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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by formulate

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.

As far as Ramo goes, I think if we get an offer for a third rounder, take it and run. But I don't really see a big market for a guy who has essentially become the backup. We'd love to see a repeat of the Avs' foolishness, but that is not something that can be counted on.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As far as Ramo goes, I think if we get an offer for a third rounder, take it and run. But I don't really see a big market for a guy who has essentially become the backup. We'd love to see a repeat of the Avs' foolishness, but that is not something that can be counted on.

Maybe an injury from a top end goalie might have them give up a pick. I know Rinne is out, but he'll probably be back before deadline day.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by formulate

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.

I don't think anyone wants Ramo

[formulate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As far as Ramo goes, I think if we get an offer for a third rounder, take it and run. But I don't really see a big market for a guy who has essentially become the backup. We'd love to see a repeat of the Avs' foolishness, but that is not something that can be counted on.

Agreed. A third is pretty much what I meant by 'decent'. Maybe we get that, maybe not. 3rd-5th round picks seem to be the going price for a stable backup.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So if the team doesn't get a great offer for Glencross and chooses not to move him, does that mean we won't win the Cup ever again? Does it mean we are no longer on the path to being a "well built team"?

You are completely lost in your own little world, Table 5. The team isn't selling players just to sneak into the playoffs, so your complaining about how the team was run is irrelevant. But the team - on both the hockey and business sides - certainly would love to make the playoffs. You don't think giving the likes of Gaudreau, Brodie, Monahan a taste of what the post-season is like wouldn't be good for them? It's the exact same thinking that has so many so enamoured with rushing Bennett to the NHL once healthy. Give him a taste...

Like I've said three times now, if we get a really good offer or the team (not fans wanting their shiny new toys now, the team) is convinced someone is ready to take Glencross' place, you probably pull the trigger. If not, they might well take the chance. But the way to ensure the Flames seriously look at moving Glencross regardless is to start cheering for losses.

So go on then. Start cheering for losses.

Honest question. Can you serve rebuttal, respectfully?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by formulate

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.

IMO you are putting way too much stock in:

a. Making the POs - it's nice, but not part of the plan. For your month long stretch run which at best gets a low PO spot and a date with a team like the Ducks, you want to give up any return for Glencross, who walks at the end of the year (I'm convinced he will not re-sign)

b. Glencross' impact in making said POs - that's the point about Colborne - he's statistically almost even with Glencross and he's only a 2nd year player basically, and beginning to step it up a lot more.

It was you who made the big deal about his spot on the team in point scoring, so I responded. Whether it's fourth or fifth, that's kinda only upper mid-range for me. He has less goals than Jooris and only one or two more than Jones, Raymond, and Backlund (in way more games). You speak of "top 5" in stats like that is impactful, when it's not really. He has nowhere near the impact of a Backlund on the team success IMO, defensively and offensively. And, yes, he wears an A, but there is plenty of leadership on this team, from Gio to Hudler to Stajan, all of who I think are better mentors from an on-ice perspective (despite posts about impact on the room, I don't think anyone can judge that).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

IMO you are putting way too much stock in:

a. Making the POs - it's nice, but not part of the plan. For your month long stretch run which at best gets a low PO spot and a date with a team like the Ducks, you want to give up any return for Glencross, who walks at the end of the year (I'm convinced he will not re-sign)

I would say everything that Hartley, Treliving and Burke has said argues that making the playoffs is part of the plan. They just won't bet the farm on it in year two. And agreed on Glencross not re-signing. I think the team is also moving on, thus the lack of talks.

It was you who made the big deal about his spot on the team in point scoring, so I responded. Whether it's fourth or fifth, that's kinda only upper mid-range for me. He has less goals than Jooris and only one or two more than Jones, Raymond, and Backlund (in way more games). You speak of "top 5" in stats like that is impactful, when it's not really. He has nowhere near the impact of a Backlund on the team success IMO, defensively and offensively. And, yes, he wears an A, but there is plenty of leadership on this team, from Gio to Hudler to Stajan, all of who I think are better mentors from an on-ice perspective (despite posts about impact on the room, I don't think anyone can judge that).

