ottomaddox
Registered User
Rehashing a trade rumor from three years ago lol
I'm sorry. Why is that funny?
Rehashing a trade rumor from three years ago lol
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.
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.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.
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.I honestly don't see why anyone would think Engvall is so much better than Glendening. Perhaps he skates faster?
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.
3rd rounder me thinks.
Ideal fit.
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.
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.
So you agree Kaprizov could help a team's powerplay even though the team he's on has the league's worst powerplay?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Luke Glendening is not the difference between contending or not.
Luke Glendening is not the difference between 1st rd exit or not.
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.
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.
Early 2000s or winners 1967 either way great-great grandfather is hyperbole.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.
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.
Early 2000s or winners 1967 either way great-great grandfather is hyperbole.
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.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.