QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[Gaskal]

From an organizational standpoint, Glencross is gone after this season anyway. They aren't going to come to terms with a contract, from either a money or term perspective. Smartest thing to do would be to trade him for an asset - sure, some want him for a playoff run but I personally don't think Glencross is going to be much of a difference maker in the playoffs.

I get that he's a good locker room guy - but right now with Bouma surpassing him on the depth chart, it's just not worth it to keep him anymore. Also, despite many trying to defend him here, he seems to play himself into the CP whipping boy role with plays fizzling out on his stick or the occasional bonehead penalty.

[J pold]

I say no but of course if the price is high enough obviously you pull the trigger.

To me this team making the playoffs this year will have a far greater impact on eventually becoming a contender than a market return for Glencross, and him on the roster now improves the chances of making the playoffs today.

[kyuss275]

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.

I'm not quite convinced that the AHL group replaces glencross on the defensive side of the game. I liked Ferland when last up but he brings as much offensive production as glencross's current cold snap.

Granlund is a center and a center that sucks at face offs.

Sven could be the guy I guess, but he really is not physical at all.

Don't know enough about Shore to make a comment.

While some posters might be dreaming of an AHL magic call up there is just as much chance that Byron gets moved up a peg and Bollig gets regular playing time on the 4th line.

[flambers]

Yes, Flames need to stay the course... or stay with the long term plan.

Asset management is a key,

If Glencross has no intention of re-signing with Flames (they should know the answer to this question by now)

Flames management should try to move him....

[Badgers Nose]

I've flipped back and forth on this a few times. But from an asset standpoint its a no brainer if he will waive, and why wouldn't he if he is not in their plans?

Flames gave him the chance to be a full time NHLer. He owes them this IMO.

He benefits by having a long playoff run to showcase his talents.

[Yoho]

For first rounder yes

For low second or third rounder no

[The Fonz]

Didn't see any option that fit my opinion so never voted.

Needs to be a 1st round draft pick coming our way, otherwise we keep him for our own playoff push. A mid-late 2nd + C level prospect is not enough.

[Hemi-Cuda]

He's a UFA with contract talks going nowhere. Were the Flames in the position they were predicted to be Glencross would 100% be dealt, so I expect Treliving to stand by his statement of not changing the rebuild plan just because the team has exceeded expectations. To not trade him then lose him in the offseason for nothing would be terrible asset management for a rebuilding team, which the Flames still are

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Didn't see any option that fit my opinion so never voted.

Needs to be a 1st round draft pick coming our way, otherwise we keep him for our own playoff push. A mid-late 2nd + C level prospect is not enough.

I think a 2nd + B is more than fair imo.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Combination of option C and D, with the caveat being 'depends on the return'. As long as the return makes sense, you move him. If not, he remains a versatile - though inconsistent - help (especially defensively) to shoulder the load and help get this team into the playoffs.

He is not a guy that you re-sign any longer as he has stated he wants 'fair market value', and I am guessing that includes term. I would call it a fair trade if Glencross returns a 'B' defensive or RW prospect. I would be ecstatic if he returned a first, or a 2nd + 'B' level prospect. Doubtful that he returns an 'A' level prospect, so I am definitely not hoping for that.

Anything lower than a 2nd by itself, or a B-level prospect, and I say keep him. Eventually he starts scoring again, and at the least he is a guy who Hartley can rotate in against the opposition's top lines.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I think a 2nd + B is more than fair imo.

This may be fair, but IMO, is not enough to warrant trading him.

[GranteedEV]

No because he's a big locker room guy and this team is too classy to ask him to waive his NTC as soon as they're finally back into the playoff picture after asking him to suffer two years of suckage as Bouwmeester / Iginla et al were dealt.

I do think next year there will be a guy up from ADK taking his spot, but next year is next year.

Bollig, otoh, needs to be swapped. Even for a 5th rounder.

[SofaProfessor]

I voted option C but I don't think you can really take any options off the table in this scenario and I, personally, wouldn't be too upset with any of the above outcomes.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I think a 2nd + B is more than fair imo.

It's absolutely fair, but considering where the Flames find themselves in the standings, they shouldn't be accepting a fair deal for Glencross. He has more value to us down the stretch and possibly in the playoffs, than a late 2nd (Hunter Smith) + C level prospect (Ken Agostino).

Overpayment or nothing, IMO.

[Igottago]

Deal him. Glencross is a valueable player and some team looking to make a deep playoff run will give up something good for him.

The Flames don't necessarily need him beyond this season either, plenty of depth in the organization. Deal him and get a valuable asset back.

[Kolbe31]

I've never been a huge fan of his, especially this season, but I think he's probably a guy you want on your team if you're going to the playoffs. Like someone said earlier, there's a reason so many playoff teams are asking about him. If the Flames are still in a good spot standings-wise at the trade deadline, you probably keep him. It would be tough to turn down a 1st rounder, though...

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeap.

I don't hate him, but IMO he is a bad possession player, a UFA who I don't want back, and the Flames have a lot of options to give his ice time to if he were to leave.

Combination of options 3 and 4

Couldn't agree more....
I wanted to move him when his stock was highest few seasons back.
Hopefully, with at least a couple of teams interested, Treliving could get some worthwhile return still. I think he can.

[Murph]

The only way I am ok with trading Glencross is if it is for a piece that helps us both now and in the future. A young defenceman currently playing 3rd pairing minutes but projected to be a second pairing guy fits that description. Simon Despres in Pittsburgh fits that description. Would Glencross + 2015 2nd get it done?

[Erick Estrada]

I don't believe it's a given that he will be immediately replaced next season by a player from the Heat but as a manager you have to track things and Glencross's career is sloping down and you have to assume you have a winger or two in the farm who's career is sloping up. I imagine those lines will intersect at a point in the next year or two which is why you can't justify keeping Glencross at a large salary and term.

[Bourque's Twin]

I think it's a no-brainer to trade Glencross right now.

1. He's a UFA who doesn't fit in with the rebuild.
2. He's having a pretty good year.
3. The Flames have tons of forward depth.
4. The Flames have minimal defensive depth.

Trade Glencross for a defenseman.