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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I don't think we need to sign GlenX for a 4 year deal because we 'owe him a solid' as one poster put it. I think we do need to deal with the situation before the deadline. I'm not sure how much of a 'glue' guy GlenX is and he has actually come accross to me as the opposite. He is declining and all it is going to take is Sven or Wolf to come in a light it up for him and Raymond to be expendable.

To me GlenX has gotten away from what made him successful. Speed and a mean streak. Watching him this year he seems to have a bit of the 'I'm a skill guy now' to his game. He is not as physically engaged and doesn't seem to yap much out there. Almost like when Iggy was here. Some nights he was engaged and would have a scrap and play so much better than when he was trolling the perimeter looking for the one timer.

GlenX has definatly lost a step in speed and compete this year. I can't say if it's been the injuries hampering him or age. Either way I think we need to look at a package before the trade deadline as he is going to want more than he is worth for his next contract. Remember the last time we gave 'a solid' to one of players? And the next season he signed to the team we wanted to trade him to anyway? I'm past it. This is a business first.

I agree, it's business. And Glencross has said as much himself.

Glencross arguably gave the hometown discount because of the success and position he got with the Flames, that he probably wouldn't get elsewhere. The Flames did him the first solid - signing him when Edmonton wouldn't do it. They also didn't trade him when he was a pending UFA, despite offers, and despite his lack of a NTC at the time.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This isn't some unhinged opinion based on one year. The number of first round picks being swapped for rentals has declined as almost every GM had been forced to recognize the importance of the draft.

With that in mind how many injury prone 20 goal scorers with an NMC are traded for first rounders.

Sure, a GM may go crazy and offer a first. But that doesn't take away from looking at the evidence and concluding that it would be very unlikely.

Instead though we have one observation of a GM making a crazy trade in Berra and now we can just continually refer back to it like our wasn't a black swan.

Have to agree. I think the chances of landing a 1st for Glencross are very slim. I will definitely be crossing my fingers though. Perron is a lot younger, has performed better recently, and was still under contract for a year and was only worth a late 1st. The deadline is obviously completely different but I agree that GM's see the value of 1st round picks in a cap era and likely are only gonna give up a late 1st for someone they think will push them over the top. Just don't see Glencross as that player. 1st I'll be ecstatic. 2nd I'll be happy. 3rd better than nothing.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I don't understand all this talk about Glencross taking a home town discount last contract, he did nothing of the sort. He traded dollars for a NTC, because that was important to him. But that's not taking a discount, that's trading one form of value (dollars) for another (location security / control, which is not usually something a player gets).

And the Flames did the same on that contract. They gained cap space / dollars during his tenure, for reduced asset value due to the NTC at the end of the contract, which we are dealing with now.

But none of this reflects any sort of "hometown" discount. Glencross took less dollars than what he was likely worth, but he also got an NTC, which is something a player of his stature wouldn't get without giving up dollars, so the net result of the deal was one that was likely 100% fair value.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Have to agree. I think the chances of landing a 1st for Glencross are very slim. I will definitely be crossing my fingers though. Perron is a lot younger, has performed better recently, and was still under contract for a year and was only worth a late 1st. The deadline is obviously completely different but I agree that GM's see the value of 1st round picks in a cap era and likely are only gonna give up a late 1st for someone they think will push them over the top. Just don't see Glencross as that player. 1st I'll be ecstatic. 2nd I'll be happy. 3rd better than nothing.

Why would you trade Glencross for a 3rd when you are in a playoff race? A third is better than nothing? Seems like baffling logic in a playoff race for sure, maybe if you were destined for certain lottery status you would determine that a 3rd is better than nothing and try to re-sign the player as an UFA in the offseason, but certainly not when you are in the middle of a playoff race.

Originally Posted by Hackey

Ya the organization is just crumbling because we didn't land that 3rd round pick. That sure set us back years.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Why would you trade Glencross for a 3rd when you are in a playoff race? A third is better than nothing? Seems like baffling logic in a playoff race for sure, maybe if you were destined for certain lottery status you would determine that a 3rd is better than nothing and try to re-sign the player as an UFA in the offseason, but certainly not when you are in the middle of a playoff race.

Because:

a. you think you can still be in the race without Glencross; and/or

b. you think long term strategy and sticking to the rebuild is more important than squeaking into the playoffs and then either paying Glencross more than you are willing to pay or losing him for nothing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

There will always be idiocy. It will not suddenly disappear because of a few bad trades in the past.

There's plenty of evidence that the league is moving to a draft and develop model, and draft picks - especially 1st round picks - are valued higher than ever. Because of the cap, and the practice of tying up core players before they become UFAs, every team now relies on a steady influx of young players who can make a real contribution on entry-level contracts. Teams today know they're storing up a world of trouble when they trade away a 1st.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There's plenty of evidence that the league is moving to a draft and develop model, and draft picks - especially 1st round picks - are valued higher than ever. Because of the cap, and the practice of tying up core players before they become UFAs, every team now relies on a steady influx of young players who can make a real contribution on entry-level contracts. Teams today know they're storing up a world of trouble when they trade away a 1st.

