Rumor: Luke Glendening linked to Toronto (Pagnotta The Fourth Period)

[ottomaddox]

Rehashing a trade rumor from three years ago lol

I'm sorry. Why is that funny?

 

[ottomaddox]

Glendenning isn't an acquisition where I go "Now that team has a much better chance of making noise in the playoffs!" I doubt this trade happens unless we want C depth because as a player I'd rather Engvall as the 3C over Glendenning.

I honestly don't see why anyone would think Engvall is so much better than Glendening. Perhaps he skates faster?

 

[Ezekial]

It's almost like he plays on the worst team in the league and we know that when evaluating him...

I am not going to lose any sleep over it, he is likely the most impactful guy we will trade if he is put in the right role. I don't really want him staying in division by helping a team go on a deep run and staying there.

Glendening also spends a lot more time on the PK than every leafs forward. He averages 2:32 a game on a bottom 3 PK, the highest Leafs forward is Zach Hyman with 2:05, Engvall spends 32 seconds a game out there - sure their PK isn't world beaters but they are definitely better situated as a team.

You can't just look at their PK rate stats and say that Glendening would be a worse PKer than everyone on the Leafs. You want to have a vacuum in statistical analysis, way too many different impacting factors to compare players from different teams that way, extremely disingenuous argument there.

 

[2022 Stanley Cup]

I honestly don't see why anyone would think Engvall is so much better than Glendening. Perhaps he skates faster?

Skates faster, offensive upside, really does not stand out as a poor player and he plays well in the flow of the game. I wouldn't call him an optimal #3C but I have no issue with him as one.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

3 main problems with your theory:

1) DET's PK with the great Luke Glendening is worse than TOR's without the great Luke Glendening, and is 3rd or 4th from the bottom of the league.

2) TOR is top 10 in the league on FOW%- I mean it's like you guys for some reason are building a need for a replacement level player with a specific skillset... yet the team you think should trade for him doesn't have a need there.

3) You presuppose that the only player available who could improve TOR's pk is Luke Glendening. There may be players internally who could do that. Players available on waivers who could do that. Players available for a trade where a team is realistic about returns and doesn't think this player would return something ridiculous like many DET fans are saying in this thread.

Finally, rebuilding a team is about the sum of its parts and insulating young players by having key vets to do some of the dirty work.

Amazing that Red Wings fans are so desperate to send off this perfect soldier who fills so many roles.

I think that's the issue actually, Red Wings fans are very much not desperate to move Glendenning. He's a solid 4th line center and an asset on faceoffs and the penalty kill. He wears an "A" and he's very close with Larkin. Without guys like Glendenning in the lineup, our team goes from your run of the mill basement dweller to a uniquely bad team- almost as bad as Buffalo. I think whether or not we sell him as a rental, most Wings fans would like to see him offered a contract this summer.

If playoffs teams like Toronto don't think he's worth trading their 2nd, that's totally fine. I would never tell another fan that they have to pay what we want. But by the same token, you have to set a price for your players and set parameters for how far you're willing to budge. If you ask for a 2nd and you're not getting it, maybe you take a 3rd or a 3rd plus a rando prospect. Context matters here, and we already have three 2nds and two 3rds this year. Sure more are nice, but we're certainly not desperate for more picks in the 50-80 range.

The Leafs' 4th is, what, the 110th - 120th pick? That's basically a non-asset. Picks that late usually move when a GM wants to do a player a favor and give him a chance to play playoff hockey or get more minutes somewhere.

My impression is that the Wings view Glendenning as an asset, and the media buzz around his trade likelihood suggests the same. In that case I think the asking price is in the ballpark of a 2nd, otherwise we probably start extension talks.

 

[Budz]

I think he’s worth a 3rd.

 

[cupcrazyman]

3rd rounder me thinks.

Ideal fit.

We already traded that away. lol

 

[Dr Quincy]

Personally I'm not desperate to send him off at all (hence why I don't think it's even worth it if the return would be a ~4th rounder) and I would love to re-sign him in the offseason regardless if he's traded or not. He's a great guy to have around and we have no immediate replacement for what he does. I'm also pragmatic and obviously in a rebuild adding futures is important and I also believe Glendening deserves a shot at playing for a good team.

What I take issue with is the idea that Glendening would serve no purpose on the Leafs, or that his value is extremely low.

