If Barely Making Playoffs At Trade Deadline

[lanny9]

If we are in a playoff position at trade deadline or just out, do we stay the course with what we have or do we trade away some of the vets like Glencross (if he waves) for draft picks and or young talent?

Reason why I ask this is that the youth have stepped up through all these injuries and proven they are NHLers. I think most can agree we aren't quite there to compete past the first round even if we were to sneak into the playoffs. So is it better to go with the youth and if we make the playoffs fine we just consider it experience for the youth rather than see the vets out there who won't be part of the future? Do we get what we can out of trades to continue the rebuild which would maybe serve us better down the road?

If this is being discussed elsewhere miss can close the thread.

[savardandjokinen]

Depends on how vets are doing, if Glenny is doing so well, keep him but if he's not doing much what's the point of having him

[Yoho]

I doubt Glencross goes anywhere if we are close to a playoff spot at the trade deadline.

[IGGYFORMVP]

Losing is not the new winning. Selling off your vets after a team tries this hard to make the playoffs would be gutting for the whole team. Terrible message to send the young guys. This team has great chemistry, you do not mess with that. The reason this team is where they are at is because they try so damn hard. That can go down the tubes in a hurry if you were to sell off some vets.

Besides who say that this team doesn't have the talent to make some noise in the playoffs? I am not going to write off a team this scappy without giving them a chance. I like our 4 line depth as much as most teams, and depth wins in the playoffs.

Just say no to Oilering (the new term for losing).

[J epworth]

All depends on what Treliving's long term vision of this team was at the beginning of this season. If he thought Glencross was going to be a veteran presence here while the re-build continues, you keep him, if he was always going to let him go in free agency, you see what you can get for him at trade deadline. Like Cammalleri last year, if the asking price isn't high enough, you have to keep Glencross till the end of the year (especially if we are still in the hunt for the playoffs, can't just trade him for peanuts if you're worried about getting nothing for him when he would most certainly help the playoff push).

Main thing is I hope the spot we are in come March does not have an affect on what Treliving's plan was for the team. Of course if we are in a playoff spot that means some of the players he has been evaluating to see if they fit long-term are probably proving they should stay, so of course player performance will have an impact on the moves he makes then, but his focus should stay on what this team will look like in 2-3 years, not what they will look like in April.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

All depends on what Treliving's long term vision of this team was at the beginning of this season. If he thought Glencross was going to be a veteran presence here while the re-build continues, you keep him, if he was always going to let him go in free agency, you see what you can get for him at trade deadline. Like Cammalleri last year, if the asking price isn't high enough, you have to keep Glencross till the end of the year (especially if we are still in the hunt for the playoffs, can't just trade him for peanuts if you're worried about getting nothing for him when he would most certainly help the playoff push).

Main thing is I hope the spot we are in come March does not have an affect on what Treliving's plan was for the team. Of course if we are in a playoff spot that means some of the players he has been evaluating to see if they fit long-term are probably proving they should stay, so of course player performance will have an impact on the moves he makes then, but his focus should stay on what this team will look like in 2-3 years, not what they will look like in April.

This. Stay the course according to your long term plan. If the plan was to trade a vet then do it regardless where the team sits. Keep in mind also that if the rest of the vets are healthy then some of the youngsters who are impressing now will be down on the farm waiting to come back up.

[Matty81]

The comments in that recent interview about the Flames trade prospects really felt great to read, that they have a long term focus even if the team is doing well this year.

Sutter and co made so many sacrifices of futures that really in the big picture hurt the team more than they helped. It was painful to watch trades like Kotalik, Stuart, etc when you knew we were losing the trade to grab an extra goal or win in the current season.

I don't think Glencross will waive anyway so the one tough call this year is Ramo.

Goaltending has been a problem across the league - he would bring a decent asset and Ortio could be a capable backup already IMO.

If he brings a 2nd rounder and will walk anyway rather than stay behind Hiller - he will be the toughest call.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

I want a few moves for the long term regardless. Whether that comes from moving a few prospects who likely won't find a spot here, or even one who has (as part of a package for say D/RW upgrade), I'm in. Sutter was always entertaining with the moves he made and I hope Treleving doesn't sit still either

[Mister Yamoto]

Curtis Glencross has quietly gotten 10 points in the last 12 games. Not bad for a guy who is lazy, doesn't care, bad influence on rookies blah blah blah.

He is absolutely a player you would keep for a playoff push.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Matty81

...I don't think Glencross will waive anyway so the one tough call this year is Ramo.