That could never happen.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because:

a. you think you can still be in the race without Glencross; and/or

b. you think long term strategy and sticking to the rebuild is more important than squeaking into the playoffs and then either paying Glencross more than you are willing to pay or losing him for nothing.

Either one of those are incredibly weak reasons. The real consideration on the 1st point when you are in a playoff race is whether Curtis Glencross makes you a better team than your return for that season short term. Longterm for Glencross you better be getting a heck of a lot more back than what you traded for Brandon Bollig.

Point B would be an interesting shift in direction given past actions by Flames management. A third round pick would be not be better than nothing. It would not set up the proper identity for this team going forward with other GM's. We would look like pushovers and other teams would take advantage of that for years to come.

Either way when a team is in a playoff race the return should be rather large before you consider peddling arguably your 3rd or 4th best forward at the deadline.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Either one of those are incredibly weak reasons. The real consideration on the 1st point when you are in a playoff race is whether Curtis Glencross makes you a better team than your return for that season short term. Longterm for Glencross you better be getting a heck of a lot more back than what you traded for Brandon Bollig.

Point B would be an interesting shift in direction given past actions by Flames management. A third round pick would be not be better than nothing. It would not set up the proper identity for this team going forward with other GM's. We would look like pushovers and other teams would take advantage of that for years to come.

Either way when a team is in a playoff race the return should be rather large before you consider peddling arguably your 3rd or 4th best forward at the deadline.

Short term is not a priority, and like I said, I'm not convinced Glencross is they key to making or not making the playoffs. Is it worth losing an asset in order to be blown out in 4 or 5 games by Anaheim?

Getting what the Flames traded for Bollig isn't the point, and not an equal comparison, since Bollig was udner contract. The comparison is whatever the Flames can get for Glencross versus not getting anything, which is the realistic alternative, given what he has said about his UFA pricetag.

[GioforPM]

Point B would be an interesting shift in direction given past actions by Flames management. A third round pick would be not be better than nothing. It would not set up the proper identity for this team going forward with other GM's. We would look like pushovers and other teams would take advantage of that for years to come.

This is pure fantasy. Teams can't "take advantage" based on past trades. Is everyone taking advantage of Colorado because they made a bad trade for Berra? Edmonton made a good trade for Perron - it didn't give them advantages later.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Point B would be an interesting shift in direction given past actions by Flames management. A third round pick would be not be better than nothing. It would not set up the proper identity for this team going forward with other GM's. We would look like pushovers and other teams would take advantage of that for years to come.

This is pure fantasy. Teams can't "take advantage" based on past trades. Is everyone taking advantage of Colorado because they made a bad trade for Berra? Edmonton made a good trade for Perron - it didn't give them advantages later.

For the record I would agree with you that the green part is pure fantasy. No rational person in a million years would believe such pablum. The utter ridiculousness of such a statement should preclude its advancement as a theory under any circumstances. Not everyone agrees with you and I though.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/06...ael-cammalleri

"I think an organization has to have a reputation at the trade deadline that you're not going to give people away," Burke said. "The fact we didn't give him away is something next year's deadline and 10 years down the road people will remember. I think it's important to have an organizational direction and philosophy."

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

For the record I would agree with you that the green part is pure fantasy. No rational person in a million years would believe such pablum. The utter ridiculousness of such a statement should preclude its advancement as a theory under any circumstances. Not everyone agrees with you and I though.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/06...ael-cammalleri

Curtis Glencross is not Cammalleri. Obviously the merit of Burke's argument there is debatable, but the logic behind it and how it applies to players like Cammy and of course better do not apply to the Curtis Glencross' of the world.

No one is going to deem you a push over if you don't get "full" value for 2nd or even 3rd tier asset that happens to have an NTC, I don't think you can even reasonably table that. Is it more reasonable to suggest that it's possible when trading a player like Cammy..........probably.

[GioforPM]

Eric Francis disagrees with me? I rest my case.

ETA: The story wouldn't open for me - just the author, which is good enough for me

I'm off to the pre-game meal. I will tell you all how Canyon sings.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Eric Francis disagrees with me? I rest my case.

ETA: The story wouldn't open for me - just the author, which is good enough for me

I'm off to the pre-game meal. I will tell you all how Canyon sings.

Brian Burke disagrees with you for the record, but we are basically talking potato potato on that one.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because:

a. you think you can still be in the race without Glencross; and/or

b. you think long term strategy and sticking to the rebuild is more important than squeaking into the playoffs and then either paying Glencross more than you are willing to pay or losing him for nothing.

There is, as always, far more to consider though. From a business perspective, if you can't get a good deal to move him, the excitement generated by (hopefully) making the playoffs would make a big financial difference. And the cost of that would not be burdensome, nor would it have any significant negative impact on the long term rebuild.

