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

[Hackey]

Salary cap freedom? Glencross will likely want something similar next year to what Eriksson is making.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Salary cap freedom? Glencross will likely want something similar next year to what Eriksson is making.

He's a rental. They get cap freedom from not having a contract with 4m+ on their books heading into next off season.

[Hackey]

So their just giving away one of their more valuable assets to have Glencross play for the rest of the season? That makes no sense.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So their just giving away one of their more valuable assets to have Glencross play for the rest of the season? That makes no sense.

Making a lateral trade this year to see where they go and freeing up some space this summer to re-sign their current rfa's

[Hackey]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Eriksson has way more value than Glencross. That would be a huge win for us.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Eriksson has way more value than Glencross. That would be a huge win for us.

He only has 5 more points than Glencross in 7 more games. I think he's worth a little more but I wouldn't say he has way more value, nor would it be a huge win. I see it as more of a lateral move.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Eriksson has way more value than Glencross. That would be a huge win for us.

It really depends on whether or not the Bruins believe he can get back his form. There is a lot of risk attached to the player given his concussions and degradation in performance.
This isn't Eriksson of a couple years ago.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So their just giving away one of their more valuable assets to have Glencross play for the rest of the season? That makes no sense.

We are not going back in time to trade for Eriksson from the Stars...I wouldn't really consider Eriksson to be one of the B's more valuable assets. There's quite a few guys I'd put ahead of him. Bruins would probably actually like having the cap space next year and having a player they think can contribute right away to a run at the playoffs this year at the time. Depends on whether they believe Glencross is a better fit vs. Eriksson.

Anyways I would prefer not to target Eriksson. He's not the player he was 3-4 years ago and for some reason I think of the decline that Hagman had... I'd prefer for us to continue to target for areas that we are lacking in such as big RH shooting RW's, young D.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Eriksson has way more value than Glencross. That would be a huge win for us.

Why?

[Enoch Root]

Friedman suggesting that Glencross' list might include:

Anaheim, Tampa Bay, LA, Nashville and Chicago (possibly more)

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It really depends on whether or not the Bruins believe he can get back his form. There is a lot of risk attached to the player given his concussions and degradation in performance.
This isn't Eriksson of a couple years ago.

I still think there are a lot of teams that would take a gamble on him despite this, especially if the asking price is Curtis Glencross. To me the Bruins would be foolishly to make that deal but maybe they are.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I still think there are a lot of teams that would take a gamble on him despite this, especially if the asking price is Curtis Glencross. To me the Bruins would be foolishly to make that deal but maybe they are.

Yeah, a SC winning GM would be foolish if he valued a player differently than you

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Seriously, if Eriksson went on waivers tomorrow, the risk of him being unclaimed is exactly zero.

The Bruins snap their fingers, and he disappears the next day. No strings attached and no questions asked.

Trading him for a UFA doesn't give them any added "flexibility". If they want a player for the stretch, and the option of not having him next season, they've already got that, plus they've got cost-certainty for the player they already have.

If they want to move Eriksson, and they're willing to accept a player like Glencross as the return, then probably half the teams in the NHL would be willing to match or exceed that offer (including Calgary).

The Bruins are in no danger of being "stuck" with Eriksson's contract if they don't want it.

[Vinny01]

So the Preds, Hawks, Kings, Lightning , Ducks are confirmed by Freidman.

[CalgaryFan1988]

The Lightning rumours and the idea of Brett Connolly entice me, although Glencross would be in the enemies jersey.

[Vinny01]

Flames have to add to get Connelly I think.

[Da_Chief]

^ No they don't. TB should be adding. He's on the main roster cause he can't be sent down.

And if Connolly does get traded to the Flames, he will have to switch his current number.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Glencross for Connolly+4th would make me a happy flames fan

[AcGold]

Freaking deja vu.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, a SC winning GM would be foolish if he valued a player differently than you

Well I know for sure he wouldn't think Glencross and Crosby were of equal importance to their respective teams like you.