| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 11:51:39
Nice signing for Calgary, they get Glencross at a very reasonable cap hit for the next 4 years. He's one of those players that you wish you had on your own team anytime they play against you. |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/19/2011 : 21:12:55
When looking at the team with the largest number of players with no trade or no movement deals, the Flames lead the way with eleven, and this was prior to the Glencross signing. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/19/2011 : 21:06:52
Here's a link outlining players with no-trade and no movement clauses. (It's the most recent info I was able to find.) Interesting to see which teams give these out, and it's interesting to see that there's only one NHL team (New York Islanders) with no players in either category: http://www.thefourthperiod.com/trade_deadline/notrades.html |
| WhiteBread9 |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 17:03:24
*11 non movable players. Math failure |
| WhiteBread9 |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 17:01:19
This deal does not stack up with the malhotra deal at all. Glencross got more points this year because he was given the opportunity to play on the flames top 2 lines during the last half of the year. Even Brendan Morrison put up a point a game when he started with Iginla at the start of the year. If Malhotra ever got 1st line ice or even 2nd line, I would expect to see him match Glencross points wise. Plus, Glencross got a no movement clause. This is even more absurd when you factor in the obscene amount of no movement clauses the flames already have. 7 nmc not including Glencross's, add on another 3 no trade clauses and Calgary has 13 unmovable players next season.
All this for a player who doesn't posess the same faceoff skills as Malhotra, nor the leadership abilities. Final point, Malhotra is already perceived as being slightly overpaid to start with so Glencross can be seen that way too if you claim he is just as good as Malhotra |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 13:41:07
How many times do I have to post something before people see the point??
I am not arguing the $2.5 million salary!!
Take a look at 3rd line players through the entire NHL and how many have 4 year deals?? How many have 4 yr deals worth $2.5 million??? How many have 4 yr deals, $2.5 million per year AND a no trade clause??
I also think it's a pipe dream to say this guys gets 50 pts. He has 2 season of barely scraping together 40 pts. Barely. 28 yr old players rarely just add 20% to their production over a summer. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 12:37:14
quote:
What is Glencross the top 2-3 at in the NHL today???
Beans, the NHL is full of guys making 2.5M per year that are not top 2-3 at anything. Glencross is but one of them.
As for the length of the deal, I think it works to CGY's advantage, as there is no reason to believe that he won't produce at at least this level thru the deal. He's young, he's improved every year so far. Sure anything can happen, but I trust that Calgary management has a pretty good idea of the type of player they have in Glencross, and made a deal that is good for them too. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 11:43:25
Hey Leigh, as I said I don't have a problem with the $2.5 million. I have a problem with the 4 yr deal and NTC. I also think you are under-valuing Malhotra. He is not 'above average' in a few areas. He is well above average defensive and is one of the top 2-3 guys in the league at face-offs. What is Glencross the top 2-3 at in the NHL today???
50 points and 20+ goals??? I smell a bet coming........We'll talk in October when I see what the Flames team looks like. He won't see anywhere near that as a 3rd line player. If he plays consistently on the 2nd line with some time on the 1st line and on the PP, maybe. But I would more than likely take that bet anyway. |
| leigh |
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 11:25:43
Beanie, no he's not "great" yet, that's why he's only paid $2.5 million. I can't argue that most teams would love to have a guy like Malhotra head up the 3rd line, but I would argue that he's not "great" either. He's above average in some of the specialty areas (penalty killing and faceoffs) but statistically he's a third liner - Malhotra has never even come close to 40 points.
But to stay on topic, in the last 3 years Glencross is creeping up on 70 goals and 75 assists. It's not like he got all of them this year either, he has been statistically improving his whole career. He is only 28 years old so he should have half a dozen peak years remaining. He's not a centerman so you can't really compare him to Malholtra in that regard but he is a very fast skater like Manny. You'll get a solid 20 minutes a game out of him and he can easily move through the first 3 lines. I'd say he's a good deal at $2.5 million and his future is bright.
I'm really interested in seeing how this Calgary team plays a whole season under Feaster. I think the change in philosophies has given this team a new spark and Glencross is no exception. He had 12 points in the first half of the season and 31 in the second half when Feaster was in charge.
Mark this down fellas, barring injury, this coming season Glencross will top the 50 point mark with 20+ goals while still remaining a plus player. $2.5 million sounds like a great deal for that - after all, we'd be happy to pay only $5,000,000 for a 100 point player. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 14:45:23
I don't think Glencross is the kind of player you lose sleep over. He is a good hockey player, no doubt. But is he great??? Is he a game changer?? Is the kind of guy you don't want to lose?? I personally don't see it.
Someone brought up Manny Malhotra. Here is a guy who is a quintessential 3rd line centre. Stifling defense, produces points(around a 30 point player for 6 consecutive seasons), can play where ever needed, and most importantly is the best faceoff guy in the NHL today. When the game is on the line, Manny Malhotra is the guy you want taking the face off in your zone.
He get's $2.5 million a season for 3 years. Is Glencross worth the same or more than Malhotra??? I don't think so.
And as far as the Oilers missing Glencross, I give you Ryan Jones. 18 goals, heart and grit, solid 2 way hockey player, signed off waivers for less than $1 million.
Glencross is not a type of player that commands the respect he was given with this contract. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 14:19:14
For those who think the Oilers missed the boat by not signing Glencross in 2008, you just have to remind yourself about a player named Scott Fraser.
Similar to Glencross, Fraser put up some very good numbers for the Oilers during the 1997-1998 season: 12 goals and 11 assists in the Oilers last 29 games of the season. The Rangers offered Fraser a ridiculous sum of money (I think it was 2 years at a $1 million per year, which was a lot of money back then), so the Oilers let him go.
