QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Not trading a decent player for anything less than what you deem to be his worth is not "sacrificing the future to placate the now". If this was a guy that was going be bringing back 1st rounders or top notch youngsters (ala Iginla or another star), I would agree. A utility player that might not net you more than a 3rd or lower? I don't see how the future is all that hampered by not gaining an extra 3rd or later on top of the picks we already have. Is a 3rd or 4th rounder going to make or break this rebuild? Highly likely that the answer is no.

Flipping him with a prospect from a position of strength for a player that is younger and at a position of need is looking towards the future, no?

Why do you people look at this so black and white? Trade him: Scorched earth rebuild!! Don't trade him: Only care about the now!!

There are things in-between.

The reason it is black and white is that, by the end of the season, the value of Asset: Glencross to the Flames will be zero.

The future is always hampered when you take an expiring asset and hold it to zero rather than exchanging it for a new asset.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The reason it is black and white is that, by the end of the season, the value of Asset: Glencross to the Flames will be zero.

The future is always hampered when you take an expiring asset and hold it to zero rather than exchanging it for a new asset.

Yes, but that also depends on what you assume the present value of the asset to be.

What is the present value of a Curtis Glencross in this year's playoff versus the future value of a 3rd round pick.

I have no answer to that question. Perhaps Treviling does not just yet either. But he will need to determine that pretty quick.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I think you should deal him if there hasn't been any contract extension talks. We have prospects that can play his spot.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The reason it is black and white is that, by the end of the season, the value of Asset: Glencross to the Flames will be zero.

The future is always hampered when you take an expiring asset and hold it to zero rather than exchanging it for a new asset.

The value of a player to a team is not only/always the Player vs The Potential Return. Whether people like it or not, the player has an effect on the team as a whole. What that effect is can be argued to death and is never truly known, but it exists no question. If you were to trade Gio for a heavy return right now, the loss of points and ice-time that he accounts for is NOT the only loss to the team and it is not simply replaced by supplementing his points and minutes with other different/lesser players.

Also, if the Flames trade him for a mid-pick, and that pick becomes nothing (the most likely scenario by a long shot), the net value at the end is still zero.

I don't know what Glencross' worth to the team is and what type of effect moving him will have but to pretend that there would be no residual effect on the team is disingenuous IMO. That effect might be insignificant, but it might not be, which is why it's not black and white and why this argument even exists. This isn't the stock market, trades don't happen in a vacuum. They involve people with emotions and that's not limited to just the players included in the trade.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Also, if the Flames trade him for a mid-pick, and that pick becomes nothing (the most likely scenario by a long shot), the net value at the end is still zero.

Only if you let it expire to having no value, like the situation with Glencross.

3rd round picks are valuable. More value than nothing, certainly.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes, but that also depends on what you assume the present value of the asset to be.

What is the present value of a Curtis Glencross in this year's playoff versus the future value of a 3rd round pick.

I have no answer to that question. Perhaps Treviling does not just yet either. But he will need to determine that pretty quick.

The present value is based on projected cash flows (in this case, points).
The Flames will be lucky to get into the playoffs this year, very lucky to get past the first round, and extremely lucky to go further than that. I'd say Glencross probably has another 25 regular season games + MAX 14 playoff games left as a Flame. At his current .54 PPG, he will produce another 21 points this season. Then he's gone.

The Flames' third round picks from 2008 - 2014 are Lance Bouma, Ryan Howse, Joey Leach, Max Reinhart, Jon Gilles, Keegan Kanzig, and Brandon Hickey.

Out of those 7 picks, 1 is a current everyday player (Bouma), 1 is a solid goalie prospect (Gilles), 1 can play bottom-6 NHL minutes (Reinhart). Kanzig and Hickey are too young to tell. Howse and Leach are busts.

To be honest, a 3rd round pick is quite hit or miss. I don't think trading Glencross for a 3rd round pick is great value, but it's better than none.

Glencross has minimal impact on this team 1) making the playoffs 2) if they make it, helping them win significantly

Granlund, Ferland, Reinhart, Baertschi, Bollig, Shore, Wolf and Byron can carry the workload.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Only if you let it expire to having no value, like the situation with Glencross.

3rd round picks are valuable. More value than nothing, certainly.

