QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[-TC-]

Add me to the 'for a d-man' corps...

[GioforPM]

At some point the fact that a player produces over a short time and has injuries for the rest works against him in evaluation of his worth. Much depends on the nature of the injury. pertedly Bennett's is non-recurring after surgery. Backlund has had different injuries, so again, non-recurring.

I don't even know what's kept Glencross out this year. Just that he's been in and out a fair bit.

He is also not young, so not part of the long term future IMO.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Unless he gets hurt in the final 15 games of the season, which for a guy constantly injured and currently 'banged up', is a consideration.

Yes. It's also a consideration for the team trading for him, bringing his value (in the trade market, not necessarily to his current team) down and making the return even less appealing than it would be otherwise.

Is 4-12 playoff games worth 3-5 years of a player? What if Calgary drafts lance bouma 2.0 with that 3rd rounder? Would 7 playoff games of glencross have been worth it when Monahan is 24 and in need of a crash and bang winner to round out Calgary as cup contenders?

You can't predict who you get with the mid-round picks anymore than you can predict the amount of playoff games the team gets, or how Glencross ends up contributing to it. Where are these 3-5 years coming from? The chance that a 3rd rounder or later cracks an NHL lineup is pretty remote, much less putting together a meaningful 3-5 years. Those crash and bangers could already exist in the system, and/or can be found with the picks we already currently have between now and the time that Monahan et al are in their prime ages (3-6 years of picks).

Look at the trades that have been done so far this year and tell me how Calgary could have been a player in any of them without subtracting substantially from their new core group?

They couldn't have been, which is fine by me. I would have liked Franson, but we didn't have assets to cover the trade like Nashville does. And I think Nashville made out like bandits personally.

The fact is, the Calgary Flames are still woefully behind their NHL peers in terms of NHL prospect depth, and you absolutely need to claw that back as quickly as possible if you want to be relevant in the future. Outside of contributing roster players, Calgary essentially has no assets of value, and that has to change. THe quickest way to change that is to start turning some of these guys into draft picks.

I think you're wrong that they are woefully behind, but I also agree that they don't have much in terms of assets of value (for trade). That value is set by other teams, many of whom don't know a whole ton about the status of our prospects outside of where they were drafted and some AHL numbers. I think this is evident by our own GM coming from an outside team, which plays in the same conference, and who had many ties to Calgary already including people like Playfair in his own org, and even he didn't know the depth of the prospect pool before getting here. Other than big name players/prospects (for which the trade market value is often overblown), the trade value of players is generally lower from an outside source than they are to your own team (IE, the value you'd get for someone like Ferland is likely quite a bit lower than his value to the Flames going forward).

If you want to move good young prospects for pieces that put you over the top as a contender 3 or 4 years from now, you need to be drafting them NOW so they are 19/20/21 years old when you want to turn them into a Ryan Kesler, Marian Gaborik etc when you're looking to make real noise in the playoffs.

I agree with this, but same as the point above, I don't see an extra 3rd or later pick to be make or break in this regard.

To do that, you have to package him with something more substantial, and see above for why this is largely impossible for Calgary. There just isn't anything else that isn't valuable enough to get something but not so valuable you can't give it up. Baertschi is the closest thing and I doubt his stock is as high as Glencross'.

I actually think (and posted in this thread) that packaging Glencross with Baertschi for a youngish, higher-than-Glencross-calibre player either on D or RW would be more beneficial going forward than either trading Glencross on his own for a depth pick or keeping him for the playoffs.

At one time Johnny Gaudreau was a run of the mill pick 4 years ago.

Yup and so was Brodie and so have been many players. I'm not denying you can get diamonds in the rough, I just think they are so few and far between that getting one more mid-rounder (again, on top of the many mid-round picks that we get on our own for the next few years) is not worth sending a solid contributor to another team. As said above, I would rather package him with an asset from strength (LW) for a developing roster player with upside than trade him for beans. But I do understand it's a long shot, which is why I'm on board with keeping him unless you're getting an over-market deal.

