Trade Value of: Luke Glendening.

[WingedWheel1987]

"Need" is a funny thing. Why do we "need" to trade Glendening?

Because he is pointless to have on this roster and a draft pick is far more valuable.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Because he is pointless to have on this roster and a draft pick is far more valuable.

You don't explain the need to trade him very well. "pointless on this roster" doesn't mean he'd be pointless a few years from now when maybe we're in the playoffs again with a young core. And is a 3rd or 4th round pick now better than getting a 2nd 1-2 years from now when he has less term left and some team is more eager to get him?

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

You don't explain the need to trade him very well. "pointless on this roster" doesn't mean he'd be pointless a few years from now when maybe we're in the playoffs again with a young core. And is a 3rd or 4th round pick now better than getting a 2nd 1-2 years from now when he has less term left and some team is more eager to get him?

Trade him now
Gain an asset
Use cap space this summer on one year UFA
Trade said player next TDL
Gain another asset

This team will not be good during glendenings current contract years

 

[Pavels Dog]

Trade him now
Gain an asset
Use cap space this summer on one year UFA
Trade said player next TDL
Gain another asset

This team will not be good during glendenings current contract years

Still no good reason to trade Glendening specifially unless some team is absolutely in love with him and wants to give up a 1st or at minimum 2nd round pick.

Green, Mrazek/Howard, XO, Nyquist/Tatar, Witkowski, Booth, Daley.. these are more than enough assets to dangle in the trade market for now. Having 14 or 15 picks in the '18 draft is not a big enough difference that we need to stress a Glendening trade. Keep him, do all the other things you say, re-evaluate team next year, rinse-repeat. Saying "we will not be good during Glendening's contract" is such a BS statement when we could have added Rasmus Dahlin, Jack Hughes, Rasmussen, Cholowski, Hronek, Saarijarvi, Hicketts, Svechnikov and many others to the roster in that timeframe. Who the F knows what kind of team we will be in 1 year, let alone 4?

 

[jkutswings]

Still no good reason to trade Glendening specifially unless some team is absolutely in love with him and wants to give up a 1st or at minimum 2nd round pick.

Green, Mrazek/Howard, XO, Nyquist/Tatar, Witkowski, Booth, Daley.. these are more than enough assets to dangle in the trade market for now. Having 14 or 15 picks in the '18 draft is not a big enough difference that we need to stress a Glendening trade. Keep him, do all the other things you say, re-evaluate team next year, rinse-repeat. Saying "we will not be good during Glendening's contract" is such a BS statement when we could have added Rasmus Dahlin, Jack Hughes, Rasmussen, Cholowski, Hronek, Saarijarvi, Hicketts, Svechnikov and many others to the roster in that timeframe. Who the F knows what kind of team we will be in 1 year, let alone 4?

1) Glendening isn't a key player, and has a very replaceable skill set. If there's even a low 2nd rounder in the mix, I'd jump at the chance.

2) Even if they somehow land Dahlin, AND more kids come up, AND those kids do well... This team isn't getting out of the first round, and likely isn't even making the playoffs. It's a longer fix than even one drafted stud (and a few smaller pieces).

I'm not giving Luke away for a bag of pucks, but a 4th liner who plays well on the PK and scores a bit isn't exactly a unicorn to clutch tightly, either.

 

[Henkka]

San Jose is trying to find a 4th line center.

But I still see Glendening as a valuable guy for Detroit-Grand Rapids connection.

 

[Pavels Dog]

1) Glendening isn't a key player, and has a very replaceable skill set. If there's even a low 2nd rounder in the mix, I'd jump at the chance.

2) Even if they somehow land Dahlin, AND more kids come up, AND those kids do well... This team isn't getting out of the first round, and likely isn't even making the playoffs. It's a longer fix than even one drafted stud (and a few smaller pieces).

I'm not giving Luke away for a bag of pucks, but a 4th liner who plays well on the PK and scores a bit isn't exactly a unicorn to clutch tightly, either.

1) So why not wait and trade Glenny when we have someone that replaces his replacable skillset? He’s not a UFA. Let him
spend a summer or two helping Rasmussen or other kids with offseason training like he did with Larkin. We can trade him in 19 or 20, likely for a better return.

2) More BS speculation. 4 years is a long time. But don’t see how it matters. Glenny can be traded later if we see the team isn’t going anywhere.

 

[Reddwit]

I think Glendening could get a 2nd. We might be adding a late pick but I really think he’d be a hot commodity.

 

[Redder Winger]

1) So why not wait and trade Glenny when we have someone that replaces his replacable skillset? He’s not a UFA. Let him
spend a summer or two helping Rasmussen or other kids with offseason training like he did with Larkin. We can trade him in 19 or 20, likely for a better return.

2) More BS speculation. 4 years is a long time. But don’t see how it matters. Glenny can be traded later if we see the team isn’t going anywhere.

