Sign in with your NHL account:
  • Submit
  • Or
  • Sign in with Google

Jump to content


Photo

Suggestion: Trade Glencross


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
49 replies to this topic

#1 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

I know all the reasons not to make that trade. Glencross is one of the few guys we have on a legitimate value contract. He is one of our few defensively focused forwards. He is one of the few physical forwards we have. Most of the time he has a no lose attitude. Something we need.

But IF (and one is a biggish if) he is will to waive his NMC and we can get a strong return for him I think we should move him.

A couple of reasons.

One: Sell High

Glencross maintained a ridiculous shooting percentage last season. He saw the number of shots he put on net go down significantly, yet his goals went up. That is likely to correct itself. He has lost his favorite C (Jokinen). There will be a massive amount of competition on the top 6 wing this season so his opportunity may go down. I also think he was one of those players that flourished under the Sutter system. He may not under Hartley.

Two: Make Space

Iginla, Tanguay, Baertschi, Cammalleri, Backlund, Horak, Cervenka, Hudler, Stempniak, and Comeau are all players that may looking for top 6 time on the wing. A couple of those guys will move to C and injuries will happen. But that is still an overload at wing.

Tanguay-Cammaller-Iginla
Cervenka-Backlund-Baertschi
Hudler-Stajan-Stempniak

Even with that top 9 Horak and Comeau are looking for time. Byron and Nemisz could be candidates for the third line as well when healthy.

Also, Feaster may not be done. He still wants to add size. Glencross plays a physical game but he is still a small to average forward (with health issues). Another player to the pile will just fill things up more.

Glencross may not waive his NMC. He has routes in the Alberta area and signed a value contract with a NMC attached only a year ago. But if they can convince him to accept a trade the Flames should be able to get a decent return for him.

#2 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,260 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:31 PM

We don't have enough muscle in the top 9 as is. If we lose Glencross, then who's the second toughest forward in the top 9 after Iginla? Maybe Cammalleri? Does Stempniak or Comeau count as top 9 forwards??

The rest of the guys are pushovers: Hudler, Backlund, Tanguay, Cervenka, Baertschi... is Stajan a top 9? Horak??

#3 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:11 PM

.

#4 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,108 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

What's your expected return kehatch?

X is worth more in Calgary then elsewhere as he fills a need the others you mention don't. He plays with an attitude. That's why he's a personal favorite on the Flames.

I'd love him on the Flyers or reuniting him with Joker in Wpg. but he won't garner either of our needs as he won't fetch a 1C nor a top 4 D by himself. His value is probably @ a high point but still would only return a prospect/pick.

#5 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

What's your expected return kehatch?

X is worth more in Calgary then elsewhere as he fills a need the others you mention don't. He plays with an attitude. That's why he's a personal favorite on the Flames.

I'd love him on the Flyers or reuniting him with Joker in Wpg. but he won't garner either of our needs as he won't fetch a 1C nor a top 4 D by himself. His value is probably @ a high point but still would only return a prospect/pick.

I agree with your overall assessment of his value but there are ways Glencross could fetch more in the right situation.

For example, Glencross has a good value contract. If the Flames were to trade Glencross for a more expensive contract that might not be up to its value, Glencross might be all it takes if the team needs to get under the cap.

Maybe a Glencross FOR Krejci could work out for both teams. Boston needs to get rid of salary but needs more depth on the wing. Since they have a lot of depth at centre, they won't be looking at getting anotnher centre in return. Glencross is also the exact type of player that Boston goes for. Would Glencross waive to go to Bean Town?

#6 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,108 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

I agree with your overall assessment of his value but there are ways Glencross could fetch more in the right situation.

For example, Glencross has a good value contract. If the Flames were to trade Glencross for a more expensive contract that might not be up to its value, Glencross might be all it takes if the team needs to get under the cap.

Maybe a Glencross FOR Krejci could work out for both teams. Boston needs to get rid of salary but needs more depth on the wing. Since they have a lot of depth at centre, they won't be looking at getting anotnher centre in return. Glencross is also the exact type of player that Boston goes for. Would Glencross waive to go to Bean Town?

