QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[Wolfman]

In a heartbeat. Team seems to be doing alright with him being a passenger right now.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

That's what I found exquisite... if it were that 'other' player we were discussing, no worries at all. Pro-rated totals - fully accepted, there would have been mention about TOI average, linemates, defensive zone starts, bad wingers, mis-use by coach, Mike Fenwick, Jim Corsi, endless jargon.

But a player that actually has scored 25, (someone just mentioned he's has the teams most goals past 4 years?), no mercy.

I hope you're not referring to me.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This rebuild has seen Iginla, Bouwmeester, and Tanguay moved out. And people are worrying about what the Flames will do without Glencross on the roster?

Am I missing something here?

Well yeah.

AT the time of ditching those players we were checking to see how high our draft pick was going to be. Now we're checking to see what our playoff chances are.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I hope you're not referring to me.

It was a good percentage of this forum, but I couldn't list them all.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This rebuild has seen Iginla, Bouwmeester, and Tanguay moved out. And people are worrying about what the Flames will do without Glencross on the roster?

Am I missing something here?

We would be missing a guy like Bouw (even as a non-fan) if Gio and Brodie hadn't suddenly (overnight) became the reincarnation of Duncan and Keith.

Iginla will be eternally missed, he wasn't just a scorer or power forward, he was a leader and a part of the cloth.

This rebuild is far ahead of expectation thus far, but i wouldn't say this is common, many teams are heading into rebuild #2 after a failed 5 year attempt on #1.

[Cheese]

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!

The highlighted trade won the Stanley Cup for the Flames. It was a win win deal.

[GioforPM]

Sven is not Brett Hull. Hull made the team and was traded for very good players.

[chubeyr1]

As we fight for a playoff spot how do you trade away the players that got you there? Sends the wrong message to the team dont you think? Its the way I think.

If we can upgrade on Glencross then yes go for it, sends the right message. Yet for a draft pick it worsens the team and moral.

I am neither a Glencross hater or worshipper. Year two of a rebuild and we are fighting for a playoff spot. Who saw that coming? I want to trade Glencross, Stajan, Jones, Bollig etc. I dont know about the character of these guys in the locker room though. Something is working right, its dangerous to mess with that!!!

Can we afford to lose Glencross? If we make the playoffs he is a guy I want there. Can he be replaced with Sven or Wolf or add name here? Sure he can be.

Is trading Glencross good asset management? Absolutely! Same can be said for Ramo! Yet I would prefer to have the guys walk away after the season and get nothing for them than break up the team right now.

Year two of the rebuild and we are talking playoffs, we shouldnt be. Something is working and the Hockey Gods are fickle. Dont mess with what aint broke!

[mac_82]

I truly hope we do what San Jose did going into the 2013 trade deadline. Ship off some older/slower guys who don't fit the mold, and re-tool for the playoffs and the next season going forward.

D. Murray for 2nd + cond. 2nd
Handzus for a 4th
Clowe for a 2nd + 3rd + cond. 2nd

Then picked up Torres for a 3rd, and Hannan for a 7th.

Get picks for Glennie, bring in some depth for a low pick, or give a kid another shot.

[Mr.Coffee]

I'd like to see some kind of deal for a defenseman, as that is a weakness. The 2004 run, we had like 8 D, and still ran out of gas and bodies by the finals. The reality is that a Cup run needs defensive depth, and we don't have any right now. Losing 1 or 2 D will be a huge problem.

A lot of the other very valid reasons to trade Glencross have already been made and I'd parrot those as well. We do however need to make sure we get a decent deal out of it, as he's worth keeping for a Cup run if the "return" isn't there. Picks would be suitable as well, as it's something we can use for the future which is always a good thing in my mind.

In short, we have FWD depth, don't have D depth, and need D depth for playoffs, plus he won't re-sign here. So make it happen.

[Hackey]

I hope the Flames deal Glencross if we can get something decent in return. If the return isn't much though might as well keep him. I'll gladly take a 2nd round pick for him though.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'd like to see some kind of deal for a defenseman, as that is a weakness. The 2004 run, we had like 8 D, and still ran out of gas and bodies by the finals. The reality is that a Cup run needs defensive depth, and we don't have any right now. Losing 1 or 2 D will be a huge problem.

A lot of the other very valid reasons to trade Glencross have already been made and I'd parrot those as well. We do however need to make sure we get a decent deal out of it, as he's worth keeping for a Cup run if the "return" isn't there. Picks would be suitable as well, as it's something we can use for the future which is always a good thing in my mind.

In short, we have FWD depth, don't have D depth, and need D depth for playoffs, plus he won't re-sign here. So make it happen.

I'm all for adding a dman if it's someone who's gonna be around for a while. I don't want to see us wasting assets for playoffs this year. We still need to be thinking long term. Playoffs aren't even a guarantee this year.

[Dajazz]

Asset management pfft.

At times it seems only a select few want to make the playoffs.

Winning is a helluva lot more important for these guys' development than getting another 2nd round pick... Look north.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The crux of the argument isn't about re-signing him. I think that everyone (? at least the vast majority) on here would NOT want to see Glencross re-signed for the money (and likely term) that Glencross wants.

