP 0PTS (A PACE OF OPTS per 48GP)

Connor McDavid has zero NHL points, I don't know why teams are tanking in order to be able to draft him.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by getbak

I think you're mixing up two different stories.

Burke had a deal in place with a specific team, but it was conditional upon the other team completing a separate deal with a third team. When the other team was unable to complete their other deal, they no longer needed to make the deal with the Flames.

Speculation at the time was that it was a deal that would have seen Heatley come to Calgary from Minnesota so that Minnesota would have had the cap space to acquire Vanek from the Islanders. The Wild would have sent something additional to the Flames (likely a pick or prospect) for taking Heatley's contract. When Vanek went to Montreal, the Wild didn't need to clear the cap space, so they called off the Heatley deal. The deal would have been entirely about freeing up cap space for Minnesota. Calgary wouldn't have been sending much of value the other way.


Trading Cammalleri didn't happen because there were too many rental wingers on the market last year and Cammalleri was struggling in the weeks leading up to the deadline, so he wasn't at the top of any team's list. A few teams had kicked the tires on Cammalleri, but all were waiting to see if they could land one of the bigger fish. The other players went so late (and Kesler didn't go at all) that there was no time to get a deal done for Cammalleri.

This is all correct AFAIK, but there was also another offer on the table as a backup, but it was likely a low 2nd-3rd round pick. Burke would rather hold onto Cammy then show 29 other GM's that they can just underbid and win the waiting game with Calgary. They did send Cammy an offer afterwards as well, it's not like they wanted to trade him away.

[Royle9]

The only puzzling thing to me here is all the mention of "we're going to need him down the stretch" which to me doesn't mean much. He hasn't done a lot for us as is, what's to say during this "stretch" he's going to pick up and play like the player we've seen him be in the past?

It's a dice roll at best, if a hockey trade is available you do what's going to make you best down the road. If we get a good offer and it make sense, you deal him away its as simple as that. Who's to say the person we call up has one of those "miracle" stretches of hockey or a good consistent stretch themselves.

All this hearsay puppet "what if scenarios" really needs to stop, there's no guarantee's in hockey so lets not act like Glenny will turn into the savior we expect down the "stretch".

Just my 2 cents.

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Wow, McDavid won't make up for that production either, by that logic.
Going forward, there is a reasonable expectation that Glencross' point production could be replaced. No guarantees, but there is reasonable depth.

Maybe Connor McDavid is the next Patrik Štefan?

All I am trying to get at is we can't say FOR SURE any one of those 6 players automatically replaces what Glencross brings to the table, McDavid included if you want.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Royle9

If we get a good offer and it make sense, you deal him away its as simple as that. Who's to say the person we call up has one of those "miracle" stretches of hockey or a good consistent stretch themselves.

The part you seem to be missing is that if we *don't* get a fair offer, his veteran experience, defensive play and grit will be advantageous down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot.

You seem to be skeptical he'll be an asset, which is the very reason any team battling for the playoffs / looking to make a run would want him.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Maybe Connor McDavid is the next Patrik Štefan?

All I am trying to get at is we can't say FOR SURE any one of those 6 players automatically replaces what Glencross brings to the table, McDavid included if you want.

Did you really just......

[GioforPM]

Losing Cammaleri for nothing was a bigger deal last year, because there was no shot at the POs. That said, I don't think Glencross is irreplaceable, especially lately, and I'd hate to get no return (especially since the market seems to be getting better for returns on rentals).

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by Royle9

The only puzzling thing to me here is all the mention of "we're going to need him down the stretch" which to me doesn't mean much. He hasn't done a lot for us as is, what's to say during this "stretch" he's going to pick up and play like the player we've seen him be in the past?

It's a dice roll at best, if a hockey trade is available you do what's going to make you best down the road. If we get a good offer and it make sense, you deal him away its as simple as that. Who's to say the person we call up has one of those "miracle" stretches of hockey or a good consistent stretch themselves.

All this hearsay puppet "what if scenarios" really needs to stop, there's no guarantee's in hockey so lets not act like Glenny will turn into the savior we expect down the "stretch".

Just my 2 cents.

I agree the only thing we know for sure is what Glencross brings to the table. Bar a 9 game slump, he has been fairly consistent his whole career.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by getbak

Connor McDavid has zero NHL points,...

48GP is too small of a sample - let's see what he does the rest of the season.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

The part you seem to be missing is that if we *don't* get a fair offer, his veteran experience, defensive play and grit will be advantageous down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot.

You seem to be skeptical he'll be an asset, which is the very reason any team battling for the playoffs / looking to make a run would want him.

Right, I don't think he's much of an asset but if someone's willing to throw a 2nd at him or a 3rd and a B prospect you take it. If nothing else we continue on as is and cross our fingers and hope for the best. Personally I think we can replace what he brings from the farm, but I'm not the GM so who care's what I think