I'd probably be fine with a Glencross for Krejci (my Flames POV. I'd hate to face him when the Flyers play Boston) but that reverses the situation. Boston gains cap space (they'll have plenty when Savard goes on LTIR & Thomas is suspended/traded) but Calgary loses theirs.

Krejci has a limited NTC so shouldn't have a problem coming to Calgary but I wonder if X would waive. He left money on the table but the lure of being on a team that is largely intact after a recent SC win would probably override that (he can still rodeo in the summer).
_______________________________________________________
The Flames would have to either make another deal (or promote Aliu) to put some balls back into the lineup.
_______________________________________________________
I realize it's only an example but I like that swap. It's too bad the Bruins wouldn't.

#7 Zirakzigil

Zirakzigil

    Hokay. So, heres da Earth.

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,120 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:29 PM

Only way I would trade him would be in a package for a top line center. The Flames top 9 forward group is one of the softest in the league and would be pushovers if Glencross was traded.

#8 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:58 PM

Let me say this.

If I was to have said a season ago that we should trade Bourque many people would have questioned that. Big, defensively responsible, one of the few potential 30-goal scorers, etc. But he (predictably) fell apart. He lost his defensive edge the season before with the loss of Langkow and was very inconsistent in 10/11 both offensively and defensively. When he was finally traded his play had deteriorated to a point that not to many shed a tear.

I am not saying Glencross will definitely deteriorate. But there is a good chance he will. He was a 40-point winger before getting paired with Jokinen and the only reason he maintained his point production last season was due to an abnormal shooting percentage.

If someone is willing to give you top 6 value for him then trade him while his value is high. If not, he is a worthwhile 3rd line winger (at worst). But I wouldn't hang on to him expecting him to be a legitimate top 6 forward. I don't think he will maintain that pace nor do I think he will get the opportunity.

#9 Louis23

Louis23

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

Let me say this.

If I was to have said a season ago that we should trade Bourque many people would have questioned that. Big, defensively responsible, one of the few potential 30-goal scorers, etc. But he (predictably) fell apart. He lost his defensive edge the season before with the loss of Langkow and was very inconsistent in 10/11 both offensively and defensively. When he was finally traded his play had deteriorated to a point that not to many shed a tear.

I am not saying Glencross will definitely deteriorate. But there is a good chance he will. He was a 40-point winger before getting paired with Jokinen and the only reason he maintained his point production last season was due to an abnormal shooting percentage.

If someone is willing to give you top 6 value for him then trade him while his value is high. If not, he is a worthwhile 3rd line winger (at worst). But I wouldn't hang on to him expecting him to be a legitimate top 6 forward. I don't think he will maintain that pace nor do I think he will get the opportunity.


AMEN

#10 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:20 PM

.

#11 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:30 PM

A suggestion to trade a player belongs in the Flames Trades, Signings, and Rumors sections. I also think that discussing trades at a high level (go after X guy, move X guy) makes more sense then trying to nail specific trades when we don't know true value, player wishes, etc. But whatever here are some suggestions if it makes some of you feel better.

For these suggestions I considered a recent interview the Fan 960 did with Hartley. He was talking about his time in Colorado. He said that he decided to put rookie Tanguay and near rookie Hejduk together with Sakic. He talked about the value it had to those players development as well as how that helped his team.

It got me thinking, would he do the same thing in Calgary by putting Backlund and Baertschi on a line with Iginla? It would depend on Iginla. Also, Sakic was very good defensively and was a C. But I think it is possible he does here. Regardless, for the purpose of these trade proposals I tried that combination out.

Glencross, Butler (CGY) for (PIT) Martin, 2-round pick

It really depends on how much PIT likes Martin. Especially with the loss of Michelak. But Martin isn't working all that well there. PIT gets a rid of Martin's contract and replaces him with Butler. They also get a gritty top 6 2-way forward capable of putting up decent points. Of course, if they still like Martin the trade doesn't work.

Calgary walks away with a legitimate (if expensive) d-core.

Other options include Nashville and Toronto.

