QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the magical number of 25.

He's done it once. Once. It's not an average, not even close.

To put this in even more perspective:

Glencross has scored 8 goals this season on the 10th best goal scoring club in the NHL.

Last Year, in more or less the same amount of games Stempniak had scored 8 goals on the 7th worst offensive team in the league.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

And that's why were here typing. If he had 25 on the board without injury time this wouldn't be a discussion.

Correct, it's a discussion because you say 25 for some reason when it isn't.

In his 6 seasons before this one (and this season will bring it down even more) his average goals per season with the Flames is 17.5, not 25. Not that 17.5 is terrible, it''s not, but it's not 25. Heck, it's not even 20.

[Sylvanfan]

I voted for the popular option.

But I can see why the top option would be chosen.

As an internet message board guy who has no personal relationship with the people involved. It is easily choice #3, it's no contest. All of the numbers point towards moving the player. As a long term planner with contracts in place, anticipated contract dollars added, players coming thru the ranks....I see no logical way to keep Glencross beyond 2 years at a dollar figure greater than 3.5 million. Any extra years or dollars make the contract far too much of a liability, and I do believe Emile Poirier can replace the on ice play next season, and offer me an upgrade in future seasons at a lesser amount. Any contract given to Glencross will make him a liability in terms of assets, as his production will be begin to decline and contract term will be the single largest factor as to how much of a liability his contract becomes.

But if I had any clue what the personal consequences were, it may impact the choice. Glencross has stuck with the team through the rebuild. He has the no trade clause, so how would that go over if you ask him to waive it? Does it send a bad message to the group, that I really don't know? I think it would be much easier to do if he didn't have that No trade clause, but maybe that aspect does get over rated by GM's too. The Rangers seem to end up buying out, burying, or trading every UFA contract they ever sign, and no one seems to care about that. So it's very likely that it's highly over rated.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Pro-rated, Goals divided by games x 82, seems to hit that number yearly four years consec.

Not too many hit 25 in a work stoppage?

Okay. So if he played 1 game this season, scored, then got hurt for the rest of the season you would consider that an 82 goal pace.

You're talking about woulda/shoulda/coulda, I'm using goal totals that actually really happened in real life.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pretty much agree with everything here. Especially #1. When he's on, Curtis is a pretty decent player, but games that he is "on" seem so far and few between. And IMO, his lock of hockey IQ is just not something the Flames need on a team they are building with players who have a ton of hockey IQ (ie Monahan, Johnny, Granlund, etc.).

So deal him. Get what you can. If you have to include a prospect you think may have been surpassed by someone else to get a higher pick or even a roster player, then do it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Okay. So if he played 1 game this season, scored, then got hurt for the rest of the season you would consider that an 82 goal pace.

You're talking about woulda/shoulda/coulda, I'm using goal totals that actually really happened in real life.

Keep in mind who you're arguing with here.

He's never going to let go of that bone.

[ricardodw]

Depends on what you want out of this year. If 1or 2 playoff wins is the best that can be expected trade him.

If you want to have a chance to win a series then you have to keep him. The reason the Jets (for instance) would give a 2nd round pick for him as a rental is that they would think they have a chance to win a series.

[Coach]

I don't know why people are talking about his full 82 season goal average. It doesn't matter at this point because whether he stays with the Flames, or is traded, the team is getting is production from now until the end of the season. What he does after is pretty irrelevant as he won't be with the Flames and it's up to the team that signs him whether or not they think he can be a 25 goal guy or whatever.

The question is, for what are you willing give up his production (and overall play, not just points) from now to the end of the season and into playoffs.

I just personally don't see a 3rd rounder or later bringing the type of value back that we get from having him for the playoffs. Glencross is an emotional and competitive guy and I really think he will be big player in the playoffs. We have a lot of guys in the system that fit the typical 3rd round selection that are still very young. Is getting another out of 10 or so prospects that already fit that bill (who aren't even top-end prospects) worth not having him for the remainder of the season?