Goaltending has been a problem across the league - he would bring a decent asset and Ortio could be a capable backup already IMO.

If he brings a 2nd rounder and will walk anyway rather than stay behind Hiller - he will be the toughest call.

Why Rämo? I'm not convinced that he is necessary the expendable piece here. Furthermore, it looks as though they might platoon all season, and could very likely finish the year with a similar number of games played. I could see it also very likely that the Flames will want to enter the playoffs with what is working for them, which effectively would mean keeping both.

[Resolute 14]

We aren't where we are because of the youth.

We aren't where we are because of the vets.

We are where we are because of both.

Trading the vets in this scenario is a signal to the team that management is pulling the chute, not that it trusts the kids. Treliving and Burke will have to manage the trade deadline carefully if we are a bubble team.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

I think the Flames can continue with their long term plans while still making adjustments for where they are in the standings come trade deadline time. They shouldn't deviate significantly from their long term plans but they may move earlier for example to get a young RW or a young dman. I also really feel that they only have a certain amount of time to take advantage of the depth in their prospect ranks before some of these guys become FA's in the next couple of years so I think you'll see a couple of them flipped (either alone or as part of a package) for help in areas weaker in prospect depth such as RW and D. The progress of their prospects puts them in the tough (decision wise) but enviable position of being able to move some of that depth.

[kyuss275]

If they are in playoff spot come deadline I doubt they trade any vets. I can't see glencross waiving if he thinks flames can make playoffs.

If prices on rental players are as cheap as last year, I would not be opposed on the flames using a 3rd round pick and "meh" prospect to get another bottom pairing d-man.

[The Fonz]

If the team is playoff bound, I don't think Glencross waives his NTC, which is not a bad thing at all. I've been hard on him the last couple of years, but even I realize that he'd be a huge help to this team if we're in that position and make the postseason.

Hypothetically though, if he were willing to waive, I would only be in favor of trading him if we were offered a substantial package. Either a 1st round pick, or a 2nd round pick + decent prospect. If it's anything less than that, you don't trade him. Luckily for us, Burke seems to be of the same mind-set (not trading Cammalleri for a 3rd).

[lanny9]

My thoughts weren't so much as to send a message to the youth that we are tanking the rest of the season, but more so a congratulations kid, you have proven yourself to be an NHLer and as such we are willing to go with you rather than a Jones, or similar. Wasn't just talking Glencross he was more just an example of a vet that may bring a good return for our future. We haven't skipped a beat with 4 or 5 rookies in the lineup plus other youthful players which is why I popped the question.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Way too early for this conversation - beyond just the tentative 'barely making playoffs', it depends which way we are trending, what injuries we are dealing with, and what players decide to step up or be invisible. And that's just our team, ignoring all the factors involved with the trading partner. I think the only relevant constant influencing a trade that will still be true on trade deadline is that we just began a rebuild.

[edslunch]

A lot will depend on injuries. If all the vets come back healthy that's 4 spots they need to make room for. If you want to keep Jooris and Granlund up as a minimum then one vet needs to go

[IgiTang]

If you were Curtis Glencross, would you wave? Serious question..

The team is on a serious upswing, great group of guys and he's a leader on the team.

For what? Even joining the Pens? Nothing is for certain, especially a Stanley Cup.

His intentions could be, and evidence points towards, remaining a Calgary Flame.

I get it that a bunch of people, myself included would drive him to the airport.

But for now he isn't going anywhere and I just can't see him waiving. Also, why would the Flames ask him too? He plays an important role on the team. If a bonafide Cup competitor wants him, why wouldnt the Flames?

[#-3]

I don't think the results over the next 2 months will change my opinion much.

I'm Ok with them picking up Dmen at fair market value, if they can help the team for at least 3-5 years.

Only trade a away players, if it is addition by subtraction (ex. trade away McGrattan so Jorris can stay with the team)

Only UFAs, if they are a bargain and there is a good chance of signing them or they are role players that come at a cheap price.

Ramo is an interesting one to me, I don't think he is in the teams plans Even if they make the playoffs, I don't think expectation are such that you have to carry two top goalies. Never hurts to have a strong backup but if you can fleece the Avs again I think you go for it.

[Antithesis]

I don't see how you could trade the vets anyway:

If they are playing well, they would have value, but since they are playing well, why on Earth would you trade them? As mentioned, it would send a terrible message to the team as well.

If they aren't playing well, the wouldn't have any value, so you couldn't trade them.