Stop crying.
A guy like Turgeon is supposed to take Glendening's place.
That's exactly who I'd use to replace him.

If you get a good return for Luke Glendening, you ship him out.

There's also a good chance Glendening's body breaks down by the end of his year, with his game, and at his age.
So waiting to trade him comes with risks.

 

[Reddwit]

1) So why not wait and trade Glenny when we have someone that replaces his replacable skillset? He’s not a UFA. Let him
spend a summer or two helping Rasmussen or other kids with offseason training like he did with Larkin. We can trade him in 19 or 20, likely for a better return.

2) More BS speculation. 4 years is a long time. But don’t see how it matters. Glenny can be traded later if we see the team isn’t going anywhere.

A guy with Glendening’s skill set may be overlooked but it isn’t rare. He can be replaced easily with a little proactive scouting. If you trade him and want to prioritize finding his replacement, it can be done. And the Wings have plenty of time and resources for a little trial and error.

 

[Redder Winger]

"Need" is a funny thing. Why do we "need" to trade Glendening?

Read the post I was responding to and maybe you'll understand.
How many Danny Clearys do we need to make sure the young kids have character around?

The idea we needed a Cleary around was always bullshit anyway.

 

[SoupGuru]

Every team needs players like Glendening so why not keep him? Oh right, "easily replaceable". You're confident that we can find that sort of guy cheaper? I'm not.

 

[Marky9er]

Every team needs players like Glendening so why not keep him? Oh right, "easily replaceable". You're confident that we can find that sort of guy cheaper? I'm not.

We can get him back when we're ready to contend, no need to worry about that. He can go full Dallas Drake.

 

[jkutswings]

Every team needs players like Glendening so why not keep him? Oh right, "easily replaceable". You're confident that we can find that sort of guy cheaper? I'm not.

It's not that I'm anxious to get rid if him. It's that he and nearly everybody else should be available, if there's a good return. So if there's not a good market for him next month, no biggie. But he's far from an off-limits type of player.

 

[Redder Winger]

Every team needs players like Glendening so why not keep him? Oh right, "easily replaceable". You're confident that we can find that sort of guy cheaper? I'm not.

Try Turgeon as 4C for the next 2-3 years.
If Turgeon doesn't cut, or if he's better than that, maybe Cristoffer Ehn is the man.

What are you worried about? That next year's team is going to not win the cup without Luke "never been been out of round 1" Glendening?

 

[Pavels Dog]

Try Turgeon as 4C for the next 2-3 years.
If Turgeon doesn't cut, or if he's better than that, maybe Cristoffer Ehn is the man.

What are you worried about? That next year's team is going to not win the cup without Luke "never been been out of round 1" Glendening?

Are you worried we’re never going to rebuild the team unless we add another mid-round pick and lose a cheap 28 year old who is awesome at his role?

Glendening and Turgeon can both be on the 4th line. Isn’t the whole idea to get better? Yet many are preaching a strategy of never actually ADDING to the team.

 

[Redder Winger]

Are you worried we’re never going to rebuild the team unless we add another mid-round pick and lose a cheap 28 year old who is awesome at his role?

Glendening and Turgeon can both be on the 4th line. Isn’t the whole idea to get better? Yet many are preaching a strategy of never actually ADDING to the team.

Who said anything about a mid-round pick?
I'm guessing that you don't read much and that you simply lash out at anything that you don't like.
Because in this thread I've said I trade Glendening for a 2nd.... maybe a third, and probably not a fourth.

But while Glendening has value - let's be honest.
He's not cheap at $1.8x 3 more years.
A lot of people think he's overpaid.

And while yes, Glendending and Turgeon can both be on L4 - but only one can be a 4C.
We can use Helm and Abdelkader and Bertuzzi as possible wingers for the remainder of the year.

Future 4th liners could be Giviani Smith, Lane Zablocki and Zach Gallant.

In July, there will be a boat load of potential fourth liners available on the market, including:
Leo Komarov
Blake Comeau
Jason Chimera
Matt Calvert
Shawn Matthias
Brad Richardson
Antoine Roussel
etc etc etc etc

So please, let's not act like Glendening is irreplaceable.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Who said anything about a mid-round pick?
I'm guessing that you don't read much and that you simply lash out at anything that you don't like.
Because in this thread I've said I trade Glendening for a 2nd.... maybe a third, and probably not a fourth.

But while Glendening has value - let's be honest.
He's not cheap at $1.8x 3 more years.
A lot of people think he's overpaid.

And while yes, Glendending and Turgeon can both be on L4 - but only one can be a 4C.
We can use Helm and Abdelkader and Bertuzzi as possible wingers for the remainder of the year.

Future 4th liners could be Giviani Smith, Lane Zablocki and Zach Gallant.

In July, there will be a boat load of potential fourth liners available on the market, including:
Leo Komarov
Blake Comeau
Jason Chimera
Matt Calvert
Shawn Matthias
Brad Richardson
Antoine Roussel
etc etc etc etc

So please, let's not act like Glendening is irreplaceable.