This is quite different from the Cammy situation for a few reasons. 1) We had Hudler and Gaudreau on his way in as smallish, offensive LW, as well as Sven and others with potential for growth. Cammy was expendable and we were dealing from a position of strength. The problem is there was a lot of similar or better players available at the same time and it was a big waiting game. Bruke waited, didn't get the value Cammy was worth and so decided to keep him (another example of the asset being worth more to the team than the market overall). The problem with keeping Cammy is that he wasn't helping us get anywhere, but I think the signal to the players that we weren't "tanking" the season by trading away all good players for anything is understated, and it showed the organization respects it players which some fans here don't seem to value much, but these are people who do appreciate and pass around those types of things. Some may still not like it, but in the long-run, it's unlikely to affect us much.

Glencross isn't the player Cammy is/was. And we don't have a lot of physical wingers with scoring prowess. And we are in the playoff hunt with a strong probability of getting in. If Glencross can help you do that and help with some success once you get there, it's worth it. For me anyways.

[Rerun]

If I could I would have voted for both yes's as they both apply.

I'd take a bag of pucks for him if that's all we can get. He's certainly not irreplaceable. The Flames didn't miss a beat when he was out of the line-up with injuries and its not like he's lighting up the scoreboard now.

I hate seeing a player walk away as a UFA in July and we get nothing in return (ie Cammy). Thats just poor asset management.

[Vulcan]

I haven't voted because to me it would depend on the return. Like many I'd like a young defenceman but to get a good one, we'd need to add something. It's too bad Smid is still on the IR because I'd include him in such a trade. I think Diaz has taken his spot as he's a better fit with a defensive defenceman, leaving Smid as only an alternative to Engelland. Defencemen are also in high demand among the real contenders who are more interested in the here and now than in the future. Someone like Pouliot in return would look real good for our future.

If we can't get what we want, I'd pass as keeping Glencross for the stretch would be like acquiring him for nothing, or at least whatever another team would try and work us for. I get the asset management thing but as a team it isn't all about the nuts and bolts, it's also about the relationships that make a team work harder.

[mikeecho]

I dialed in on him last night to get a real feel for him as I hear so much about how good his "advanced stats" are. Maybe it was a bad game, but he couldn't make a pass, couldn't take a pass, pucks died on his stick and he seemed hell bent on taking a stupid penalty when the team was down and pushing to get back in the game. Add to that, the amount of time he's missed the past few seasons, the teams ability to replace him without much impact and the seeming reality that he won't be a part of the team next year and I think you have to Try and get something for him.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

God forbid Monahan or Bennett (oh, was he injured?!?) ever go through injuries.
I'll be sure to continue your theme of no excuses. This isn't a physical game at all and all players play exactly the same way...

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you. I don't mind Glencross. I'd love to see him rip it up next game. I have nothing against him.

But he doesn't average 25 goals, he's not a 25 goal scorer. He's done it once. You can paint it however you want or throw whatever explanation you want out there to try and tell me he would have scored 25 goals in multiple years for whatever reasons if certain things never happened to him, but the stats don't lie. He's done it once.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

But he doesn't average 25 goals, he's not a 25 goal scorer. He's done it once. You can paint it however you want or throw whatever explanation you want out there to try and tell me he would have scored 25 goals in multiple years for whatever reasons if certain things never happened to him, but the stats don't lie. He's done it once.

Absolutely true. But a 17.5 goals/season average is still a very valuable player. Over the last 5 seasons Stajan and Backlunds combined average is 16.4 goals/season. Stajan got a nice extension and most people on this forum are wanting Backlund re signed with a nice raise.

The truth is, most Flames players could only wish that they could put up the numbers that Curtis Glencross does. He is fourth in points among Flames forwards this season.

If the Flames can back up the Brinks truck for a guy like Matt Stajan I don't understand why you wouldn't want to do it for Glencross (who is clearly a more valuable player IMO).

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you. I don't mind Glencross. I'd love to see him rip it up next game. I have nothing against him.

But he doesn't average 25 goals, he's not a 25 goal scorer. He's done it once. You can paint it however you want or throw whatever explanation you want out there to try and tell me he would have scored 25 goals in multiple years for whatever reasons if certain things never happened to him, but the stats don't lie. He's done it once.

What I'm saying is relevant to our push for the playoffs. If he can return to previous avg. the previous 4 years, he can contribute 8 goals down the stretch. If he continues on this years pace you get 4. Likely what will happen is somewhere in the middle, but even that isn't poor and 6 would be equal to an 18 goal scorer. We do not have such replacement on the farm.

And that is what we need to consider

[Winsor_Pilates]

I'd be ok with trading him, but want the team to be careful about going too young, too fast.