As I said above, I honestly think there's a deal to be had for Glencross where we could add a prospect from a position of strength and get a better piece for now AND going forward. If you can do that to upgrade his position (athough a RW would be better) or upgrade defense with a youngish guy, I think you pull the trigger.

Just dumping him for run-of-the-mill prospect/pick makes no sense to me. Having one eye on the future is one thing, but we are also competitive right now. Taking away one of the few experienced forwards for something that will likely have very little effect on the future overall is pigeon-holing the team into 1 of two black-and-white spots: Scorched-earth rebuild vs contender. Those are not the only team-states and we don't fall into either category, so I don't think it can be looked at as so cut and dry. Losing a player like Glencross for nothing at the end of the season after some playoff hockey is not the worst thing in the world.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I'm still on the fence myself, but leaning towards trading him.

Would sting a bit for a rebuilding team to have Cammy and Glencross walk away for nothing in back to back summers. I understand the Flames playoff position throws more of a wrench into things, but this team needs to look long term. If it makes sense, pull the trigger.

[Dan02]

You know i voted to move him for asset reasons, but I've changed my mind. I'm not much of a fan of Glencross, but you can always use the depth going down the stretch to the playoffs and I doubt the price you'd get for Glencross would be worth it at all.

If a first was actually on the table and he was willing I doubt he'd be here still. But realistically looking at the market over recent years, I doubt even a second would be offered up for him.

[Clever_Iggy]

Anaheim, Winnipeg or other Western Conference contender: 1st rounder minimum.

Boston, Pittsburgh or other Eastern Conference contender: 2nd rounder minimum.

Less than that, keep him and see how the rest of the season and offseason shakes out.

[FlamesAddiction]

Over an 82 game season, Glencross would be on pace for 14 goals and 45 points (0.55 points per game). That isn't as terrible of production as some people are making it out to be.

His career high was 0.72 ppg.

Since he has been a Flame, his points per game look like this:

08-09 = 0.55 ppg

09-10 = 0.50 ppg

10-11 = 0.55 ppg

11-12 = 0.72 ppg

12-13 = 0.65 ppg

13-14 = 0.63 ppg

14-15 = 0.55 ppg


For what he is paid, that is pretty could production. It sucks that he is injury prone and streaky (likely as a result of being injury prone), but he is still a good depth player to have in your bottom 6.

Players with similar ppg averages this season include guys like MacKinnon, Stastny, Kreider, Eriksson, Ennis, Lucic, Kadri, Beleskey, B. Richards, Santorelli, Jagr, Gallagher, Frolik... and several others.

[Poe969]

Do you realistically think that Glencross will be the difference between winning and losing a playoff series?? I honestly think that someone on the roster right now can take the role Glencross has/had and then a call up can take that persons previous spot. Losing Glencross would hurt if we couldn't replace him, we can. Losing Glencross would hurt if he were to be the difference maker on this team, he isn't. Glencross used to personify what this team stood for but the younger players on the team are now doing that. Glencross is a support player on this team and losing him wouldn't hurt as much as some think. That being said, we shouldn't just give him away but if there is a deal to be made that benefits the team's future, we should.

[Gaudfather]

Let's be realistic - the Flames have a good shot at making the playoffs this year - but this was never the year that the Flames were going to go for it all. So we don't need to hold on to Glencross to make a deep playoff run. He should be worth either someone with solid defensive depth ( 4th or 5th spot d-man) or at least a second round draft pick. Hopefully Treliving can work some magic here.

[PeteMoss]

I said no, but if you can get a 1st or decent 2nd round pick I'd do it, but I doubt you can get that for him.

[activeStick]

It's a little premature to claim that a guy like Poirier will replace Glencross and I think Poirier will be a player. Glencross is put out against other team's best lines a lot of the time in a checking role and it's almost certain Poirier won't be next year... IF he even makes the team. He's played zero NHL games so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I do think Glencross should be moved if it's a decent return (2nd or similar). Not because there's a kid in the AHL that can replace him, but because he's a pending UFA that doesn't necessarily fit into the team's long term plans given his contract demands.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't know why people are talking about his full 82 season goal average. It doesn't matter at this point because whether he stays with the Flames, or is traded, the team is getting is production from now until the end of the season.