Mid-round pick is 2-4. He’s not irreplaceable but you do have to consider if you’re going to do much better than him in that role. Are those guys even going to hit UFA, and if they do will they be as cheap or accept short-term (1-2 years) deals? You talk about prospects who are a long way out and could all be nothing(or become top 9ers). Again, Glendening can be traded when we’re more sure about what we have. The thinking ”if we get a great offer, take it” can be applied to basically all our players. Realistically I don’t see any team desperately going after Glenny. We can get better returns by moving others, and re-visit trading Glenny next year. What’s the hurry?

 

[SpookyTsuki]

There’s no reason to remove glendenning at this point. Yeah he’s replaceable. But if holland is still the gm do you expect a similar player to get a lower contract in free agency? Come on now.

 

[ShelbyZ]

As far as Helm vs. Glendening... IMO, Glendening has far more value than Helm. He's younger, cheaper, more durable (at least for now), and far better when playing as a center.

I would think a contender that has a firmly established top-9 would love to have Glendening come in and take a shutdown/PK role from the 4th line.

That being said, I wouldn't trade him unless they are getting a Paul Gaustad level over payment thrown at them. The cap saving is a wash because the team likely throws out the same or more to replace him, and the pick the get in return isn't likely to return a player of significant impact unless it's in that Gaustad realm.

I think "easily-replaceable" is getting tossed around a bit too much here. A UFA option that delivers the same level of play likely costs the same or more, and would immediately be labeled another overpayment. On the other hand, simply promoting a warm body from GR that can take faceoffs and kill penalties at the AHL level is not a proper replacement. That is unless you think Glendening is on par with #4C studs like Cory Emmerton and Joakim Andersson. I thought plugging prospects into "grinding" roles at the NHL ruins their development?

 

[lilidk]

he is hardest working player on the team and he is main PK , shouldn't get traded.

 

[Redder Winger]

Mid-round pick is 2-4. He’s not irreplaceable but you do have to consider if you’re going to do much better than him in that role. Are those guys even going to hit UFA, and if they do will they be as cheap or accept short-term (1-2 years) deals? You talk about prospects who are a long way out and could all be nothing(or become top 9ers). Again, Glendening can be traded when we’re more sure about what we have. The thinking ”if we get a great offer, take it” can be applied to basically all our players. Realistically I don’t see any team desperately going after Glenny. We can get better returns by moving others, and re-visit trading Glenny next year. What’s the hurry?

A second round pick is "mid round?"
There are seven rounds.
Mid rounds are 3-4-5.
Not 2-3-4.

I have some knowledge of the English language and mid means middle.
So if you're choosing 3 rounds as the middle, it's 3-4-5.


You make Glendening available and if you get a good offer, you take it.

Who are the players we'll get more for?
Green?
Maybe Nyquist?
Is anyone going to lineup to take Tatar with his new deal and his inability to produce this year?

 

[Pavels Dog]

A second round pick is "mid round?"
There are seven rounds.
Mid rounds are 3-4-5.
Not 2-3-4.

I have some knowledge of the English language and mid means middle.
So if you're choosing 3 rounds as the middle, it's 3-4-5.


You make Glendening available and if you get a good offer, you take it.

Who are the players we'll get more for?
Green?
Maybe Nyquist?
Is anyone going to lineup to take Tatar with his new deal and his inability to produce this year?

Splitting hairs aside, I do agree with ”if we get a good offer trade him”. I just don’t think GMs everywhere would line up to spend 1st or 2nd round picks on Glenny if Green, Nyquist, Zuccarello, Mcdonagh, Vanek, Hoffman, and many others are available. Glendening is someone you likely need to actively shop in order to find the best return. We have others that Holland’s time is better spent shopping currently.

 

[Winger98]

Splitting hairs aside, I do agree with ”if we get a good offer trade him”. I just don’t think GMs everywhere would line up to spend 1st or 2nd round picks on Glenny if Green, Nyquist, Zuccarello, Mcdonagh, Vanek, Hoffman, and many others are available. Glendening is someone you likely need to actively shop in order to find the best return. We have others that Holland’s time is better spent shopping currently.

Yeah, that's what I'm still not seeing. One chunk of posts I see saying Glenny is a fourth liner who is replaceable and the other chunk is touting that he could pull in a 2nd. That doesn't match up for me.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yeah, that's what I'm still not seeing. One chunk of posts I see saying Glenny is a fourth liner who is replaceable and the other chunk is touting that he could pull in a 2nd. That doesn't match up for me.

It is all about needs at the time.

A guy isn't as replaceable at the trade deadline as he is during free agency. If you need a depth guy who can kill penalties and win faceoffs in the playoffs and there aren't a lot of teams willing to part with a guy like that you could get somewhat of an overpayment.

I do think getting a 2nd out of Glendening is wishful thinking, though.