[News] Flames have not had recent contract talks with Glencross

[GioforPM]

I think the fact that the Flames are bidding for a PO spot way ahead of schedule has clouded some folks' memory of what they are trying to do. It's the second full year of the rebuild. It's when older players should not be offered big money and term because the attempt is to get younger, faster and bigger (so far it's two out of three). Signing Glencross to what he wants according to all reports is just not in keeping with the plan laid out by Treliving. Losing him for nothing as a UFAS is undesirable.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Hah, nice try. I never said that you trade Glencross at any cost. I said you don't trade him just to make the playoffs "if you can get good assets in return". Pretty big difference from what you're trying to paint me as.

I'm painting you by exactly what you said: "Being impatient and ignoring the long-term master plan, just to see your ass handed to you in the 1st round = more insane"

Your earlier posts notwithstanding, there was no qualification to this statement. You made your view clear that you don't care if this team feels retaining Glencross helps us make the post-season this year. You would sacrifice that chance to get, as it turns out, something even as pitiful as a fourth rounder. That is called wanting to fail upward, and that very much is what the Oilers attempted to do.

I might be lost in my world, but at least my world is not about jumping to massive conclusions and thinking that trading Glencross means we are "dumping all our vets and turning into the Oilers". It's never that black and white.

No kidding dude. That is why I pointedly reminded you that this is not a binary process.

The Flames have made a massive step beyond expectations this year, with or without the playoffs. As a coach and player, you absolutely hope these guys are pushing to make the playoffs....but as a GM, you can't keep changing your plan with every weekly up and down of the win column.

Since when were you the GM? Also, I love how you jump to a massive conclusion exactly one sentence after claiming you don't jump to massive conclusions.

Burke made it clear last year he wasn't going to just give players away. Treliving is a different manager, of course, but given how often he spoke of sharing the same mindset as Burke, don't bet on him being terribly different. But to the point, opting to retain Glencross - if we are still in the race a month from now - absent a quality trade offer is not changing the plan. Signing Glencross to a big, long term deal at the expense of getting younger could be viewed as changing the plan. Dumping prospects for vets would be changing the plan. Maintaining the status quo wrt Glencross at the risk of his going to UFA because the team thinks that a taste of winning and a taste of playoffs will help the kids more down the road is not changing the plan.

And that, I am quite certain, is something Treliving, Burke and Hartley have discussed already.

And for those who don't think getting even a 4th rounder is worth it...there are at least two key guys on this Flames team who would tell you otherwise. The draft is still largely a crapshoot, and smart teams hoard draft picks like they are going out of style...it doesn't mean you will automatically turn into the damn Oilers.

Smart teams consider a hell of a lot more than blindly hoarding draft picks just because. Remember that whole "it's never that black and white" thing you said but clearly do not believe? If you aren't getting a quality offer, you need to consider the value of experience. Hartley et al have already spoken of the value of these kids playing meaningful games in January. February, March and April (if we get there) are only going to ramp that up. There is no substitute for experience, and if the team feels keeping Glencross for a run is more important for the org long term than drafting the next JD Watt or Hugo Carpentier, they are likely going to do so.

[locsofblu]

I hope we resign Glencross but only if it makes sense financially. Nothing more than a 3 year 10 million deal.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by locsofblu

I hope we resign Glencross but only if it makes sense financially. Nothing more than a 3 year 10 million deal.

I'd rather give him just 2 years with more $'s. 2 year x 4.25m.

[PeteMoss]

The dressing room morale will take a hit if you trade Glencross even if you think you can replace him with no loss of talent for the team. It just gives the idea that management doesn't think you can compete this year (even if in reality you can't). Getting a 3rd round pick for Glencross or keeping him isn't going to change the direction of the team one way or the other.

[Badgers Nose]

imo we will see it play out like Cammi did.

too high asking price and no takers

worth more to keep for playoff run and then lose for nothing (in a cap world that is actually something)

[GreenLantern]

I would rather see what the Flames can get at the deadline then give him a 5x5 deal, which I am sure he will ask for.. if not more.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

imo we will see it play out like Cammi did.

too high asking price and no takers

worth more to keep for playoff run and then lose for nothing (in a cap world that is actually something)

I disagree. Cammy was part of a deadline where there was Kesler, Vanek and Moulson involved. There isn't much this year, and Glencross' cap hit definitely benefits the trading too.

[Poe969]

I didn't realize that we have to keep Glencross at all costs because him not being on the team turns us into the oilers! If that's the case, this team finally has a lot of good prospects so picks aren't important and we should trade away all of our picks for help to maybe make the playoffs.

Or....we move forward. This team is still a good team and Glencross isn't the most important player we have. Trading him away may mean that we're losing our 4th highest point producer but it could also mean that someone else steps up and produces even more or that a prospect gets called up and over achieves. No one knows.

I'm sure at this point management has a really good idea if Glencross will be back next year or not. If they don't see him as part of the future plan, is it worth keeping him to maybe make the playoffs or is it better to get an asset/assets to help the team next year and years to come? If they see him as part of the future then he won't be traded and all the drama is for nothing.