Unless he gets hurt in the final 15 games of the season, which for a guy constantly injured and currently 'banged up', is a consideration.

I just personally don't see a 3rd rounder or later bringing the type of value back that we get from having him for the playoffs.

Is 4-12 playoff games worth 3-5 years of a player? What if Calgary drafts lance bouma 2.0 with that 3rd rounder? Would 7 playoff games of glencross have been worth it when Monahan is 24 and in need of a crash and bang winner to round out Calgary as cup contenders?

Is getting another out of 10 or so prospects that already fit that bill (who aren't even top-end prospects) worth not having him for the remainder of the season?

Look at the trades that have been done so far this year and tell me how Calgary could have been a player in any of them without subtracting substantially from their new core group?

The fact is, the Calgary Flames are still woefully behind their NHL peers in terms of NHL prospect depth, and you absolutely need to claw that back as quickly as possible if you want to be relevant in the future. Outside of contributing roster players, Calgary essentially has no assets of value, and that has to change. THe quickest way to change that is to start turning some of these guys into draft picks.

If you want to move good young prospects for pieces that put you over the top as a contender 3 or 4 years from now, you need to be drafting them NOW so they are 19/20/21 years old when you want to turn them into a Ryan Kesler, Marian Gaborik etc when you're looking to make real noise in the playoffs.

As I said above, I honestly think there's a deal to be had for Glencross where we could add a prospect from a position of strength and get a better piece for now AND going forward. If you can do that to upgrade his position (athough a RW would be better) or upgrade defense with a youngish guy, I think you pull the trigger.

To do that, you have to package him with something more substantial, and see above for why this is largely impossible for Calgary. There just isn't anything else that isn't valuable enough to get something but not so valuable you can't give it up. Baertschi is the closest thing and I doubt his stock is as high as Glencross'.

Just dumping him for run-of-the-mill prospect/pick makes no sense to me.

At one time Johnny Gaudreau was a run of the mill pick 4 years ago.

[automaton 3]

I picked #3 but with and astrix that only if the offer is a good one (ie 1st to mid 2nd or equivalent prospect).

IMO his impact on the team for the playoff push, and potential playoffs is more valuable than lottery ticket picks or marginal prospects.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Okay. So if he played 1 game this season, scored, then got hurt for the rest of the season you would consider that an 82 goal pace.

You're talking about woulda/shoulda/coulda, I'm using goal totals that actually really happened in real life.

Well of course, I'm that stupid

I'm here quoting 1-10 game sample sizes yearly?

When he's had a nearly full season, a full season, a work stoppage and an injury heavily shortened, where he still hit 12 in 38?

God forbid Monahan or Bennett (oh, was he injured?!?) ever go through injuries.
I'll be sure to continue your theme of no excuses. This isn't a physical game at all and all players play exactly the same way...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Do you realistically think that Glencross will be the difference between winning and losing a playoff series?? I honestly think that someone on the roster right now can take the role Glencross has/had and then a call up can take that persons previous spot. Losing Glencross would hurt if we couldn't replace him, we can. Losing Glencross would hurt if he were to be the difference maker on this team, he isn't. Glencross used to personify what this team stood for but the younger players on the team are now doing that. Glencross is a support player on this team and losing him wouldn't hurt as much as some think. That being said, we shouldn't just give him away but if there is a deal to be made that benefits the team's future, we should.

Hard to say. Once injuries start to mount in the playoffs, it's often some of those depth guys that pull through. Don't under estimate the value of a wily veteran in the playoffs.

I understand people not wanting to become buyers in a year where potentially making the playoffs is gravy in a rebuilding year, but if you are going in you might as well not become a seller either.