HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Ben Bishop for Curtis Glencross

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-31-2013, 09:07 PM
  #126
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,946
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJsens1 View Post
You Flames fans are perplexing. Now I'm not saying that the Flames fans specifically in this thread are saying it, but the sentiments coming from Calgary are for a full rebuild. You guys just don't have the players for a rebuild on the fly. It needs to be from scratch. Correct me if I am wrong.

My point is what do you get out of keeping Glencross? He's 30. By the time you guys are 'contenders', he'll be, 34-35? And that's a generous timeline as your prospect pool is a complete mess. I realize you don't want to just give the guy away, but Kiprusoff is obviously not the answer between the pipes on long term. Bishop may or may not be, but for the short term he is pretty good. Moving forward with Glencross as a main piece makes no sense. He's not a long term piece for this team. Cut bait. Too bad you have a GM who is completely incompetent.
So because he doesn't fit into the current plans, he's garbage and should be traded for scraps? Can't maximize value on anyone? FFS

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:09 PM
  #127
Orange Thunder
Registered User
 
Orange Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,721
vCash: 500
Do it BMurr!

Orange Thunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:09 PM
  #128
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJsens1 View Post
You Flames fans are perplexing. Now I'm not saying that the Flames fans specifically in this thread are saying it, but the sentiments coming from Calgary are for a full rebuild. You guys just don't have the players for a rebuild on the fly. It needs to be from scratch. Correct me if I am wrong.

My point is what do you get out of keeping Glencross? He's 30. By the time you guys are 'contenders', he'll be, 34-35? And that's a generous timeline as your prospect pool is a complete mess. I realize you don't want to just give the guy away, but Kiprusoff is obviously not the answer between the pipes on long term. Bishop may or may not be, but for the short term he is pretty good. Moving forward with Glencross as a main piece makes no sense. He's not a long term piece for this team. Cut bait. Too bad you have a GM who is completely incompetent.
What part of 'he wants to stay and won't waive his NMC' is so hard to understand?

And then there's this concept of asset management. Why, when the reported price for Bishop is a 2nd+prospect, would the Flames give up Glencross, who, were he to be moved, could return a 1st+?

Some Other Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:10 PM
  #129
HighLifeMan
HFB Partner
 
HighLifeMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,948
vCash: 500
Trade everybody for anything and everything so long as it makes a little bit of sense!!!

-HFboards.

Calgary would have an interest in Bishop (as has been stated multiple times) but not for our most valuable trade chip, unless of course a significant asset was also involved (not a marginal piece in Da Costa..). Really, is it that hard to understand?

Perplexing mindset to have indeed..

HighLifeMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:11 PM
  #130
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
 
Powdered Toast Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,619
vCash: 500
Glencross is your most valuable trade chip? My lord.

Powdered Toast Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:11 PM
  #131
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobby View Post
Ok, I won't discuss further, but let's not ask like NMC/NTC haven't been broken before. At some point MOST players that want to win, will alter their demands to go to a team with a chance to win.

Look at where Calgary is heading can you see them being a contender the next 2/3 years? Please keep in mind who your GM is.
Most players yes, but not all.

Realistically, it's far more likely that Glencross, given his fervent love of all things Albertan, signs with the Oilers (who in theory could be competitive by that point) than accept a trade elsewhere. And seeing as how he has a NMC, the Flames can't do anything about it.

And the chances of Feaster being the GM beyond this season are slim.

Some Other Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:11 PM
  #132
Money Baer
COYS
 
Money Baer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Moose Jaw, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,857
vCash: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobby View Post
Yikes. Seriously?

Look the Flames are on a 3-4 year rebuild.
By then Glencross would be 34.
Plus two more years of this and he'll bolt for nothing.

Bishop + Da Costa + 4th = Glencross
Final offer!!!

You can start your re-build now, or stew in your own juices for 2/3 more years are start then..
Hahaha, buddy, you take these boards way to seriously. It's like you actually believe that we have power/control in these matters.. FINAL OFFER!!! Haha

Money Baer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:12 PM
  #133
Benny FTW
k
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido Sarducci View Post
OK. But I don't want Bishop. Cammalleri for Mark Stone, Chris Drieger and a 5th. Seem Reasonable?
LOL no.