Notwithstanding the fact that the argument here was about offensive stats, I think Glencross' value from a defensive perspective has been understated. He has worked well with Monahan in a role where those two often go up against the other team's best in defensive situations.

But yes, if the team believes Colborne can replace that right now, the odds of a deal do increase.

As an aside, I would probably not include Jooris in the topic of offensive stats. His scoring has fallen off a cliff - one goal in his last 13 games - and I am not certain that a reasonable expectation of what Jooris could provide offensively from now to the end of the year comes close to what we could expect from Glencross. Health of both players being an issue, of course.

[heep223]

What if Glencross would re-sign for 5 years @ $3.5M? Everyone just assumes he's going to leave, I know he's said that he won't take a discount but who knows really. Maybe he likes where this team's headed, as we all do, and wants to be part of the leadership group. Maybe his perfect role is an excellent 3rd line / checking LW with upside behind Gaudreau and Baertschi.

Long term:

Gaudreau-Bennett-Poirier
Baertschi-Monahan-Hudler
Glencross-Backlund-Colborne
Bouma-Jooris-Ferland

Yes I know there are many scenarios. Where is Granlund, Klimchuk, Jankowski, etc. The above is just a suggestion/pipe dream, ie. assuming Bennett/Poirier become legit 1st line players. But I for one see a role for Glencross as a great 3rd line LW if we can get him at a reasonable price.

[Vinny01]

5 years is way too long for Glencross. 3 years or less

[formulate]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

IMO you are putting way too much stock in:

a. Making the POs - it's nice, but not part of the plan. For your month long stretch run which at best gets a low PO spot and a date with a team like the Ducks, you want to give up any return for Glencross, who walks at the end of the year (I'm convinced he will not re-sign)

b. Glencross' impact in making said POs - that's the point about Colborne - he's statistically almost even with Glencross and he's only a 2nd year player basically, and beginning to step it up a lot more.

And I think you are putting way too much stock in whatever the return would be. I've said, if the price is a 1st rounder or better, trade him. I just don't see how this would happen based on rental prices for similar players in the past.

Clearly, we have very different opinions on the value of Glencross to this team, and that's fine. It seems we also have different opinions on how good it would be for the experience of our young players to partake in a playoff race, which you seem to downplay. Trading Glencross doesn't automatically take the Flames out of that race, but I truly think it hurts their chances.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by saillias

It's not black and white between SELL FOR PICK/KEEP AND RE-SIGN TO BIG PAYDAY. You can still make trades in the NHL where you trade a player for a player. Even with a UFA! Or, even package roster player plus assets for a bigger fish. Just something to think about...

Looked into this, the only realistic option where I could see a Glencross for roster player swap that could be a possibility for both teams is the Penguins and Paul Martin. Reported to want to add to their forward group and is one of their better trade baits.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by heep223

What if Glencross would re-sign for 5 years @ $3.5M? Everyone just assumes he's going to leave, I know he's said that he won't take a discount but who knows really. Maybe he likes where this team's headed, as we all do, and wants to be part of the leadership group. Maybe his perfect role is an excellent 3rd line / checking LW with upside behind Gaudreau and Baertschi.

Long term:

Gaudreau-Bennett-Poirier
Baertschi-Monahan-Hudler
Glencross-Backlund-Colborne
Bouma-Jooris-Ferland

Yes I know there are many scenarios. Where is Granlund, Klimchuk, Jankowski, etc. The above is just a suggestion/pipe dream, ie. assuming Bennett/Poirier become legit 1st line players. But I for one see a role for Glencross as a great 3rd line LW if we can get him at a reasonable price.

I would tell Glencross to have fun in free agency if he asked for 5 years, regardless if that $ amount is nice.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly where I sit.