I know making the playoffs this year would be a bonus, but without guys like Glencross and Hudler, we could be in a very different position.
Even if we miss it, the psyche of a 9th place team vs 14th place team can have a big impact on the young players.

I want to keep some vets just for the impact it has on the young players, even if we don't make the playoffs.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'd be ok with trading him, but want the team to be careful about going too young, too fast.

I know making the playoffs this year would be a bonus, but without guys like Glencross and Hudler, we could be in a very different position.
Even if we miss it, the psyche of a 9th place team vs 14th place team can have a big impact on the young players.

I want to keep some vets just for the impact it has on the young players, even if we don't make the playoffs.

Removing Glencross is not putting the team at risk of going too young too fast though.

There's still Hudler, Stajan, Jones, Wideman, Engelland, Smid, Hiller, Giordano, Diaz. I think you can add Backlund to that stable now too even though he's only 25.

If anything, I think they could stand to part with two or three more vets over the next year.

[Bezer]

I am not a fan of Glenncross and haven't been for years. That isn't saying that he isn't a good guy off the ice, I really don't know that. But I absolutely despise his game. I would love to see him traded and I don't think he will be missed (to a degree).

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Removing Glencross is not putting the team at risk of going too young too fast though.

There's still Hudler, Stajan, Jones, Wideman, Engelland, Smid, Hiller, Giordano, Diaz. I think you can add Backlund to that stable now too even though he's only 25.

If anything, I think they could stand to part with two or three more vets over the next year.

Yeah, I think it is important that we as Flames fans still realize that this team is getting a pretty sizable contribution from veteran players past the age of 30.

Jiri Hudler, Mark Giordano, Dennis Wideman, David Jones, Matt Stajan, and Jonas Hiller are all 30 or older. All of these guys are under contract for next year and there is still a group of 23-28 year old guys with 200 or more games experience emerging on the team.

One massive difference between the Flames and Oilers is that the Flames are getting significant contributions from players over the age of 29, and Edmonton is pretty much getting nothing. I was looking around the league and most teams have 2-3 players with 1985 birthdays among their top 6-7 scorers. It's teams who have fewer than that who you will find outside of the playoffs right now.

[#-3]

I'm in the yes camp if it is a clear big win for us, or the team can get better on D right now.

[theJuice]

Yes, yes please.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

God forbid Monahan or Bennett (oh, was he injured?!?) ever go through injuries.
I'll be sure to continue your theme of no excuses.

Well, I'd hope so because this was the theme YOU created when we used to discuss Backlund all the time. I can't tell if you don't remember that or you do remember but are just trolling.

[boogerz]

The Flames know what Glencross brings at both his best and worst. It'd be highly concerning trading him for picks or prospects and then going into the playoffs with a question mark on LW being added to what's currently a pretty long list of what-ifs if the Flames make the playoffs.

Keep him for playoff depth and then flip his rights before July 1st.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Well, I'd hope so because this was the theme YOU created when we used to discuss Backlund all the time. I can't tell if you don't remember that or you do remember but are just trolling.

That's what I found exquisite... if it were that 'other' player we were discussing, no worries at all. Pro-rated totals - fully accepted, there would have been mention about TOI average, linemates, defensive zone starts, bad wingers, mis-use by coach, Mike Fenwick, Jim Corsi, endless jargon.

But a player that actually has scored 25, (someone just mentioned he's has the teams most goals past 4 years?), no mercy.

[CliffFletcher]

This rebuild has seen Iginla, Bouwmeester, and Tanguay moved out. And people are worrying about what the Flames will do without Glencross on the roster?

Am I missing something here?

[Matty81]

I don't think the Flames need Glencross for depth for the playoffs.

LW is not like D or RW where there is a huge dropoff after our starting lineup, LW, Centre and goal all have guys from the farm who can step in. After Gaudreau, Bouma, Raymond, Bollig and Colborne who have all played regularly at the NHL level, we have Ferland, Baertschi and Wolf who can step in on that side.

If Glencross can bring in a right wing or puck moving defenceman with some upside (maybe even packaged with a centre who won't get an opportunity like Reinhart) that makes a lot of sense.

But to be honest I'd be happy to see them get a pick or prospect even if he's walking this summer. I think he's redundant at this point - grateful for what he's given the team but if we can move on from Reggie and Iginla when it was logical, there should be no reason to be sentimental about Glencross.