CAPGEEK.COM USER GENERATED ROSTER
My Custom Lineup
FORWARDS
Sven Baertschi ($1.425m) / Mikael Backlund ($0.725m) / Jarome Iginla ($7.000m)
Alex Tanguay ($3.500m) / Mike Cammalleri ($6.000m) / Lee Stempniak ($2.500m)
Roman Horak ($0.800m) / Roman Cervenka ($3.775m) / Jiri Hudler ($4.000m)
Blake Comeau ($1.250m) / Blair Jones ($0.650m) / Tim Jackman ($0.613m)
Matt Stajan ($3.500m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Jay Bouwmeester ($6.680m) / Dennis Wideman ($5.250m)
Mark Giordano ($4.020m) / Paul Martin ($5.000m)
T.J. Brodie ($0.742m) / Cory Sarich ($2.000m)
Derek Smith ($0.775m) / Anton Babchuk ($2.500m)
GOALTENDERS
Miikka Kiprusoff ($5.833m)
Leland Irving ($0.688m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled with the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $70,200,000; CAP PAYROLL: $69,225,416; BONUSES: $3,726,250
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $4,700,834



#12 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

.

#13 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,108 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:04 PM

To propose Martin and a 2nd for GlenX and Butler is a WIN for Pittsburgh. Martin is turning 32 in March. Butler just turned 25 last month. They both played over 20 minutes per game against top offenses. They are both the same height and weight, and pretty much put up the same offensive #s. Martin also has a limited no trade clause in which he can refuse to be traded to 8 teams. He has never played in Canada, who's to say Calgary isn't on his list?

Martin makes 5 million. Butler makes 1.2 million.

Heck lets trade them straight across and then trade GlenX for a Pittsburgh 2nd rounder, which is likely to be nearly a 3rd rounder. A 3rd ROUNDER for GlenX doesn't sound to me like a top six forward.

In the meantime, don't under value Butler.

Here is a good article about him.



Chris Butler is worth more than you think

I'm with you on this TAWDGE. Pengies would be smiling as we give up a bargain 2/3 liner (2.55 for 3 years) & a young D that has already played 1st pairing minutes due to need for an older depth defense (@ 5 x 3 years) & a latish 2nd. We add salary while losing talent & youth.
__________________________________________________________
Back in your court KH. :)

#14 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

I like Butler. But he is a complementary player riding on the coat tails of Bouwmeester. He is a third pairing D on a decent D-core. Ian White was putting up 23-minutes per night in a top pairing role. That doesn't make him a top pairing D.

We aren't giving up anything special by trading him.

Martin is a legitimate top 4D. He has some warts sure. And I am not a big fan of giving up two budget contracts for a guy that is likely overpaid. I don't like Martin's contract. And I would prefer to add a top 4D that plays a physical game.

But the Flames need a 1C and a top 4D. Those are the most expensive positions to fill. Looking around the league there aren't many options to acquire for the assets that we have to trade.

I think the Flames are better today with Martin then they are with Glencross/Butler. And the loss of Butler and Glencross isn't going to hurt us much in the future. We also recoupe our missing 2nd.

I would be fine trading Glencross for a mid 1st rounder or decent prospect as well. But I don't think that fits with the plan of the Flames.

#15 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,108 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

I think Butler earned the top 4 label last year so would sooner keep him unless it was an upgrade (I don't see Martin as that).

Leaving X out of it maybe a change of scenery would do both Backlund & Spaling good if Poile in Nashville would agree. Minor trade as both probably top out as 2/3 C or possibly on wing but a fair trade that could help both teams.

We have few players we can trade straight up for talent & most of those would leave us with a big hole. With Kipper we need @ least a former starter (Biron type) to bridge the gap until 1 of our youngsters can maybe prove himself (an if) & a skater better then 1 we have on either O or D.
With JBo we need @ least a top 4 D & a young forward that can start in our top 9.
Those are minimum needs just to tread water.

I'm not averse to adding a 1st rounder to any offer if it gives an impact player which none of the scenarios in this thread do.