Players from all rounds of the draft don't get signed or traded all the time. Teams just let them expire. Most often, picking a player is like buying a new car, as soon as you make the deal, their value immediately drops. It's rare that a mid-range prospect that a team is not going to sign (because the team doesn't want them, not a hold-out scenario) nets a return greater than their original spot in the draft.

ie. Max Reinhart, a very typical 3rd round selection on a typical 3rd round development path would not net you a 3rd round pick today.

[mhsyyc]

These "would you trade X" threads are entertaining but ultimately unsatisfying. Look, every team would trade any player if the timing and the price were right.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Players from all rounds of the draft don't get signed or traded all the time. Teams just let them expire. Most often, picking a player is like buying a new car, as soon as you make the deal, their value immediately drops. It's rare that a mid-range prospect that a team is not going to sign (because the team doesn't want them, not a hold-out scenario) nets a return greater than their original spot in the draft.

ie. Max Reinhart, a very typical 3rd round selection on a typical 3rd round development path would not net you a 3rd round pick today.

Then again, why pick anyone, ever?

Why not just trade all your picks for a 1st rounder or roster players?

Because at some point, you have to have players play for your team. Glencross won't be a flame in a matter of weeks. Trading him provides something to the team long after he's gone.

You've got a jug of milk that is about to expire. You can try to sell it at the same price as milk that isn't going to expire, you can cut the price to encourage someone to buy your about-to-expire milk or you can hold onto it and hope it turns into sour cream.

Personally, I would sell the milk, even for a reduced cost, in order to create a spot on my retail shelf for another milk product. I'd use the money I made from the soon-to-be-expired milk to buy more milk that wasn't as close to expiring.

Maybe I originally bought the milk for more than I'll end up selling it for, but at least I got something for it and I'm not having to go out and buy replacement milk for an even greater cost.

[automaton 3]

Seems to be plenty of certainty around here that Glencross will be gone after this season.

I don't recall Glencross or Treliving ever suggesting this will be the case.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Glencross has minimal impact on this team 1) making the playoffs 2) if they make it, helping them win significantly

I think that's the outside concern that some people have: we trade Glencross, morale drops, we miss the playoffs... all for a third rounder that never makes it (whom CP vilifies for years as the reason for our fabled 2015 miss). I agree with you that Glencross is not the make-or-break piece for the playoffs, and morale in the room should be fine. In another thread I was one of those people who thought it important to consider morale, but upon reflection: they're professionals and should learn to deal. They dealt with the McGrattan move despite his popularity in the room, they'll deal with losing Glencross.

Issue is that you want to build something sustainable. In that respect, I think the important lessons of this season have been taught regardless of whether or not the team makes the playoffs. That said, I'd want to make sure that the expiring asset in my hands is traded for a new lottery ticket regardless of the odds.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Then again, why pick anyone, ever?

Why not just trade all your picks for a 1st rounder or roster players?

Because at some point, you have to have players play for your team. Glencross won't be a flame in a matter of weeks. Trading him provides something to the team long after he's gone.

You've got a jug of milk that is about to expire. You can try to sell it at the same price as milk that isn't going to expire, you can cut the price to encourage someone to buy your about-to-expire milk or you can hold onto it and hope it turns into sour cream.

Personally, I would sell the milk, even for a reduced cost, in order to create a spot on my retail shelf for another milk product. I'd use the money I made from the soon-to-be-expired milk to buy more milk that wasn't as close to expiring.

Maybe I originally bought the milk for more than I'll end up selling it for, but at least I got something for it and I'm not having to go out and buy replacement milk for an even greater cost.

You're missing the option of drinking/using the milk before it expires.

If you value your jug at $2, but the best offer you get is $0.15 you then have to weigh your options of how much you like the milk and what you can get out of it between now and when it expires, vs selling it.

You can drink it, make some curry, some baked goods, etc...

Losing him for nothing or gaining anything is not the only scenario. If Glencross makes great cookies between now and the end of the season, it's worth skipping that $0.15 to me. Treliving has to weigh the return vs what he thinks Glencross will do between now and then. No one can know these things for sure so there's risk involved. But my point is that it's not black and white "trade him for anything or walk away with nothing". From a pure asset-in-hand standpoint, yes it is. But the net player vs return are not the only assets involved.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You're missing the option of drinking/using the milk before it expires.

If you value your jug at $2, but the best offer you get is $0.15 you then have to weigh your options of how much you like the milk and what you can get out of it between now and when it expires, vs selling it.