1) Is just silly. It would be like saying you wouldn't want to add Kaprizov to your team and your powerplay since Minnesota's PP is league worst.
2) is simplified. Again, none of the guys driving the overall faceoff stats for Toronto are playing PK. It's also a very losing attitude to say "we're 8th, that's good enough". Cup winners try to improve even areas that are "pretty good".
3) Sure. So do that. If you think guys that can go 60+% on faceoffs are on waivers, easily acquired for nothing, or sitting on your AHL team, go with them.

1) It's just silly to think that Luke Glendending is going to improve TOR's PK when there's no evidence he's actually all that good at it. I mean, yeah he kills penalties on 1 of the worst teams in the league. Great. Sam Gagner plays on the pp on that same team. That doesn't mean he can help another team's pp. DET's PK with Luke Glendening on it is awful. So yeah, that's really great evidence he's good at it... no it's actually "lazy" and "just silly". What's ludicrous is comparing any aspect of Luke Glendening to Kaprizov. Good job.

2) Don't worry about what Cup winners need to improve on. Worry about what the worst team in the league needs to improve on.

3) That 60% faceoff % of Glendening results in really bad relative possession numbers on a horrendous team. Quite the correlation there between Glendening's faceoff abilities and winning..... or even his line doing well compared to other lines on a bad team.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Glendening also spends a lot more time on the PK than every leafs forward. He averages 2:32 a game on a bottom 3 PK, the highest Leafs forward is Zach Hyman with 2:05, Engvall spends 32 seconds a game out there - sure their PK isn't world beaters but they are definitely better situated as a team.

You can't just look at their PK rate stats and say that Glendening would be a worse PKer than everyone on the Leafs. You want to have a vacuum in statistical analysis, way too many different impacting factors to compare players from different teams that way, extremely disingenuous argument there.

Absolutely agree. But you can't also just say "He'll improve TOR's pk." He may. He may not.

If a team is spending draft pick assets is improving that one narrow specific area the best place to spend your capital? For MAYBE a marginal upgrade on PK?

 

[Pavels Dog]

1) It's just silly to think that Luke Glendending is going to improve TOR's PK when there's no evidence he's actually all that good at it. I mean, yeah he kills penalties on 1 of the worst teams in the league. Great. Sam Gagner plays on the pp on that same team. That doesn't mean he can help another team's pp. DET's PK with Luke Glendening on it is awful. So yeah, that's really great evidence he's good at it... no it's actually "lazy" and "just silly". What's ludicrous is comparing any aspect of Luke Glendening to Kaprizov. Good job.

2) Don't worry about what Cup winners need to improve on. Worry about what the worst team in the league needs to improve on.

3) That 60% faceoff % of Glendening results in really bad relative possession numbers on a horrendous team. Quite the correlation there between Glendening's faceoff abilities and winning..... or even his line doing well compared to other lines on a bad team.

So you agree Kaprizov could help a team's powerplay even though the team he's on has the league's worst powerplay?

Having watched a cup winner/contender for 20+ years up until recently I feel like I have a decent idea about the type of moves that are smart to make if you want to contend. As a Leafs fan, I understand completely if you haven't checked with your great-great-great grandfather for stories about the last time the Leafs were a contender.

 

[Oddbob]

There's a lot of 4th liners out there that have great defensive and PK abilities. They don't fetch 2nd round picks let alone 1sts the vast majority of the time.

I don't agree that there is a lot of "great" defensive 4th liners. There are lots of good ones, but Luke is better than the majority and is Top 5 league wide in faceoff ability which is important on the PK. I think a late 2nd; or early 3rd plus mild prospect is about fair for him.

 

[Dr Quincy]

So you agree Kaprizov could help a team's powerplay even though the team he's on has the league's worst powerplay?

Having watched a cup winner/contender for 20+ years up until recently I feel like I have a decent idea about the type of moves that are smart to make if you want to contend. As a Leafs fan, I understand completely if you haven't checked with your great-great-great grandfather for stories about the last time the Leafs were a contender.

Thanks, not a Leafs fan. Just not a fan of giving assets for waiver fodder players. Please keep Glendening. He's a perfect player for a team 30 pts from the playoffs.

 

[PullHard]

Guys idk the reason but Dr Quincy has been bashing on Glendening for a while now, it is a pattern in his posting history, best to just leave him to his opinion and not engage with that level of silliness (trying to tell Wings fans to worry how to build successful teams )

 

[Oddbob]

Engvall doesn't need to be the "God of hockey". He just needs to play responsible hockey. Wouldn't mind Glendening for the Taxi squad but not paying a 2nd for a player you hope doesn't make into he line up.

