QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

There are too many people in the "trade him because we don't want to lose him for nothing" camp.

I think we don't get anything more than a second round pick. In my opinion, a draft pick that is somewhere near 45th overall (middle of the second round) is pretty much "nothing" anyway, so why get rid of him down a playoff drive? I think the experience in the room to help the younger guys develop is worth more than a second round pick.

A 2nd round pick is not "pretty much nothing".

[dammage79]

There's no room for Glencross moving forward. Whether he stays in CGY or not for the rest of the season is debatable but I still voted trade him.

Or at least try to get him to waive.

[Fan in Exile]

He was never really a first or second line guy in the first place. We have a first line winger now in Gaudreau. This season, he was playing the tough minutes while supplying some timely offense - that's been replaced by Bouma. Lots of options on the bottom two lines where we really don't miss him and I can't see him being re-signed. The offer has to be worthwhile but you have to move him if the offer is fair.

[Table 5]

Is it really that hard to understand why some of us want draft picks for an exiting asset, even if its not a crazy high one?

There are no guarantees the player you draft will turn into an NHLer….but Stanley Cup winning teams are ALL built through the draft. The only way you do that is by having draft picks. The draft is more or less an educated crapshoot, so the more picks you have, the better your chances of landing players like Gaudreau and Brodie, to supplement your Bennetts and Monahans.

[Buff]

I couldn't decide upon which yes to select. At any rate I would only trade him for a fair offer. Just like Burke did last year with Cammalleri, Treliving shouldn't trade Glencross just for the sake of trading him. Something meaningful has to come back to Calgary.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm sure that i'm in the minority here, but I would trade Glencross for a 2nd+ and then I would try and get Stewart on the cheap.

Stewart - 54gp (9G, 13A, 22pts)
Glencross - 48gp (8G, 18A, 26pts)

why you ask?

a) I want Adirondack to have a strong playoff push this season and don't want to take anyone off of their team, barring injury.

b) LW is our position of depth, while RW is our position of weakness.

c) While Glencross has better value league-wide, their difference in production isn't all that noticeable.

Stewart does have 10 pts in his last 11 GP, albeit a -10 (for what that's worth)

[bubbsy]

I would like to see him traded, should we get fair value return (2nd rounder would be nice, or a d prospect, or a servicable 3rd pairing dman).

if we aren't getting good value, like we're getting a 3rd rounder at best, well then it gets pretty interesting. though i think he'll stick with the team till UFA offseason if that happens.

[FlamesAddiction]

Ultimately it obviously depends on the offer.

I believe a reasonable offer would be a 3rd or 4th round pick given how unproductive he has been lately. I just think he would be good depth for a playoff run to have around if that is all he is worth on the market. He is really streaky and if he gets hot, he could be an ace up our sleeve.

A 3rd or 4th rounder is very unlikely to have a big effect on the rebuild. If it would, more people should be angry over the Bollig trade.

Having said that, if someone wanted to overpay, sure trade him.

[dieHARDflameZ]

On the Fan 960 this morning, Warrener said at one point he was 90% certain Glencross would not be re-signing with the Flames. That seemed to echo the same opinion as Boomer and the other guys involved in the conversation.

I've been pretty vocal about my dislike for Glencross so everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, but if you can convince him to waive his NTC and get something reasonable back, the Flames need to make that move imo...

I just don't know what his value will be. I mean the Leafs are rumoured to be asking for a 2nd and a 3rd for Daniel Winnik, so I would like to believe the asking price would be at least that for Glencross. Only time will tell.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by noreply

For those who suggest trading Swen remember these trades and the borderline negligence in management decisions? Brett Hull for Wamsley and Rob Ramage. Exposing St Louis to 2000 expansion draft then bought out his contract making him a UFA. How'd that work out? Swen is a 30+ goal scorer in the making. Just like St.Louie he's taken time to reach his potential. Don't make the same mistake again. Just go back and watch his WinterHawk highlights one more time!

I am not advocating trading Sven, but there was absolutely no negligence in past management with the deals they made above.

Trading Hull for Ramage and Wamsley is a trade the Flames make every time. It helped the Flames secure a cup. Could the Flames have won a cup without Ramage? Doubtful with the injuries. Flames may very well not have had a Stanley Cup in their history without that trade, even though it was a very painful trade in hindsight. Would they make that same trade again in hindsight? I don't know if they could have gotten away with trading a lesser piece, but the return has to be looked at as Wamsley + Ramage + Stanley Cup with that same hindsight.

St. Louis was NOT the same player in Calgary as he turned out to be. Flames offered him on waivers and he had zero interest league wide. There was absolutely no way to know that he would have become even half the player he eventually became, and absolutely nobody in the NHL thought he would or he would have at least been traded for something rather than being offered on waivers for free.

For each of those players you mention, there is a Saprykin or a Fata or lots of other examples that the Flames have given up on outright without the organization missing that player in the slightest (Fata) or being part of a larger trade and returning quite a valuable piece (Saprykin).

Including Sven in a trade may look horrible in hindsight. It may be a horrible trade even without the benefit of hindsight. However, Sven is not an 'untouchable' in the organization, and if he is included in a trade that returns another valuable (and young!) piece, I would be ok with it. Would I love it? I wouldn't like to see Sven go, but I also seriously doubt that the Flames are going to throw Sven away for a minimal or short-sighted return. I doubt that the Flames would trade Glencross for a minimal or short-sighted return either.