Skip ahead ten years to 2008, and the Oilers may have been thinking about Scott Fraser when making the decision about Glencross.
Both players were about the same age (26 years old), similar size, and with limited NHL experience. Was Glencross' production in the 2007-2008 season a fluke? (9 goals, 4 assists in 26 games with the Oilers.) Or would he go on to do well in the NHL? The Oilers were not so sure at the time (or at the very least, not sure enough to pay him what he wanted), so the Flames ended up picking up Glencross, who proved himself to be well worth $1.2 million a year for the three years he played in Calgary.
And what ever happened to Scott Fraser? He went on to play exactly two more games in the NHL (for the Rangers), so sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. (And there's nothing like hindsight when viewing and analyzing trades and signings years later.) But I bet the Oilers wish they signed Glencross when they had the chance in 2008, and maybe today, we would be discussing the merits of the re-signing from an Oilers perspective rather than a Flames perspective. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 12:22:03
quote:
I don't see it as an over-pay money wise, I see it as an over-pay based on length of the deal and the no trade clause. 3rd line spots are commonly used for bringing along talent so Calgary locking this guy up tells me there isn't much talent on the farm to develop.
Perhaps CGY doesn't see Glencross playing on the third line next year. He certainly showed that he's capable of scoring if given the opportunity with quality linemates, so I would think CGY wants him to slot in on the second line.
Since joining CGY, Glencross has twice had 40 point seasons, and seems to be good for 1pt/2gm. He's hit 40 points per season twice now, why do you not think he'll do it again?
quote:
Who gives a 3rd line player a no trade clause???
VAN gave Malhotra a limited NTC, although I'm not sure what the limits are. He's the only dedicated 3rd line player I can think of that has one, perhaps there are others. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 11:22:44
I gotta agree with Slozo on this one. I see it as more than a player like Glencross is worth. He is a top teir 3rd line player, which means he is ranked in and around the 180(at best) of 360 forwards in the NHL today. I watched him when he was in Edmonton as well as his time in Calgary and although I agree with what people are saying (gritty, works hard, tough to play against) so what. There is a Curtis Glencross or two on every team in the NHL. What makes this guy worth $10 million and a 4 yr deal?? I see his 25 goals and 45 points as overachieving. He is closer to a 15 goal-35 point guy skills wise who benefited from some injuries and time on the 1st and 2nd lines in Calgary last year.
My issue is less with the $2.5 per season as it is a 4 year deal with a no trade clause. That is borderline absurd. Who gives a 3rd line player a no trade clause???
I don't see it as an over-pay money wise, I see it as an over-pay based on length of the deal and the no trade clause. 3rd line spots are commonly used for bringing along talent so Calgary locking this guy up tells me there isn't much talent on the farm to develop. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 11:02:17
IMO this deal is worth it if Glencross continues to play at his current rate of 45-ish points a year. He brings other things to the table, he's a very hard player to play against and will grind your top players down. Extremely physical, hard nosed player, he'll punish anyone he plays against.
Like I said, he's the kind of guy you wish was on your team when you play against him. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/17/2011 : 05:01:55
Seems too high. I get what you are saying Leigh, but that is going on the assumption that Glencross continues to produce at the current rate or get better . . . he seems like a decent young player, but, guys producing at his level are not guaranteed to rise to another level in a year or two.
But, the Flames organisation would know better than I do on how talented he is, so obviously they see something I don't.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 20:13:49
Jay Feaster has a tough job ahead of him.
The Flames have the second highest sitting payroll for the 2011-2012 season, with only a partial lineup on the books.
They only have four defensemen signed, and these four defensemen (Bouwmeester, Giordano, Regehr, Sarich) make over $18 million between them. Their top nine forwards are on the books for around $30 million, and Kipper comes in at just under $6 million.
This doesn't leave much room for any other players, maybe $5 million for other signings, recognizing a $59 million salary cap.
Was the Glencross signing a good move? Sure, but signing Glencross to a $10 million deal over four years is easy to do. Let's see what Jay Feaster does next (and next after that) in making the Flames a playoff team next season. The Flames are not in a rebuild like their northern neighbours. Their fans expect more from this team, and now, not later.
|
| Awesome One |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 14:22:29
Great move by the newly permenant GM, Jay Feaster!
Making the world more awesome, one step at a time! |
| leigh |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 13:39:02
I like is signing. I think that deals of more than 2 or 3 years (but not 6, 7 or 8+) are designed to average out over the course of the deal. So he might be over paid for the first season but for seasons 2 and 3 he's worth it and by the 4th year he's under paid. So it's all good.
You can pretty much guarantee 40 points from him, but we'll likely see him at 45 or 50 or so this season. For $2.5 million that isn't too bad. By the time this deal expires we might see him reach as high as 70 pts so I'm happy with it. He's rumoured to be a good character guy and his work ethic is good during the games. Yep, good deal. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 12:51:08
Wow – good for Glencross! I agree – he's a very good role player, and with him coming off a 24-goal season, he's getting rewarded very well.
I think it's a bit (emphasis on bit) too much for Glencross though. $2.55 million per year for four years is a lot of money for a player of his calibre.
He's always been a plus player though, even going back to his brief stints with the Jackets and Oilers. Many Oilers fans were upset when the Oilers didn't sign him after the 2007-2008 season, especially when the Flames picked him up for only $1.2 million a season for three years. (The Oilers were only prepared to offer him about a million a year, and for two years.)
Glencross tallied 9 goals in only 26 games for the Oilers in 2008, and I was not the only fan who thought they should have signed him, and for about the same money as the Flames paid.
With the recent signing, I suspect the Flames were motivated in keeping him in Calgary, and in paying a bit on the high side, they wanted to make sure he didn't get picked up by another team, and in particular, the Oilers! |
|
|
