Elliot Friedman believes Treliving may not be back next season

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Flash may be correct in his thoughts that he might have dropped this as a favor to Treliving to put pressure on the Flames. Might actually get him even more access as a result.

The more I think about this the more it makes sense.

Eliott says he started thinking this after people around the league were asking him what's going on.

If that's the case, how do people around the league know about Treliving's contract status? In my opinion, there are a couple of different ways Eliott comes to this conclusion:

1) He has to protect Treliving, his source, by coming up with an alternate explanation for this theory
2) Other teams have inquired as to the contract status of Treliving and have been informed it's up at the end of the year.
3) I don't recall any public mention of the length of treliving's deal, but perhaps there is a league source that knows the parameters of the contract and either let Friedman know or Friedman found out from a different source that had the information from the league.
4) Burke has let it slip to help put pressure on the Flames ownership to commit to Treliving for a longer term which might help Burke transition to Hockey USA.
5) Treliving has been letting his pending free agency known around the league.

[Ryan Coke]

I think the coach has a big role to play in preparation and motivation, which is where I see this team lacking badly.

I'm fine with the system, but even then if you lose the better part of a season trying to get players to learn the system then that is a coaching fault as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by BrownDrake

GM's don't get fired or not extended after 3 years during a rebuild unless they have made tremendous errors or have proven extreme incompetence.

The average tenure of NHL GM's is over 7 years I think.

Silly and baseless speculation on Friedmans' part, probably going to cost him some access or credibility with this organization.

See, I'm almost on board with you on this in that I keep reading through the synopsis, and it feels like Friedman's making a real stretch here based on the fact that halfway through the season Treliving isn't signed.

Like when I read this synopsis by Cecil which is pretty accurate to the interview I heard this morning

oesn't think they're gonna be sellers, not how they operate as an organization
- Pinder brings up Wideman and Fried says he's been on the block for a while he thinks
- Engelland is not a core piece so selling him wouldn't make them sellers
- Nashville has woken up
- thinks Flames'll stay the course
- Heard some teams had called about Bennett on Thurs/Fri
- Tre said no not avail
- Knows somebody who knows the Flames org and they're comfortable to do things differently
- Flames say it isn't ominous that they won't sign Tre to extension yet
- But Friedman says it is hard to see it that way because 31 teams don't do that
- Doesn't know the outcome
- Even if flames make playoffs, not 100% convinced Tre will be GM next year
- Doesn't think Tre will make desperate stupid moves at deadline to save his job
- Pinder follows up and says that the pressure may force Tre to make desperate moves, Fried responds by saying that's not how he operated in Arizona
- panic trade hurts Tre's future, won't do that, hurt chances of new job if necessary
- Doesn't think Maloney is angling for job if Flames don't sign Tre
- Boomer brings up meddling ownership but makes it clear he's just repeating other peoples' rumours and that he doesn't believe them but notes that the meddling thing will only get more attention
- Friedman says "I realized this because other guys were saying to me "whats going on there?"'
- Says it is a "bad look" referring to Tre not having a contract
- Lots of people would say Flames have a good looking roster, wouldn't have trouble finding a GM

there's nothing in there that indicates anything solid and it feels like Friedman is making a massive leap based on a contract, and then it feels like he's piling on rumors and stuff from past conversations and nearly presenting them as breathless fact. The whole meddling owners, which we haven't seen any sign of since they did the management shuffle that send King upstairs.

This is actually a pretty poor interview on Friedman's part and feels like he he's trying to connect a lot of things that maybe aren't connected. I've thought about this all day, and there are some questions that Friedman doesn't know

1) Is the contract thing on Treliving's side or the Flames?
2) How many teams have made it a habit to sign extentions in advance and when do they on average do it, because I can remember announcements of GM's being extended in April and May.
3) Can he give us any specific proof of ownership meddling since Burke moved into office?
4) Are you repeated dissertations that your not 100% sure that Tre will be back, based on fact or a source, or something that you're pulling out of your butt?

I actually think that this is actually a clear definition of sensationalist reporting without a lot of facts to back it up, and its poor work compared to what Elliot used to do, this isn't a story that feels like its based on the so called unknown sources, its based on one thing and that's no contract extension at the halfway point of the season. I also think that its a incredibly damaging story to the Flames and that's why I'm concerned about it, its right on line with a gossip column and that's actually shameful.

I personally think or expect that Elliot has probably damaged his access to the Flames based on this story because it seems to be very sloppy, and almost mean spirited.

