[News] Flames/Glencross looking at Extension

[rollie619]

Originally Posted by AC

Was Glencross the one that Conroy flipped out at for not talking to Hanowski and the other rookies 2 seasons ago?

Him and Giordano

[442scotty]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My guess is he will get something like 4.7 per for 4 years and a modified NMC.

Fine by me....the club needs some solid vets who want to be here and can contribute in a variety of ways. He fills all those criteria.

Not a chance he get that kind of money or term. I will say max 3.5 over 3 years and can be moved at any time. No big deal if we lose him cause he only comes to play half the time and we don't need a player that does not come to play every day.

And it may be that those games when he plays awesome are when he is playing over the top. His true play may be a 30-40 point player

[AC]

Originally Posted by rollie619

Him and Giordano

Yep, found the post about it:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...2&postcount=19

- Conroy told a story about how veterans in his career who made the younger and newer guys feel comfortable made a huge difference. Followed it up with one where he found Hankowski sitting by himself at the 'Dome as everyone else had left for a group lunch type thing...ripped into Giordano and Glencross for leaving him behind - this needs to change going forward.

It should be noted that Glencross really spearheaded team events as mentioned by Freeway. Found an article about it from this season:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/16...sergei-federov

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by AC

It should be noted that Glencross really spearheaded team events as mentioned by Freeway. Found an article about it from this season:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/16...sergei-federov

That's a great article.

It reminds me that Ortio, Granlund & Wotherspoon had really successful call-ups.

Also, Glencross at a cheap salary is a good asset. I don't think he's good value at much more than $3 million AAV.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He's going to get an NTC of some sort. Y'all might as well just get used to it.

As long as it is a modified NTC that allows the Flames to move him that is fine. If it is a full NMC I will seriously question Treliving's abilities to GM this club.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Not a chance he get that kind of money or term. I will say max 3.5 over 3 years and can be moved at any time. No big deal if we lose him cause he only comes to play half the time and we don't need a player that does not come to play every day.

And it may be that those games when he plays awesome are when he is playing over the top. His true play may be a 30-40 point player

Yeah there is more than a chance he gets that kind of money and term as well as some version of a NTC...every single chance as a matter of fact.

Look no further than Benoit Pouliot to see where Glencross will be asking for something along the lines i suggested. Now he may or may not get it here, but he will get it somewhere barring a major injury this season.

[Bezer]

Not a fan of his nor the talk of an extension.

But I think we need him for a year or two more just to let the younger guys ripen. I really don't care if we pay 2 years at 5 and change per year but for the love of Lanny McDonald's mustache.. no NTC please.

[Savvy27]

Would much rather keep Glencross around for his contract year, see him put effort in to raise his own value and then see if they can get him to accept a trade at the deadline. He can be a really good player but there has to be attrition at some point for these veterans to make way for youth pushing their way onto the team.

[Scoreface]

Glencross wants to be here more than the Flames want him here. Not that they don't want him. I hope negotiations are handled accordingly. This is the first real litmus test for Treliving IMO. The Engelland deal doesn't factor in so much. They needed depth and toughness on D and he can spot in as a winger if need be.

Mason Raymond is a good insulant at forward and helps a bunch with the pk and also pp occasionally. We're not cash strapped, so it is a good depth signing which adds more speed to the lineup, so I'm not really concerned about him.

I believe the Glencross deal will be the more scrutinized of them, good or bad. I guess when the term scrutinized is used, it is more in a negative light. Haha

I really want to see what shakes out here.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Would much rather keep Glencross around for his contract year, see him put effort in to raise his own value and then see if they can get him to accept a trade at the deadline. He can be a really good player but there has to be attrition at some point for these veterans to make way for youth pushing their way onto the team.

After next season there is Bollig, Stajan, and Raymond under contract for forwards.....there will be LOTS of room for youth.

[taco.vidal]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Id hate to see Treliving and Burke making right with the player for the discount he took on his last contract.

[chubeyr1]

I could see a 3 or 4 year contract between 4-4.5 million. First 2 years NTC, last two years modified no trade clause ( he can select 10 teams he is willing to go to).

We can definitely use him for two more years, don't know about after that though. Last two years of the deal we have the option to move him but he at least has some say as to where. Fair I think, and I also think it will help money wise too, taking a bit less to stay put for two more years.

On the open market he might get upwards of 5 million but wont be living where he wants too. A healthy Glencross is a pretty good player, could mesh well with our youth too.

Keeping guys like Glencross around makes our youngins earn the position instead of handing it to them.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Id hate to see Treliving and Burke making right with the player for the discount he took on his last contract.

Would "making right" be to give him the money he left on the table last time? I doubt that happens, but I'm sure Glencross will make sure he gets a contract that more accurately reflects what his value is in the league. There won't be any kind of home-town discount this time. This will likely be his last big money contract of his career. I'm sure if Cgy isn't willing to pony up the money he would be willing to spend a few years in a different town before he retires.

[blankall]

Don't see a problem with this. He's a guy who genuinely showed loyalty towards the team. The Flames have a ton of cap space now. What kind of message does it show about the organization if we don't re-sign him now.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hold on a sec. How much leverage does he have to command alot more money?

He hasn't scored more than 40 points since the 2011-2012 season, and last season wasn't exactly a highlight reel year for him. He also is wildly inconsistent. Should Flames management be rewarding that?

The only way I can see he get's a relatively massive pay raise is if Burke/Treliving see him as a anchor on the left side with intangible qualities. Anything more than $4 million and I'm not sure there's much more benefit.

Also, an extension should be no longer than 3 years. Max.

This is very selective stat picking. The 2012/13 season was shortened. Glencross put up 26 points in 40 games, which is well above a 40 point pace.

Last year he put up 24 in 38, also well above a 40 point pace.

He sprained his ankle last year and missed almost have the season due to it. I really don't see this drop in production everyone is talking about. He's consistently maintained about a 40-50 point pace, which is what he is. The only real deviation was in 2011/12, where his production went up. This was largely as a result of the lack of depth in the Flames top 6, which forced him into a top line role at times.

[The Fonz]

It's a delicate situation... if the Flames don't bargain in good faith over the next 6 or so months, Glencross might not waive his NTC at the deadline.

IMO, Glennie wants to be here more than management wants him here. He won't be getting 5m from the Flames....

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It's a delicate situation... if the Flames don't bargain in good faith over the next 6 or so months, Glencross might not waive his NTC at the deadline.

IMO, Glennie wants to be here more than management wants him here. He won't be getting 5m from the Flames....

I think if that's what he's after it should only be 2 year deal, or he can jog on.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

[/B]

I think if that's what he's after it should only be 2 year deal, or he can jog on.

I would be ok with 2 yrs @ 5M per. Just not longer than that unless there is no NMC.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

[/B]

I think if that's what he's after it should only be 2 year deal, or he can jog on.

This is his last payday, so I think that's likely what he's seeking after the Bolland contract (5.5m x 4yrs).

[The Fonz]

I just don't feel like you should have a guy on your team who's heart is somewhere else.

Glencross is about as passionate about the NHL as Rick Nash.