JBo & a 1st for Voracek (or Simmonds) & Meszaros. There's a loss on D but Mez is more offensive while either forward is a top 6. The $s are close also.

#16 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,065 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

Glencross's has a NTC that Feaster gave him.

Glencross just re-signed and one of the reasons he comes at such a hometown discount is because he wanted security for his family here in Calgary.

I don't think Pittsburgh would appeal to him at all. Is there a rodeo with chuckwagons he might get involved with in Pittsburgh?

As Tawdge mentioned Martins has a NMC and Limited NTC(according to CapGeek)

#17 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

I think Butler earned the top 4 label last year so would sooner keep him unless it was an upgrade (I don't see Martin as that).

Leaving X out of it maybe a change of scenery would do both Backlund & Spaling good if Poile in Nashville would agree. Minor trade as both probably top out as 2/3 C or possibly on wing but a fair trade that could help both teams.

We have few players we can trade straight up for talent & most of those would leave us with a big hole. With Kipper we need @ least a former starter (Biron type) to bridge the gap until 1 of our youngsters can maybe prove himself (an if) & a skater better then 1 we have on either O or D.
With JBo we need @ least a top 4 D & a young forward that can start in our top 9.
Those are minimum needs just to tread water.

I'm not averse to adding a 1st rounder to any offer if it gives an impact player which none of the scenarios in this thread do.

JBo & a 1st for Voracek (or Simmonds) & Meszaros. There's a loss on D but Mez is more offensive while either forward is a top 6. The $s are close also.


I disagree that Martin isn't an upgrade to Butler. But just my opinion. I also wouldn't trade a 1st if I am Calgary. Especially for next years draft.

But I am not against any trade that improves the team. As long as it isn't at the expense of the future for the benefit of now. I don't think they have to move Glencross or anything. But there aren't many options:

  • Babchuk: No return
  • Backlund: Would be selling low. Given his European start and the coaching change I would prefer to see what he does then sell low.
  • Bouwmeester: Top 4 is in rough shape without him. Also selling low and a case can be made to see if he turns around under Hartley. Though I would trade him if the return is right.
  • Butler: Value contract. Good supporting player. But I would trade for the right return.
  • Cammalleri: Probably worth more to us then we would get in trade. But a possible move for the right return.
  • Carson: No return
  • Cervenka: Just inked him. Won't be traded.
  • Comeau: No return. Just re-signed.
  • Giordano: Top 4 would be in rough shape without him. Value down due to poor offensive season. Part of future Flames.
  • Glencross: Value contract. Good supporting player. But I would trade for the right return.
  • Hudler: Just signed him
  • Iginla: Rebuild move that they won't make unless season goes off the rails
  • Jackman: Just signed him. Depth guy.
  • Jones: Depth guy. Limited return.
  • Sarich: Limited return. Just signed him.
  • Smith: Limited return, but I would move for the right price
  • Stajan: No return
  • Stempniak: Just resigned him
  • Tanguay: Hartley connection. Probably worth more then we could trade him for.
  • Wideman: Just signed him
  • Kipper: Rebuild move that they won't make unless season goes off the rails
  • Karlsson: No return
  • Irving: Limited return. But worth trading if the price is right.
  • Baertschi: Part of future
  • Brodie: Part of future
Not many moves available for the Flames. Which is why I think they should look to players like Butler or Glencross if they are going to make moves. Though in reality I think Feaster stands pat unless he has to make rooms to free cap space (CBA).

#18 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

.

#19 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

Glencross's has a NTC that Feaster gave him.

Glencross just re-signed and one of the reasons he comes at such a hometown discount is because he wanted security for his family here in Calgary.

I don't think Pittsburgh would appeal to him at all. Is there a rodeo with chuckwagons he might get involved with in Pittsburgh?

As Tawdge mentioned Martins has a NMC and Limited NTC(according to CapGeek)


It is very possible that Glencross or Martin won't waive. One of the reasons why specific fan trade proposals are limited. But Feaster has a decent track record of trading players with NMCs so I wouldn't say Glencross can't be moved.

#20 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:04 PM

.