Another potential benefit is that of signing players. A team at the bottom of the standings pays $2.9 million a year for 5/6 defencemen. A team that gets into the post season - or even comes close - and with the young talent the Flames have, becomes more attractive. That could make it easier for the team to upgrade on defence into next season. Though given the state of the market, I wouldn't be pinning great hopes on it either way.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Curtis Glencross is not Cammalleri. Obviously the merit of Burke's argument there is debatable, but the logic behind it and how it applies to players like Cammy and of course better do not apply to the Curtis Glencross' of the world.

No one is going to deem you a push over if you don't get "full" value for 2nd or even 3rd tier asset that happens to have an NTC, I don't think you can even reasonably table that. Is it more reasonable to suggest that it's possible when trading a player like Cammy..........probably.

Well if one was to look at the last 4 seasons (seems like a reasonable sample size to look at for a players current production, much farther back then that and you get to an era where Mike Richards was an NHL hockey player) there numbers are as follows (on a per game basis since both are injury prone)

Cammalleri Points Per Game - 0.67

Glencross Points Per Game - 0.66

Cammalleri Goals Per Game - 0.36

Glencross Goals Per Game - 0.32

Cammalleri Assists Per Game - 0.31

Glencross Assists Per Game - 0.34

Pro-rated over an 82 game season their production would be as follows

Cammalleri - 30 goals 25 assists for 55 points

Glencross - 26 goals 28 assists for 54 points

So I guess Cammalleri is slightly better than Glencross. Cammalleri has much better production on the powerplay (getting 35% of his points on the PP vs. 27% of Glencross's points on the PP) with Curtis being a better 5 on 5 player from a production standpoint.

But basically however you slice it Cammalleri and Glencross have basically similar values as players. And when you are in a playoff race you do not usually trade players like a Glencross.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Well if one was to look at the last 4 seasons (seems like a reasonable sample size to look at for a players current production, much farther back then that and you get to an era where Mike Richards was an NHL hockey player) there numbers are as follows (on a per game basis since both are injury prone)

Cammalleri Points Per Game - 0.67

Glencross Points Per Game - 0.66

Cammalleri Goals Per Game - 0.36

Glencross Goals Per Game - 0.32

Cammalleri Assists Per Game - 0.31

Glencross Assists Per Game - 0.34

Pro-rated over an 82 game season their production would be as follows

Cammalleri - 30 goals 25 assists for 55 points

Glencross - 26 goals 28 assists for 54 points

So I guess Cammalleri is slightly better than Glencross. Cammalleri has much better production on the powerplay (getting 35% of his points on the PP vs. 27% of Glencross's points on the PP) with Curtis being a better 5 on 5 player from a production standpoint.

But basically however you slice it Cammalleri and Glencross have basically similar values as players. And when you are in a playoff race you do not usually trade players like a Glencross.

Not once you factor in games missed due to injury.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There is, as always, far more to consider though. From a business perspective, if you can't get a good deal to move him, the excitement generated by (hopefully) making the playoffs would make a big financial difference. And the cost of that would not be burdensome, nor would it have any significant negative impact on the long term rebuild.

Another potential benefit is that of signing players. A team at the bottom of the standings pays $2.9 million a year for 5/6 defencemen. A team that gets into the post season - or even comes close - and with the young talent the Flames have, becomes more attractive. That could make it easier for the team to upgrade on defence into next season. Though given the state of the market, I wouldn't be pinning great hopes on it either way.

There is also arguably a value to getting players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Brodie, Bouma, Backlund, Jooris, Ramo and Byron (7 more or less regulars) playoff experience for the first time. That is nearly 40% of the Flames nightly lineup (if you exclude goalies, 40% on the dot if you count backup goalies) getting playoff experience.

[Flash Walken]

Edit: This is under the assumption that the Flames can still win without Glencross, and I think they can.

I think it's kind of disingenuous to say "if we get a crap offer, we shouldn't take it, and thus, shouldn't trade glencross".

I don't think anyone here is suggesting you move glencross at the deadline for future considerations.

The debate/conversation should be what would you move him FOR, not a cat and mouse game of "I wouldn't do this."

Me? I'd move glencross for a 3rd round pick or higher, or a player in a similar situation with similar upside as Colborne or Shore. To a non-playoff team that might look to sign him in the offseason, I look for a way to package glencross with something else to enrich the return coming back. Not sure what that looks like, but I'm inquiring about young defenders to help round out the prospect base.

[Bingo]

I'm one of the group that only sees annoying things that Glencross does at seems to be looking away when he does something good; and I'll admit it. We all have that player.

But I have to admit he's been pretty solid this season, less injured, has taken less stupid penalties and been a good presence in the lineup. Especially like how he's worked with Monahan.

I think the FLames see and appreciate all those same things.

So I'd assume most of you are right, that he's not going anywhere if the Flames are in a playoff spot (or close) and certainly if they don't get a 2nd round pick or better.

To break that statement would mean they believe a guy is ready to step in and supply a mixed bag of skillset that equal what Glencross brings to the table.

Guessing that won't be the case.

They need to be out of it, or literally blown away with an offer.