What a dumb opinion. Luke Glendening is good enough to be in any teams lineup in the league, not some guy you hope never plays. Fine if you don't want to pay to get him, but pretending he is taxi squad at best, shows your ignorance to what makes a good NHL player.

 

[drw02]

1) It's just silly to think that Luke Glendending is going to improve TOR's PK when there's no evidence he's actually all that good at it. I mean, yeah he kills penalties on 1 of the worst teams in the league. Great. Sam Gagner plays on the pp on that same team. That doesn't mean he can help another team's pp. DET's PK with Luke Glendening on it is awful. So yeah, that's really great evidence he's good at it... no it's actually "lazy" and "just silly". What's ludicrous is comparing any aspect of Luke Glendening to Kaprizov. Good job.

2) Don't worry about what Cup winners need to improve on. Worry about what the worst team in the league needs to improve on.

3) That 60% faceoff % of Glendening results in really bad relative possession numbers on a horrendous team. Quite the correlation there between Glendening's faceoff abilities and winning..... or even his line doing well compared to other lines on a bad team.

It's almost as if a PK functions as a 4/3 man unit which is only as strong as it's weakest link and the rest of Detroit's PK units are average at best. It's comical how many times he'll win a face off back only for the D to make some half ass clearing attempt that doesn't get out of the zone. Every single one of Wings D has this strange issue of being unable to consistently shoot a puck down to the other end of the ice.

Analytics are useful and all but lack context and generally aren't as forgiving for players on bad teams. It's easy to see if you actually watch that Glendening is a valuable 4C/PK specialist, which is probably why there is interest in him from contending teams

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Thanks, not a Leafs fan. Just not a fan of giving assets for waiver fodder players. Please keep Glendening. He's a perfect player for a team 30 pts from the playoffs.

You don't know which one Glendening is on the ice, do you? You clearly have no frame of reference here. He's not a high trade value guy, but he is an excellent 4th liner, a very good PKer, and an overall very high work ethic guy who will be key on a long playoff run for any team.

The arguments you've put forth in this thread have been absolutely ridiculous. I sorta wonder if you're trolling. You actually argued that Glendening cannot be that good of a PKer because Detroit's PK is bad. Have you seen the team around him? Divine revelation: they are horrible, and that is why Detroit's PK is bad. No one player can make Detroit's PK good.

 

[Shaman464]

Luke Glendening is not the difference between contending or not.
Luke Glendening is not the difference between 1st rd exit or not.

Nope but he might be the difference between holding a lead in a game 7. Or winning a critical faceoff and working a penalty kill. In the playoffs every save, FO win, successful PK becomes that much more important. The TML will not get far trying to out score a team like Tampa, and they don't have the depth to go against a Dallas or VGK. So unless they can make the most of every opportunity they will flounder, and I will giggle.

 

[Dr Quincy]

You don't know which one Glendening is on the ice, do you? You clearly have no frame of reference here. He's not a high trade value guy, but he is an excellent 4th liner, a very good PKer, and an overall very high work ethic guy who will be key on a long playoff run for any team.

The arguments you've put forth in this thread have been absolutely ridiculous. I sorta wonder if you're trolling. You actually argued that Glendening cannot be that good of a PKer because Detroit's PK is bad. Have you seen the team around him? Divine revelation: they are horrible, and that is why Detroit's PK is bad. No one player can make Detroit's PK good.

I was writing a much longer in depth piece by piece counter but hit the back button by accident, so I'll address this one point.

No.

That's not my argument.

YOUR argument (and others DRW fans' argument) is that he will make the TML pk better. You've offered no substance at all. No evidence. No nothing other than "He plays pk on our team a lot, so he must be good." You even now admit that he can't make your pk even mediocre.

I agree that's not his fault. Maybe the Dmen are a bigger piece of it. Maybe the goalie is even a bigger piece of it.

TOTALLY AGREE.

So if you are TML and you think the pk is your #1 (and I don't think it is.. but whatever)... do you use your few precious assets to add a player you now admit can't influence the pk all that much or do you add a D or a G who will influence it more. I mean, you are saying that he can't make a PK better by himself.

So what's the point of trading for him then?

Finally..I do think faceoffs have "some" importance. How much? Who knows. It's overrated by some and underrated by others. It's useful to have faceoff guys. But TOR has faceoff guys.

Oh but those guys don't pk someone said. Do you know what Glendening's F0% on the PK is this year?

50%.