It comes down to 'how much can the Flames trade him for'? vs. "what is the message that trading him away (especially if it is a futures-only deal) to the rest of the players on the team who have worked so hard to get into a playoff spot this year".

Lots of teams are inquiring about Glencross not because he can put up 25 or more goals. Yes, the scoring depth he can provide a team is crucial of course to the interest, but it is the other 'intangibles' that make him a still (more or less) highly coveted acquisition. He does have pretty good wheels, he is gritty, he is versatile, he is good defensively and is able to play on both special teams. During long playoff runs, teams definitely try and find players like Glencross. Injuries happen, and having a guy that can move up and down the lineup and slot in on either wing, or on special teams, etc., are (IMO) very crucial.

Now how much value does Glencross hold in today's market (today including from now right up until the trade deadline) is what is arguable. The Flames are NOT contenders this year (and nobody is arguing otherwise). However, they are in a very good position to make the playoffs, and jettisoning him for futures only may negatively impact the room. It MAY take the 'wind out of the sails' so to speak.

It is a fine line that Treliving is walking. He is in a fairly unique situation this year when it comes to Glencross, and the position the Flames are in. A rebuilding team that is on the cusp of making the playoffs. How much do you deviate from the plan (if at all?). Does he take the stance that regardless of the team's performance, there is absolutely no change?

I now personally think that unless a first was involved (or a fairly highly rated prospect who is NOT ready to contribute to the NHL this year), that Treliving will not make a trade based on 'futures-only'. However, if he can trade Glencross for a package including a player in return that is young, but can at least slot in for added depth today - even if it is only 'potentially' - then I think he makes the trade.

It would not surprise me if this deal becomes a 'larger' deal where Treliving includes a decent prospect or two that is currently buried in the depth chart for a prospect that is closer to the NHL, or one that is a definite 'blue-chip' from a team with excess (like one of Pittsburgh's defensive prospects). It won't be anywhere close to Fowler (a young guy who already has a place on the team and is making an impact). However, it may include another winger or bottom-pairing defender who is on that particular team now, but is seen as possibly expendable.

Just my thoughts anyways. The more I do think about it, the less likely Treliving makes a futures-only deal (unless it is a huge win), and will not trade Glencross away unless a trade package provides help now for their playoff push. I do think they should be careful about the optics of such a move - not to the fans and media, but to the players on the team.

[Daradon]

Obviously the question depends on the deal.

But I said no. Gotta keep some vets, playoffs or not. Glencross is the kinda guy you want on the team. They keep telling us it's about building culture, and that seems to be doing great so us so far, keep the guy. Not only is he good on the team, good in the room, good for the city, young guys may start to feel a bit less like buying in if we just ship 'good value' for 'assets'.

I don't get how Glencross became the goat around here this year. Especially when he was a cult hero for so long. I also don't get the constant need for turnover. Managing every 'asset' like you need to get something new and shiny for it. We're swamped with up and comers. We don't need any more. Asset management doesn't just mean turning in the 'old' for the new. That'd be 'asset turnover'.

[GreenLantern]

Like I said in the other thread this is ideal, Burke set the table last year by refusing to budge on Cammalleri's value. So this year you set the price high and if someone is willing to pay it, you do it. They know you aren't willing to move and would rather lose him to UFA than lower your price. And this year it is even better because worse case scenario is you get a veteran top six forward to help the team make the playoffs/in the playoffs.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well yeah.

AT the time of ditching those players we were checking to see how high our draft pick was going to be. Now we're checking to see what our playoff chances are.

So rebuild over. Got it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

Asset management pfft.

At times it seems only a select few want to make the playoffs.

Winning is a helluva lot more important for these guys' development than getting another 2nd round pick... Look north.

The lower half of the NHL standings are littered with teams who abandoned rebuild prematurely. Toronto, Ottawa, Philadelphia, etc. Being mired in mediocrity for 10 years is worse than spending three or four years in the cellar. And getting into the playoffs once in a while doesn't seem to have had any long term benefit for Toronto, Ottawa, Philly, etc.

[Jason14h]

So rebuild over. Got it.

Do you really believe a late 2nd rounder is going to have much to do with the rebuild? It is a crap shoot at that point of the draft to even get a player who will play 100 games.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well yeah.

AT the time of ditching those players we were checking to see how high our draft pick was going to be. Now we're checking to see what our playoff chances are.

I only quote your post cause it is simple.

The point is, we are still in a rebuild! Its been far more successful than anticipated but don't let the on ice excitement and 3rd period comebacks fool you.

This team does not play a full 60. 30 minutes of great hockey if we are lucky.

We need to move out older players, that aren't cornerstones, for assets still.

Only player over 30 that should not be considered to be moved is Gio.

How far do you honestly think Curtis Glencross is gonna carry this team in the playoffs?! For what Glencross is likely to bring to the dance, another player can likely fill the same roll and in that gain some playoff experience.

Glenny, is not going to get us out of the first round. He is not our sleeper, he is not our "ace in the hole". He is an aging asset that will bring a decent return instead of losing him for nothing or requiring overpayment to retain.

You move him. Period.