Benny FTW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:14 PM
  #134
Ashasx
Registered User
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Again, I hope no problem picking up Bishop, but not at the cost of a fan favourite in Glencross.

The Flames aren't winning next year, regardless of the goaltender in net. I'd rather give Ramo the chance than spend assets on Bishop. And if he fails, who cares, we already had him as an asset. We just need a stop gap for a few years while Gillies and Brossoit develop. There's no rush to spend assets on a goaltender.

And if we still don't have a goalie in 3 years, THAT'S the time when we go out and get one. Not now. No goaltender is going to look good behind this team.

The thought of this happening makes me so angry, because I can actually see our idiot management do it.

Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:15 PM
  #135
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
You're comparing a player with 17 games + playoffs vs. a player with 15 games + 2 more seasons (at a stellar cap hit no less)

And "more" is a stretch as well.
Not really our pick will probably be in the teens and those prospects iggy returned couldn't get Calgary Bishop.

That was a better deal than what Iggy returned.

BK201 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:16 PM
  #136
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,880
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJsens1 View Post
You Flames fans are perplexing. Now I'm not saying that the Flames fans specifically in this thread are saying it, but the sentiments coming from Calgary are for a full rebuild. You guys just don't have the players for a rebuild on the fly. It needs to be from scratch. Correct me if I am wrong.

My point is what do you get out of keeping Glencross? He's 30. By the time you guys are 'contenders', he'll be, 34-35? And that's a generous timeline as your prospect pool is a complete mess. I realize you don't want to just give the guy away, but Kiprusoff is obviously not the answer between the pipes on long term. Bishop may or may not be, but for the short term he is pretty good. Moving forward with Glencross as a main piece makes no sense. He's not a long term piece for this team. Cut bait. Too bad you have a GM who is completely incompetent.
So we should trade everyone and tank for a few years? Man thats a pathetic thought process.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:16 PM
  #137
Skobel24
#Ignited
 
Skobel24's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx View Post
Again, I hope no problem picking up Bishop, but not at the cost of a fan favourite in Glencross.

The Flames aren't winning next year, regardless of the goaltender in net. I'd rather give Ramo the chance than spend assets on Bishop. And if he fails, who cares, we already had him as an asset.

The thought of this happening makes me so angry, because I can actually see our idiot management do it.
Knowing Feaster, it will be our 1st and Glencross for Bishop.

Skobel24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:17 PM
  #138
Cujomi
Bring Pesky Back
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameaholic View Post
You're not getting Glencross for Bishop. You'll need to add a prospect and/or 1st. Doesn't really matter, you're not getting Glencross.

Glencross and Giordano are two of the players I'd like to keep.
K. Glencross won't get you a 1st alone. Keep him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido Sarducci View Post
OK. But I don't want Bishop. Cammalleri for Mark Stone, Chris Drieger and a 5th. Seem Reasonable?
I think that's a reasonable trade.

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:18 PM
  #139
trobby
Registered User
 
trobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally31 View Post
Hahaha, buddy, you take these boards way to seriously. It's like you actually believe that we have power/control in these matters.. FINAL OFFER!!! Haha
I take it very serious!
Do you accept?
Remember, FINAL offer.

Next offer will include a 7th rounder + bone chips from Michalek's knee.

trobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:20 PM
  #140
Honour Over Glory
Registered User
 
Honour Over Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 500
The Senators would need to add, either a 2nd/1st + a mid level prospect. Glencross isn't a rental, the guy is signed to an insanely good deal for a 20+ goal scorer and is a top 6 winger. You can't be serious if that's the rumor, just those two 1 for 1.

While Ben has been solid for the Senators, he's 26 and has only proven he could play in the NHL, this season. That's still a pretty risky move to make. Feaster isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not that clueless.

Honour Over Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:20 PM
  #141
Ashasx
Registered User
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cujomi View Post
K. Glencross won't get you a 1st alone. Keep him.



I think that's a reasonable trade.
How does a 25+ goal scorer not get you a 1st rounder at the deadline?

When was the last time a 25+ goal scorer was traded for anything less? Nevermind a defensively responsible one who plays in all situations and has a fantastic contract.

Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:20 PM
  #142
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,880
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cujomi View Post
K. Glencross won't get you a 1st alone. Keep him.
Seriously 50 goals over the last 2 years and is on pace for 37 goals this year for only 2.5 million and he can't get a 1st. Good luck getting much for Bishop as Glencross value > Bishops value.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:20 PM
  #143
FolignoQuantumLeap
A mad Mup
 
FolignoQuantumLeap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A Blue Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,665
vCash: 500
I hope if we do make a trade for Glencross or Cammaleri, Da Costa gets sent the other way. I really like the kid and want to see him in the NHL. Doesn`t look like he`ll get much of a chance in Ottawa now that Zibanejad is breaking out. He can be a player in the Plekanec mold.

FolignoQuantumLeap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:21 PM
  #144
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,880
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobby View Post
I take it very serious!
Do you accept?
Remember, FINAL offer.

Next offer will include a 7th rounder + bone chips from Michalek's knee.
I wouldn't trade GlenX for Michalek.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:23 PM
  #145
EJsens1
Registered User
 
EJsens1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
So because he doesn't fit into the current plans, he's garbage and should be traded for scraps? Can't maximize value on anyone? FFS
Did I say he was garbage?
Did I make a proposal for scraps?

I keep seeing these sentiments that he wants to stay. I wouldn't take anything a professional athlete says one day to the media about him not wanting to go as gospel. My contention is long term, he's probably not going to be part of the solution. Probably best to try and move him now.

EJsens1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:24 PM
  #146
Honour Over Glory
Registered User
 
Honour Over Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cujomi View Post
K. Glencross won't get you a 1st alone. Keep him.



I think that's a reasonable trade.
Right, a 2.5m cap hit that has scored 50 goals combined the last 2yrs and has 14 this year in 31 games (on pace for another 25+ season) isn't worth a 1st to a team that still sees itself as a contender?

Ok, then what is he worth?

Calgary is better off keeping him if that's the case. His cap hit is too damn good to not have around while going through a rebuild. He would be a good guy to have around for that, yeah at his age he might want to play for a contender, but that's if he asks to be traded.

It amazes me that a team that has zero double digit goal scorers, wouldn't want one that can score and pay a good price for one at a bargain cap hit.

Honour Over Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:24 PM
  #147
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
If Glencross is from Alberta, signed to a good deal with a NMC, then we are wasting our time trying to obtain him.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido Sarducci View Post
OK. But I don't want Bishop. Cammalleri for Mark Stone, Chris Drieger and a 5th. Seem Reasonable?
Its a reasonable trade.

But I still wouldnt do it. I really dont want to get rid of Stone.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:25 PM
  #148
Honour Over Glory
Registered User
 
Honour Over Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
Seriously 50 goals over the last 2 years and is on pace for 37 goals this year for only 2.5 million and he can't get a 1st. Good luck getting much for Bishop as Glencross value > Bishops value.
Glencross is >> Bishop's value.

Bishop has 13 games under his belt this year where people are buzzing about him, at the grand ol' age of 26. Glencross has been a top 6 winger the past 3yrs now (including this one) and has scored 64 goals in these 3yrs combined.

I guess the Sens fans know something we don't, maybe Bishop sacrificed some animal and is going to take on the aura of Hasek.

Honour Over Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:26 PM
  #149
EJsens1
Registered User
 
EJsens1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
What part of 'he wants to stay and won't waive his NMC' is so hard to understand?

And then there's this concept of asset management. Why, when the reported price for Bishop is a 2nd+prospect, would the Flames give up Glencross, who, were he to be moved, could return a 1st+?
Like I said above to another poster, I didn't say you should just give him away. I didn't make any trade proposals. My point is he is probably not part of the long term solution as by the time you are competitive again, he's not going to be a key cog. That's why moving him now is better IMO.

EJsens1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2013, 09:28 PM
  #150
Skobel24
#Ignited
 
Skobel24's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJsens1 View Post
Did I say he was garbage?
Did I make a proposal for scraps?

I keep seeing these sentiments that he wants to stay. I wouldn't take anything a professional athlete says one day to the media about him not wanting to go as gospel. My contention is long term, he's probably not going to be part of the solution. Probably best to try and move him now.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem trading him. If he were willing to waive, I'd go for it. Just not for Bishop (Again, unless something else were added)

Skobel24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.