You can drink it, make some curry, some baked goods, etc...

Losing him for nothing or gaining anything is not the only scenario. If Glencross makes great cookies between now and the end of the season, it's worth skipping that $0.15 to me. Treliving has to weigh the return vs what he thinks Glencross will do between now and then. No one can know these things for sure so there's risk involved. But my point is that it's not black and white "trade him for anything or walk away with nothing". From a pure asset-in-hand standpoint, yes it is. But the net player vs return are not the only assets involved.

Great reply.

Based on Glencross being a 14-16 minute per night player with 8 goals on the season and a history of injury, is he really worth that much to the Flames?

I think the answer is no.

The whole time I have been taking into account what Glencross brings to the hockey club, and at the end of the day, the answer is not a heck of a lot. He plays difficult minutes, but if he was scoring a million goals, he wouldn't be. He plays defensive minutes because he hasn't been producing offensively, and on the 10th highest scoring team in the league, with a ton of icetime, that is saying something.

I don't see the evidence for keeping him except for what he could maybe, possibly, if the stars align, do for Calgary in the post season, and even then, no one is making the argument that he's a difference maker, just that the 'depth' would be nice to have. Well, Calgary has a ton of forward depth as we've seen this year, and if the team is going to make the playoffs, I'd like Michael Ferland to get some playoff experience instead of 32 year old Glencross, even if it means less total games (which it probably doesn't).

[Hackey]

The two reasons people give for keeping him are production and morale/chemistry.

Glencross hasn't scored since December and were doing fine. He also had 2 goals in his first 21 games and we were doing pretty good then as well. Glencross has 8 goals. Granlund has produced as much as him. This guy is not the difference between making the playoffs and not.

As for morale that just seems silly. The guy is likely gone at the end of the year anyways. These are professionals, they understand the business. People said the exact same things when we wanted to trade Iginla. We need him for leadership to teach the kids. What kind of message will it send to other players shipping out the captain. The team seems to be doing just fine without the chosen one.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Much of the rationale for keeping Glencross seems to be based on chemistry/morale. I don't argue that chemistry/morale is extremely important, but honest question: Does Glencross provide any, and if so, based on what evidence?
I doubt any of us know, as we are not in the dressing room. He has the "A", but so does Russell, who is a guy that didn't strike me as a major leader in the room, until he got that A this year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

No, the lower half of the NHL standings are littered with teams that have had bad management, bad drafting, bad player development, or (typically) a combination of all of the above.

LA, Montreal, TB and Nashville seem to be ignored here, as they don't fit the narrative

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is such a tired, and frankly BS argument, but I think it really goes to show the average Flames Fan mentality that's being encountered in this thread in discussion of moving players.

Why draft any players at all? It's just a crapshoot.

The same (empty) criticism could be made about the 'average Flames Fan' mentality on this board that believes that a 3rd round pick is somehow the yellow brick path to the cup while any NHL player over the age of 25 is a flying monkey, determined to undermine said path.

(the truth is usually in the middle somewhere)

[Enoch Root]

Can we please stop with the "the Flames are/were fine without his production" argument? The Penguins were fine without Crosby's production too, but I am pretty sure they welcome its return, nonetheless.

[Hackey]

Wow were comparing Glencross to Crosby now lol.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Great reply.

Based on Glencross being a 14-16 minute per night player with 8 goals on the season and a history of injury, is he really worth that much to the Flames?

I think the answer is no.

The whole time I have been taking into account what Glencross brings to the hockey club, and at the end of the day, the answer is not a heck of a lot. He plays difficult minutes, but if he was scoring a million goals, he wouldn't be. He plays defensive minutes because he hasn't been producing offensively, and on the 10th highest scoring team in the league, with a ton of icetime, that is saying something.

I don't see the evidence for keeping him except for what he could maybe, possibly, if the stars align, do for Calgary in the post season, and even then, no one is making the argument that he's a difference maker, just that the 'depth' would be nice to have. Well, Calgary has a ton of forward depth as we've seen this year, and if the team is going to make the playoffs, I'd like Michael Ferland to get some playoff experience instead of 32 year old Glencross, even if it means less total games (which it probably doesn't).

I disagree with this.

Players don't get difficult minutes because they can't produce offensively, they get difficult minutes because they can handle them. Period.

Baertschi wasn't producing offensively - should we give him the difficult minutes?