QOTD: Would you deal Curtis Glencross?

[Bingo]

Both Friedman and Duhatchek on the radio this morning discussing Calgary and the trade deadline.

Friedman suggesting the Flames have been contacted and Glencross' ice time is reduced suggesting they no longer see him as a top six player.

Would you deal him?

[Heavy Jack]

Yes. Yes I would.

[jeffman]

Only for a defense. If Gio or Brodie go down we are screwed

[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

[Coach]

My response from the rumour thread:

Personally, I think that if we can package Glencross with a decent prospect at a position of strength (likely looking at Sven in this regard) for either a forward who is an upgrade on Glencross, or a solid DMan that can give you a good 10-20 minutes, it would be good. No idea who that would be, but it would help for the stretch drive.

Glencross' production is not looking to be very hard to replace this season. He's been OK, but I'm not sure he's been missed all that much when he's out.

If you can't upgrade your team now by dealing Glencross, either at forward or defence, there's no sense in trading him. I know people are looking to the future, but IMO Glencross on his own won't bring back enough of a "future package" to make it worth dealing him before a drive. You need an effective roster player coming back who is, at the very least, younger and is not a downgrade in size or skillset.

Kind of a tall order, so I doubt he is dealt.

[Poe969]

IMO it could be either of the last 2. It's time to move him and I think someone can step up, not to replace him but to replace the roster player who moves up.

[kyuss275]

Depends where they stand on March 2nd. If in playoff position , then I doubt he waives. If not in playoff position , then hope he waives and try and get a 2nd from which ever team he agrees to go to.

[Huntingwhale]

I would deal him, but only if the return was worth it. Not worth trading a guy like him for a low draft pick when having him provides good depth on the wing for a playoff push. But I hope to hell if he stays that we don't re-sign him. I just don't see him living up to his contract as his cap hit could easily double.

[kermitology]

Yep. As Duhatschek said on the radio, if you can get something like a 1st rounder or a defenceman for him, I move him. There are, I believe, enough parts up front to cover for his absence from the team, but they desperately need some more defencemen.

[debil]

For overpayment yes, for fair value or less no. We are still small team and need these physical yet somewhat skilled players. i believe he can turn it around. there is some reason why many playoffs teams want him.

[nik-]

Yes. He's going to get a deservedly huge raise and term. Poor timing for this rebuild. I want him to get his big contract, I just don't want it to be here.

[kyuss275]

Probably need a separate poll on what posters think they can get in return for Glencross. I'm in the late 2nd round pick group. I've seen some posts suggesting 1st round picks or very nice prospects. Don't think he is worth that much.

[killer_carlson]

I said "no". the issue is about the price. I don't see value in trading him for a prospect we don't have space to develop, or for a late 2nd round pick (or lower).

If we're not going to get our asking price, his value is greater in being here down the stretch and making a run for the playoffs.

[ComixZone]

Yes.

It's increasingly clear he isn't part of the future here, and he is in no way a critical component to the team's success this season. If we can gain an asset that has value (say a 2nd round pick or something along those lines), yes.

[Street Pharmacist]

My real answer is a sitting on the fence one. We certainly don't re-sign him, only because that blocks progression of our prospects on a deep position. If he'd sign one year cheap to provide competition, fine. We all know he's going to do what he should do and get his last big payday though. That won't work for the flames.

As for trading now though, it's difficult. If you trade him you need depth for the stretch run. From an asset management in a rebuild you need the future assets from a trade. They don't match. That means the future assets from a trade need to outweigh the need for depth. He isn't going to garner a first, so we'll have to settle for a second or lower. Anything less than a second isn't worth damaging the depth we've got so you don't make the trade

[David Struch]

For sure, Flames have plenty of pro forward depth...

Granlund
Baertschi
Ferland
Reinhart
Shore
Bennett
Van Brabant
Arnold
Agostino
Hanowski
Poirier
Elson

[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.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Yes, we have Adirondack players that can fill in, probably the only reason why I am okay with trading him.

[Geeoff]

I don't think we will unless we go on another long losing streak.

[Itse]

Depends on the offer.