[Trade] Glencross to Washington for a 2015 2nd and 2015 3rd round pick (WSH)

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're using hyperbole to make your point and then disagreeing with me when I point it out.

He's played more than 70 games twice in his entire career, therefor 70-80 games is not his 'typical' rate.

In the lockout season, he missed 8 games, which prorated would have once again seen him play less than 70 games.

If we're going to be fair to Glencross we need to start with an accurate assessment of what he's actually done. The only thing consistent about Glencross appears to be his inability to play a full season.

Fair point.

He isn't the only one it applies to though (Backlund as an example)

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

He's played more than 70 games twice in his entire career, therefor 70-80 games is not his 'typical' rate.

Fair enough that he's not exactly the healthiest of guys and putting in 70-80 is probably not the right number. His typical range appears to be about 65 to 75 games with a couple down years and a reasonably healthy year (62, 74, 67, 79, 67, 40 in 48, 38, 71 since he became an NHL fixture).

I use 82 game rates as a traditional benchmark for points as it gives a number we can understand and recognize easily as a point rate. It makes in my mind to say that he's got a rate of [x] points over 82 games (or a PPG rate of [y]) as oppose to saying he's got less than 30 points in the last 2 seasons as this second value takes out a lot of considerations, which is the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at; I find it hard to say that 30 points is atypical of his circumstances in either of those two years given the circumstances of his play, namely lockout and particularly bad injury.

In that sense I think the first year is hard to hold against Glencross for being below 30 points. He missed about 17% of the games (fairly standard for him) and had a fairly standard Glencross production rate for the time he was healthy. I would interpret the second year would raise questions about his health than his overall production ability from a purely goals and assists point of view.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If we're going to be fair to Glencross we need to start with an accurate assessment of what he's actually done. The only thing consistent about Glencross appears to be his inability to play a full season.

I absolutely agree with that statement. He doesn't play 82 games a year and I think that's part of his lower contract value comes from. A healthy player that runs 82 games and plays them with a great deal of consistency as oppose to players who get into scoring slumps would probably earn more than 2.5 for his typical production rate and overall play.

We all know Glencross is inconsistent and there are parts of the year where he's invisible while in other parts he looks great. I think, much like some of the other supporting players in Calgary in years past, he's probably best described as consistently inconsistent.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Glencross is coming to one of those really interesting cross roads in his career, and I see it as having two options.

1) Go the highest bidder in the summer, and then struggle and become Bourque like with an anvil for a ticket that teams constantly shuffle around.
2) Think outside the box and sign for less in a good situation and have a contract that affords him some wiggle room in not having to produce 20 goals and 50 points every season.

They usually choose 1) but I think agents need to start thinking 2) more often.

Agents are leeches. They get more if they get their clients more, so money is virtually always the primary motivating factor for an agent. It is the player who has to say "I will only play in these cities, even if it means taking less."

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by kirant

I use 82 game rates as a traditional benchmark for points as it gives a number we can understand and recognize easily as a point rate. It makes in my mind to say that he's got a rate of [x] points over 82 games (or a PPG rate of [y]) as oppose to saying he's got less than 30 points in the last 2 seasons as this second value takes out a lot of considerations, which is the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at; I find it hard to say that 30 points is atypical of his circumstances in either of those two years given the circumstances of his play, namely lockout and particularly bad injury.

Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to be pedantic or obtuse, but individual stats don't count for anything in a league determined by wins. Missing games = missing opportunity to help your team WIN, and one of the other constants of Glencross' career in the NHL is that his teams don't win much. They would probably win more if he was in more games, but that's the issue with using PPG instead of the simpler 'points'.

In that sense I think the first year is hard to hold against Glencross for being below 30 points. He missed about 17% of the games (fairly standard for him) and had a fairly standard Glencross production rate for the time he was healthy. I would interpret the second year would raise questions about his health than his overall production ability from a purely goals and assists point of view.

This further speaks the point I made above. Chances are when he comes back from an injury, he's not up to 100% of his ability, so he's actually playing even more games at a less effective rate than his PPG would indicate.

I absolutely agree with that statement. He doesn't play 82 games a year and I think that's part of his lower contract value comes from. A healthy player that runs 82 games and plays them with a great deal of consistency as oppose to players who get into scoring slumps would probably earn more than 2.5 for his typical production rate and overall play.

Yep, agreed there, but it also raises another drawback with Glencross, he is streaky. When the capitals first got him, he was a streaky goal scorer. Now, however, without that goal scoring/point production, Washington obviously doesn't feel that he brings very much. Without scoring, he doesn't bring enough to justify being in the lineup of a playoff team. The old Glencross perhaps brought defensive play and physicality, but he hasn't been that player since Iginla was in the lineup, and Washington is experiencing that now.