If Sven does go for what appears as a minimal return, then the Flames feel he will not make the team, and better to trade him now than risk losing him on waivers at some point next season if he doesn't do enough to stay on the team. He may end up being the next Dustin Boyd, or Rico Fata... or he may be the next St. Louis. Between now and the start of next season is when this organization will make a hard decision when it comes to Sven, as there are way too many organizations that would gladly pick him off the waiver wire as a no-risk 'look'.

[N-E-B]

I wouldn't mind seeing him re-signed if we can get him for another good deal.

If we're going to trade him though, I'd like to see it be for a defenseman rather than draft picks.

[Enoch Root]

Not against it, but it depends on the return.

For me, a late 2nd isn't enough - it would have to be more or I would rather retain him for depth for the playoff run.

[Bingo]

I lean towards dealing him

1. Have never liked Glencross (its a bias and I admit it)
2. They shouldn't lose sight of the year being a bonus, still in a rebuild
3. I think Lance Bouma has inexplicably replaced him
4. They have forward depth on the farm
5. I'd love to see that "do the right thing and damn the perception" move from a Flames mgmt team.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by indes

Both C and D for me. I think he could be replaced as the 3rd line left winger by a number of players on the farm.

Ferland
Granlund
Baertschi
Shore

I think these players would be able to step right in and contribute, maybe not quite as good as Glencross but good enough not to worry about it.

Two of those are not wingers. Three of those have played with the flames this year with average results. They may be ready to move in next year (hoping), but not this year in a playoff push.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not against it, but it depends on the return.

For me, a late 2nd isn't enough - it would have to be more or I would rather retain him for depth for the playoff run.

A late 2nd isn't enough?

I get what you're saying about the playoff run, but it's basically a scenario of saying "only if they pay this impossible price", you might as well just come out and say you're not willing to move him because of playoffs.

And if playoffs is the reason for not moving, I think the motivation is dead wrong.

Cammalleri > Glencross and the price at the deadline for Cammalleri was a 2nd rounder and no one was willing to pay it.

If you get an offer for a 4th rounder for a guy who is clearly not going to be on the team in 12 weeks, you pull the trigger. Maybe you try to hold out for a 3rd, but Glencross is a 15-17 minute a night player now.

Playoffs this year are mostly meaningless, Calgary just isn't a contender. Depth at forward isn't a concern for the roster, we saw that during the course of the season. Depth at defense however is a huge concern and one injury there basically hoops the Flames.

It's irresponsible to not move Glencross to mistakenly get 6 or 7 games in the playoffs instead of 4 or 5.

You get a 4th in this years draft, you get an opportunity to pull a Brodie or a Gaudreau out of the hat for a guy who won't be here anyway by the time your kids get out of school.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

See you later, alligator.

I think his role on the team isn't that crucial that it can't be filled, or his apparent leadership so good that his absence will crater the team. While he has had a decent season points wise, he's clearly not coming back next year, so it's time to get what you can for him. Rebuilding teams don't pass on getting 2nd round picks for assets that aren't coming back.

They do and we have (See Cammy last year and Burke's reasoning afterwards).

You also don't dump vets for the sake of dumping them for a pick. We don't know the mood in the room, Friedman suggests he'd be happy to go to a more advanced contender and if so, then you can try that avenue.

Like Raymond did a few weeks ago, GlenX has the ability to score in bunches, and at this time of year, that 'chance' is more valuable than increasing Byron and Bolligs TOI.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

They do and we have (See Cammy last year and Burke's reasoning afterwards). .

Did Burke pass on a 2nd round pick for Cammaleri?

Don't think that's what happened.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

A late 2nd isn't enough?

I get what you're saying about the playoff run, but it's basically a scenario of saying "only if they pay this impossible price", you might as well just come out and say you're not willing to move him because of playoffs.

And if playoffs is the reason for not moving, I think the motivation is dead wrong.

Cammalleri > Glencross and the price at the deadline for Cammalleri was a 2nd rounder and no one was willing to pay it.

If you get an offer for a 4th rounder for a guy who is clearly not going to be on the team in 12 weeks, you pull the trigger. Maybe you try to hold out for a 3rd, but Glencross is a 15-17 minute a night player now.

Playoffs this year are mostly meaningless, Calgary just isn't a contender. Depth at forward isn't a concern for the roster, we saw that during the course of the season. Depth at defense however is a huge concern and one injury there basically hoops the Flames.

It's irresponsible to not move Glencross to mistakenly get 6 or 7 games in the playoffs instead of 4 or 5.

You get a 4th in this years draft, you get an opportunity to pull a Brodie or a Gaudreau out of the hat for a guy who won't be here anyway by the time your kids get out of school.

No. Cant flip 25 goal potential for 4th rounders (unless they are on their last legs 34+). No.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

No. Cant flip 25 goal potential for 4th rounders (unless they are on their last legs 34+). No.

8 Goals in 48 games this season.

Won't re-sign with the flames in the offseason.

33 before the half-way point of next season.

[442scotty]

Trade him... Hes not going to resign and we don't want him to. He may not even waive his NMC in which case you can just park him in the stands and bring in a youngster full of piss and vinegar from Addy to help the playoff push