[Trade] Glencross to Washington for a 2015 2nd and 2015 3rd round pick (WSH) (Archive) - Page 45 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Flash Walken · 02-20-2015, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC

I'd be happy with a 2nd. But I think we might get more than that given that half the league is interested, should be able to drive up the price a bit.

Just because half the league called doesn't mean half the league called offering a 2nd rounder.

It's likely many teams called but haven't called back after hearing the price. If Glencross is one of the last players to be dealt, I'm sure some will circle back, but, he's a depth forward, not something to push a team over the top.

The Original FFIV · 02-20-2015, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC

I'd be happy with a 2nd. But I think we might get more than that given that half the league is interested, should be able to drive up the price a bit.

Half the teams doesn't matter. Only the 5-7 that he will waive to. And some of those 5-7 May not have interest which will dull any auction effect.

If a respected hockey writer like Duhatschek says a second would be a home run, we better temper our expectations.

saillias · 02-20-2015, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Jahrmes

When Iggy And Bouw were moved (even Regehr), I had that gut feeling that we would get jerked.

For some reason, it's the opposite now. Home run time baby

That was one of the most disappointing moments for me as a Flames fan since the 7 years/Young Guns era. The chatter was Ennis, and then to get that return for a franchise cornerstone, and also give up a 2nd.

cannon7 · 02-20-2015, 05:11 PM

My only problem with a Glencross trade is that we'd be trading him at his lowest value in many years. I don't think we'll get the return we want trading him alone. If we're looking to unload underachieving vets, why not trade Stajan as well?

I'd like to see the Flames acquire a second pairing d-man, preferably one with size and physicality. I'd package someone like Smid with Glencross if the d-man coming back was of similar size and had a beter puck moving game. I'd also consider packaging a prospect like Baertschi to get a young player in return. Don't mind taking on a lot of salary to get a deal done, as long as the player(s) coming back can help us.

Enoch Root · 02-20-2015, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Original FFIV

Half the teams doesn't matter. Only the 5-7 that he will waive to. And some of those 5-7 May not have interest which will dull any auction effect.

If a respected hockey writer like Duhatschek says a second would be a home run, we better temper our expectations.

Are you nuts?

If you followed the advice of 'respected hockey writers' your team would be folded and moved to Vegas before you could say 'advanced stats'

MrMastodonFarm · 02-20-2015, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannon7

My only problem with a Glencross trade is that we'd be trading him at his lowest value in many years. I don't think we'll get the return we want trading him alone. If we're looking to unload underachieving vets, why not trade Stajan as well?.

You know Glencross will be a UFA this summer, right?

MisterJoji · 02-20-2015, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saillias

That was one of the most disappointing moments for me as a Flames fan since the 7 years/Young Guns era. The chatter was Ennis, and then to get that return for a franchise cornerstone, and also give up a 2nd.

I love Reggie but at the time he was traded he was most definitely not a franchise cornerstone. Not saying we shouldn't have gotten more, we should've, Jay totally blew that trade, but Regehr was at most a 2nd pairing defensive D-man at the time.

GioforPM · 02-20-2015, 05:46 PM

One of the aspects is that pretty much any team can afford his cheap contract on a pro-rated basis. It's good because it makes him attractive. The only downside is that no team will have to trade a salary (ie a roster player) back.

Hugh Jahrmes · 02-20-2015, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

One of the aspects is that pretty much any team can afford his cheap contract on a pro-rated basis. It's good because it makes him attractive. The only downside is that no team will have to trade a salary (ie a roster player) back.

Would be nice if we could take a bad contract back and position that team for further moves to really load up. I agree Glencross' contract really doesn't allow us to utilize cap space directly in a return, but I just can't shake the feeling this ends well for us.

the_only_turek_fan · 02-20-2015, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Duhatschek on Sportsnet 960 thinks getting a 2nd round pick for Glencross would be a homerun.

I heard that.

I actually like Glencross and want to see him re-signed.

If we get something like a third I will be mad. We are better off with him.

the_only_turek_fan · 02-20-2015, 06:46 PM

Is there ANY hope of re-signing him. I really like him and the way he plays.

sureLoss · 02-20-2015, 06:47 PM

Glencross Watch Update: Glencross took part in the warm ups.

dammage79 · 02-20-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Is there ANY hope of re-signing him. I really like him and the way he plays.

Does not sound like it. Last guy from the last playoff appearance. Time to move on.

sureLoss · 02-20-2015, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Is there ANY hope of re-signing him. I really like him and the way he plays.

Doesn't sound like it.

Burke was on Jack FM this afternoon and said the Flames had asked Glencross for what type of contract he was looking at.

Burke said the numbers were something he could not recommend for the Flames.

Burke was also careful to say he didn't necessarily think the numbers were outrageous or something that Glencross wouldn't necessarily get as an UFA on July 1st.

The implication is that the Flames and Glencross aren't even in the same ballpark given that there haven't been any contract talks for a while.

the_only_turek_fan · 02-20-2015, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Doesn't sound like it.

Burke was on Jack FM this afternoon and said the Flames had asked Glencross for what type of contract he was looking at.

Burke said the numbers were something he could not recommend for the Flames.

Burke was also careful to say he didn't necessarily think the numbers were outrageous or something that Glencross wouldn't necessarily get as an UFA on July 1st.

My guess is 4 years and $20m.

AC · 02-20-2015, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just because half the league called doesn't mean half the league called offering a 2nd rounder.

It's likely many teams called but haven't called back after hearing the price. If Glencross is one of the last players to be dealt, I'm sure some will circle back, but, he's a depth forward, not something to push a team over the top.

Well yeah, but having multiple teams interested means Treliving should be able to play them off each other as the deadline approaches to increase the price. As opposed to having 1 or 2 teams in it, you're more or less stuck with what they say.

sureLoss · 02-20-2015, 06:58 PM

Glencross not scratched and will play tonight

killer_carlson · 02-20-2015, 06:58 PM

good

GranteedEV · 02-20-2015, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just because half the league called doesn't mean half the league called offering a 2nd rounder.

It's likely many teams called but haven't called back after hearing the price. If Glencross is one of the last players to be dealt, I'm sure some will circle back, but, he's a depth forward, not something to push a team over the top.

He'd be a hell of a third wheel beside Getzlaf and Perry, dare-I-say the kind that would push them over the top. He'd be an upgrade over Maroon.

the_only_turek_fan · 02-20-2015, 06:59 PM

The guy has scored 85 goals in 273 games the last 5 seasons. That is a 25 goal pace.

Why are we trading this guy?!?