We all know Glencross is inconsistent and there are parts of the year where he's invisible while in other parts he looks great. I think, much like some of the other supporting players in Calgary in years past, he's probably best described as consistently inconsistent.

Agreed, the difference of course is that many flames fans and perhaps the organization saw him as a top 6 player, but when he was a top 6 forward for Calgary, they never won anything, which as mentioned, is the ultimate metric. Washington has decided ultimately that Glencross isn't going to help them win either.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to be pedantic or obtuse, but individual stats don't count for anything in a league determined by wins.

I agree on this point. It may be that I'm just addressing a side note to your overall point with the notion of adding context to the stats. Team stats ultimately figure in way more and I think we'd agree a team that goes 98-0-0 on 1-0 wins would be a more effective at the goal in the league (winning the Stanley Cup) than whatever run and gun team the Oilers are trying to build. Not to say you can't score your way to a Cup victory but a team should be measured on how the team did as oppose to how many 30 goal scorers the team had.

And this is a concern for players like Glencross on a team: it wasn't a problem for the Flames this year or last year, but it's still a net negative to sometimes have their contract on the books with no tangible effect on the ice because of injury...and it's also a net negative to have them playing below their peak ability at any point.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This further speaks the point I made above. Chances are when he comes back from an injury, he's not up to 100% of his ability, so he's actually playing even more games at a less effective rate than his PPG would indicate.

I think we agree here too. I would actually point to Glencross as an actual example of this: he hasn't looked at all useful on the ice this year despite a similar points production rate. In my opinion at least.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I hope he finds a good deal but he's probably seen his value slide big time from what he may have been looking at prior to this season.

I guess that was always his risk. I hope if he signs for lower dollars Flames fans don't all accuse the Flames of failing to extend him at that price, because there's almost no chance it would have been the amount discussed back then.

[RougeUnderoos]

What the hell was Clutterbuck doing there? He could have had about five penalties for frantically swinging his stick from his knees.

And they make if 4-1 just as he comes out of the box. Nice work, jork!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I guess that was always his risk. I hope if he signs for lower dollars Flames fans don't all accuse the Flames of failing to extend him at that price, because there's almost no chance it would have been the amount discussed back then.

Flames have cap room to spare. If they really wanted to resign Glencross they would have got it done.

[activeStick]

@alex_prewitt: Trotz on scratching Glencross: "I don’t have time to wait. There’s 19 other guys, or 20 other guys, they can’t wait either."

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by activeStick

@alex_prewitt: Trotz on scratching Glencross: "I don’t have time to wait. There’s 19 other guys, or 20 other guys, they can’t wait either."

Trotz encapsulated my exact feelings.

[calgarygringo]

Looks like the chances of resigning there are slim to none. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes to Edmonton at a what he would call a homer discount. He talked lots of trying to be close to his home and that would do it for him. He probably knows now his big contract is done.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

Trotz encapsulated my exact feelings.

Looks like his inconsistency issues haven't changed.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Flames have cap room to spare. If they really wanted to resign Glencross they would have got it done.

They don't have cap room for the term he was going to be looking for. And even if they did, they didn't have future roster space.

[Samuelsson]

I wouldn't re-sign him now anyway, even if it were for a significantly less term and wage.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by pylon

Nobody pouted here as hard as Glencross did. And nobody in recent memory took more selfish, ill times penalties. In my opinion, he would have sunk our playoff chances when Gio went down, if he was kept around. He was the last rotten piece of the old core that needed to be trimmed away. Gio and Stajan are the only ones that seemed to buy into Hartley's plan and it shows. And most the other signifigant pieces of that rotten core, coincidentally, seem to be on non-playoff teams.

Cammalerri
Tanguay
Iginla
Phaneuf
Regher

And Jokinen and Bouwmeester, look like they will help fly the Blues, right into the side of a mountain.

Getting rid of him was the biggest addition by subtraction move the Flames have made since ditching Phaneuf.

My BS meter is through the roof. Way to use hindsight to create revisionist history.

Everyone we kept is awesome, and everyone we traded away is terrible!

[Badgers Nose]

I am kind of surprised this thread is raging after he was traded.

Why are we arguing about an SEP?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Someb...se%27s_Problem

[Tinordi]

That quote from Trotz is damning.

[Yoho]

Pretty good trade to get a 2nd in hindsight

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Pretty good trade to get a 2nd in hindsight

And a 3rd

[ForeverFlameFan]

I've said this before, I was a lot more sad to see Glencross leave than Baertschi.