One thing to consider for all of those who say that trading Glencross is the end of the world and we'd become the oilers; If one player is that important to the team and we'd become the 30th place team without him, are we really that good? What would we do if he was injured for the rest of the year while playing for the Flames? Just throw our arms up and give up? I agree that Glencross is an integral part of the team but I don't think he's as important as some suggest. This team has to think about making the playoffs this year but shouldn't sacrifice the future just to make the playoffs this year. I'm willing to bet that in the next year or 2 the Flames will move from a bubble team to a team battling for home ice in the playoffs.

[Matty81]

Re-sign him or trade him by the deadline... It's that simple. Otherwise he's basically a rental which is moronic for a team on the edge of the playoff picture in year 2 of a rebuild.

Hopefully he'll waive the nmc if there isn't a new contract coming.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Re-sign him or trade him by the deadline... It's that simple. Otherwise he's basically a rental which is moronic for a team on the edge of the playoff picture in year 2 of a rebuild.

Nothing "moronic" about having a defensively responsible veteran top 6 forward Assistant Captain on a young rebuilding squad, even if for a brief period. He's not here for his goal-scoring, which hasn't even been on a 20 goal pace in years.

[Resolute 14]

Actually, this is the first year in about seven or eight where he hasn't been on a 20 goal pace.

He had an 82-game pace of 26 goals last year, and 31 the year before. He was only on pace for 15 pre-injury this year, and that negative progression is certainly a reason to not re-sign Glencross for term and money, even if his overall scoring is stable.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Nothing "moronic" about having a defensively responsible veteran top 6 forward Assistant Captain on a young rebuilding squad, even if for a brief period. He's not here for his goal-scoring, which hasn't even been on a 20 goal pace in years.

What are you talking about, this is the first year since 09/10 that Glencross has not been on a 20 goal pace for a complete season. He's put up great goal numbers in the previous two but shortened seasons for him.

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The dressing room morale will take a hit if you trade Glencross even if you think you can replace him with no loss of talent for the team. It just gives the idea that management doesn't think you can compete this year (even if in reality you can't). Getting a 3rd round pick for Glencross or keeping him isn't going to change the direction of the team one way or the other.

Is your last name Glencross ? Lol. Seriously though, in my opinion he needs to go. If you cant get anything for him its the fault of the previous GM who gave him a No trade deal.. Too many young guys coming . Room has to be made somewhere... Now if they hadn't signed Raymond and Bollig it would be different..

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, this is the first year in about seven or eight where he hasn't been on a 20 goal pace.

Doh. I should have checked the numbers.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Is your last name Glencross ? Lol. Seriously though, in my opinion he needs to go. If you cant get anything for him its the fault of the previous GM who gave him a No trade deal.. Too many young guys coming . Room has to be made somewhere... Now if they hadn't signed Raymond and Bollig it would be different..

Room never has to be "made", youngsters force teams to do uncomfortable things, move players when they make it a no brainer to push the veteran out. I'm not sure we should bring Glencross back, but the reason certainly can't be to "make room" for our LW prospects. That will happen organically when they are ready, and you can deal with what to do with Glencross when that happens, which isn't the case yet.

[Igster]

I'm really OK with him being traded at the deadline. Can almost guarantee he will sign a bigger contract somewhere, so might as well get an asset for him at the deadline.

[flambers]

I would be in the camp of the Flames should explore moving him at the trade dead-line.

Not sure Glencross has interest re-signing with the Flames and will explore the UFA market this summer.

[killer_carlson]

My thoughts:

If we can nab a first round pick or a legitimate NHL ready and high quality prospect, then we trade him.

If we cannot and we are in shouting distance of a playoff spot, I keep him. Letting our young guys play high pressure, high stakes games down the stretch is valuable and Glencross increases our chances of winning. If we can squeak into the playoffs, the experience is much more beneficial than a 2nd round pick.

If we are not in shouting distance of a playoff spot, we trade him for the best offer, including a potential sign and trade where we sign and pay a signing bonus or something like that to increase his trade value by using our cap space.

[formulate]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If Colborne isn't even with Glencross' PPG, he's pretty darn close, with way less minutes. And way younger and less costly.

I'm not understanding your argument. Younger and cheaper? We're talking about a month-long stretch run and potentially playoffs; what do their respective ages and salaries matter? Maybe if we were talking about which to retain long-term, in which case we'd be in agreement.

For what it's worth, Colborne's production pace is only slightly lower than Glencross', but he's getting just 38 seconds less per game, which is also pretty marginal. He's also getting for favorable zone starts and competition.

In any case, you're looking at trading an assistant captain who is top 5 among forwards in close to all important statistical categories. For a third rounder? While the team is entering the final month of the season, potentially still in a playoff spot?

Again, if the offer is huge, I'm game (1st rounder or more). Mediocre return (3rd rounder plus B prospect or another 4th-6th rounder) I say stand pat and go for the playoffs. In between and it's a difficult decision. The good news is trading Ramo at the deadline (which will look more and more likely if Ortio keeps lighting up the AHL and Ramo remains without contract for next year) will likely bring in a decent draft pick.