I don't think good management teams have a set plan that they can't veer away from if the situation changes.

So get a group of statements together and let them guide you;

Do we see Glencross in the long term plans? No
Is Glencross helping us on the ice right now? Yes
Can we win without him this year? Probably

Then at the deadline if you get your doors blown off with an offer you do it. But don't go with a take the best offer at any costs mentality or you're being silly. But it's equally silly to go in with a "we won't trade him no matter what you offer" mentality.

The rest of this argument is just guys pitched firmly at one end of the spectrum and refusing to budge.

Deal him at all costs is a poor idea, but assuming dealing Glencross means you're the Oilers is equally as silly.

I'm not a Glencross fan, but he's played well this year. I don't see him as the omniscient oracle of the dressing room though. The Flames have Giordano, Hudler, Stajan, Backlund, Smid, etc for that.

[locsofblu]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

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

I could live with that deal. As long as he keeps putting up 40+points a year and plays with an edge like he has been.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by formulate

And I think you are putting way too much stock in whatever the return would be. I've said, if the price is a 1st rounder or better, trade him. I just don't see how this would happen based on rental prices for similar players in the past.

Clearly, we have very different opinions on the value of Glencross to this team, and that's fine. It seems we also have different opinions on how good it would be for the experience of our young players to partake in a playoff race, which you seem to downplay. Trading Glencross doesn't automatically take the Flames out of that race, but I truly think it hurts their chances.

I actually don't think Glencross, as a rental, gets more than a prospect or 2nd round pick. But that > than nothing, which is what happens after the season ends. And after sitting through a whole slew of one round PO exits, nope, I don't value just barely making the POs highly. The kids will be in a race to make the POs in any event, which is good experience and playing meaningful games as well.

My basic position is:

1. Glencross is a very good player on this team, but not invaluable or irreplaceable, in terms of production, defence, or leadership.

2. You don't make a bad deal for him, but you don't need a home run either. If there's a fair deal, I would take it, based soley on his UFA status, and what I see as really slim chances of a decent re-signing.

3. This all depends on Glencross waiving his NMC, which would probably happen for the right team. I know of very few situations where a NMC was an actual impediment.

4. I would be quite OK with a re-signing for a limited term (2 years). Dollars are not as important but I wouldn't want to see an overpayment. However, at 29 (30 by the end of the season) I think Glencross is more interested in something longer.

5. POs are nice but so is the fact they are close to making it, and we've been able to see a lot of the youth make an impact. I don't think Glencross' presence is the key either way. I think goaltending is - when it was good, the Flames have won (with Glencross in). When it's been bad or mediocre, they've lost (with Glencross in).

[FBI]

It's bizarre that Ramo is such a better goalie than Berra but we might only get a 3rd for him whereas we got a 2nd for Berra.. That makes me sad.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FBI

It's bizarre that Ramo is such a better goalie than Berra but we might only get a 3rd for him whereas we got a 2nd for Berra.. That makes me sad.

I read Minnie is looking hard for both NHL and AHL level goalies.

Ramo's stats aren't that great, which affects his value, as does the fact he's been hurt, and even when he wasn't he wasn't played a lot (and got yanked his last non-injury game).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FBI

It's bizarre that Ramo is such a better goalie than Berra but we might only get a 3rd for him whereas we got a 2nd for Berra.. That makes me sad.

I'm sure Colorado is a lot more sad that they had such a messed up evaluation of the guy.

I hear you, trust me, but the Avalanche messed up, they didn't set a true bar for unproven goaltenders that hopped the pond to test the NHL

[GGG]

Pursuming he would waive. I would trade for a first (20-30 pick as he likely won't waive to a non contender) but I wouldn't trade for a late second.

[Weitz]

Glencross's NTC really hurts his value. He picks where he goes and those teams know they don't have to offer a lot because the Flames are not the ones calling the shots.