So yeah... TML should give up a 2nd and a prospect for a guy who
1) you now admit can't improve a pk by himself
2) can't improve a pk faceoff situation by himself

The number of DRW fans trying to "sell" him just proves my points- y'all really don't want him. I'll say it again.... if he's so indispensible he'd be the exact kind of player for you to keep and let your team grow around him.

So keep him.
No need to sell anyone on him.
Keep him.
No need to defend his honor.
Keep him.
No need to argue with anyone.
Keep him.

 

[Castle8130]

Conclusion:

Wings fans: Glendening's price is a 2nd rounder

Leafs Fans: I'm not willing to trade a 2nd rounder

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

The number of DRW fans trying to "sell" him just proves my points- y'all really don't want him. I'll say it again.... if he's so indispensible he'd be the exact kind of player for you to keep and let your team grow around him.

So keep him.
No need to sell anyone on him.
Keep him.
No need to defend his honor.
Keep him.
No need to argue with anyone.
Keep him.

This is a pretty deliberate mis-framing of the issue. No Red Wings fan is saying that Luke Glendenning is indispensable or a building block player. We're saying he's a good 4C/PK specialist who we would rather keep but would sell as a rental for a fair offer (2nd round pick).

You can go back and forth about his value as a penalty killer. Most folks wouldn't view our team pk numbers as an indictment on Glendenning, because most folks know our defensemen are probably the league's worst. My impression is that Glendenning is viewed around the league as a pk asset, which is why he's listed on most sites as an asset this trade deadline. Not saying Bleacher Report is gospel, but after a quick google search of "nhl best penalty killers" here's a list from a few years back where Glendenning showed up. Ranking the NHL's 10 Best Penalty-Killers in the 2016-17 Season

Here he is listed on the Athletic's Big Board of trade assets: NHL Trade Deadline Big Board: Taylor Hall, Mattias Ekholm and 28 others who could be dealt

Idk, my impression is that he's seen around the league as a decent asset. No one is desperate to sell him. In a rebuild, you'd probably take a 2nd or maybe a 3rd and change. If you can't get that oh well, try and extend him for a couple years.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Glendening deserves to play in the playoffs. Any team that acquires him wont regret it. He's built for the playoffs. As for the price, I would ask for a 2nd to someone desperate. When there are no takers I would settle for a 3rd.

 

[Leaf Fans]

So you agree Kaprizov could help a team's powerplay even though the team he's on has the league's worst powerplay?

Having watched a cup winner/contender for 20+ years up until recently I feel like I have a decent idea about the type of moves that are smart to make if you want to contend. As a Leafs fan, I understand completely if you haven't checked with your great-great-great grandfather for stories about the last time the Leafs were a contender.

Early 2000s or winners 1967 either way great-great grandfather is hyperbole.

 

[RedHawkDown]

Lmao what kind of arguments are going on in here. A player playing on a bad PK doesn't mean they cant improve the PK... the PK would be even worse without him. Hence, yes, he does improve the PK.

HFBoards never fails to disappoint.

 

[RedMenace]

1) It's just silly to think that Luke Glendending is going to improve TOR's PK when there's no evidence he's actually all that good at it. I mean, yeah he kills penalties on 1 of the worst teams in the league. Great. Sam Gagner plays on the pp on that same team. That doesn't mean he can help another team's pp. DET's PK with Luke Glendening on it is awful. So yeah, that's really great evidence he's good at it... no it's actually "lazy" and "just silly". What's ludicrous is comparing any aspect of Luke Glendening to Kaprizov. Good job.

2) Don't worry about what Cup winners need to improve on. Worry about what the worst team in the league needs to improve on.

3) That 60% faceoff % of Glendening results in really bad relative possession numbers on a horrendous team. Quite the correlation there between Glendening's faceoff abilities and winning..... or even his line doing well compared to other lines on a bad team.

This entire post (along with most of your others in this thread) ranges from "disingenuous" to "just silly." Did Luke Glendening kick your girlfriend or something?

Early 2000s or winners 1967 either way great-great grandfather is hyperbole.

Pretty sure 2008 counts as the late 2000s, unless you're counting the entire century or millennium.

 

[Leaf Fans]

This entire post (along with most of your others in this thread) ranges from "disingenuous" to "just silly." Did Luke Glendening kick your girlfriend or something?



Pretty sure 2008 counts as the late 2000s, unless you're counting the entire century or millennium.

We didn't make the playoffs in 2008. Wings won it that year if memory still serves me correctly. I was just was talking about when the Leafs were contenders. The only criterion I put on it was that a contender would make the conference final.