But that's my two cents, I think we're reading too much into it, and we don't know the facts, and it seems like Elliot didn't get all the facts but threw it out there anyways.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

I meant to say Burke, not Treliving. Burke is a guy who strikes me as someone who could not relinquish the helm as being the builder and puppet master. Burke is a guy who seemingly seeks out the camera and toots his own horn.

I think he hired Treliving to be a rookie GM who obeyed Burke's every command and would be the fall guy so that Burke could take over.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by nik-

Every time someone mentions firing Hartley as a negative I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Did one playoff series win riding insane luck just erase everyone's memory of everything else?

To me, Hartley was a better coach than Gulutzan for several reasons:

1) Hartley tuned in the refs for bad calls
2) Hartley showed emotion when his team wasn't performing
3) Hartley's system was exciting to watch offensive, and while it resulted in injuries and bad possession stats, the Flames had fun tic-tac-toe plays and showed good 4-on-3 with the defensemen jumping up
4) Hartley did things like start his 4th line against the Sedins (automatic bonus point)
5) Hartley got career years out of Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, Stajan, Colborne, Wideman, and shaped Backlund and Byron to be the players they are

Versus Gulutzan, who's just apathetic to the game all the time and runs optional skates.

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I meant to say Burke, not Treliving. Burke is a guy who strikes me as someone who could not relinquish the helm as being the builder and puppet master. Burke is a guy who seemingly seeks out the camera and toots his own horn.

I think he hired Treliving to be a rookie GM who obeyed Burke's every command and would be the fall guy so that Burke could take over.

He is not taking over. He was brought in to be the President of Hockey Operations his days of being a GM in the NHL are pretty much over. His next step in his career would be running Team USA.

I don't think we have to worry about Burke being the GM haha.

[Badgers Nose]

Ditching BT and GG seems harsh to me unless clearly superior alternatives are already lined up.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The more I think about this the more it makes sense.

Eliott says he started thinking this after people around the league were asking him what's going on.

If that's the case, how do people around the league know about Treliving's contract status? In my opinion, there are a couple of different ways Eliott comes to this conclusion:

1) He has to protect Treliving, his source, by coming up with an alternate explanation for this theory
2) Other teams have inquired as to the contract status of Treliving and have been informed it's up at the end of the year.
3) I don't recall any public mention of the length of treliving's deal, but perhaps there is a league source that knows the parameters of the contract and either let Friedman know or Friedman found out from a different source that had the information from the league.
4) Burke has let it slip to help put pressure on the Flames ownership to commit to Treliving for a longer term which might help Burke transition to Hockey USA.
5) Treliving has been letting his pending free agency known around the league.

The only one I am skeptical on is that Burke let it drop. Given the seeming aggravation in some of his interviews after the Hartley firing, I just got the sense that those 2 weren't/aren't on the same page with it. In addition to that, Burke seems to value "doing things the right way" as he sees it and his own sort of code. We see that with things like the xmas trade freeze that he put in. I could see him being irked about the "late" firing of Hartley. I don't recall him saying anything about that directly, but I remember some chatter about it being late.

Of course, that is just idle speculation.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I meant to say Burke, not Treliving. Burke is a guy who strikes me as someone who could not relinquish the helm as being the builder and puppet master. Burke is a guy who seemingly seeks out the camera and toots his own horn.

I think he hired Treliving to be a rookie GM who obeyed Burke's every command and would be the fall guy so that Burke could take over.

So instead of just taking the position himself, he plans this 3-4 year plan where he hires someone else, a rookie, so he can eventually take over the position himself.

It's like you're in a different time line from the rest of us. Does Spock have a beard in your world?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

To me, Hartley was a better coach than Gulutzan for several reasons:

1) Hartley tuned in the refs for bad calls
2) Hartley showed emotion when his team wasn't performing
3) Hartley's system was exciting to watch offensive, and while it resulted in injuries and bad possession stats, the Flames had fun tic-tac-toe plays and showed good 4-on-3 with the defensemen jumping up
4) Hartley did things like start his 4th line against the Sedins (automatic bonus point)
5) Hartley got career years out of Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, Stajan, Colborne, Wideman, and shaped Backlund and Byron to be the players they are

Versus Gulutzan, who's just apathetic to the game all the time and runs optional skates.

Tough to grade the awful lockout shortened season so I will exclude that train wreck. In Hartley's next 3 years the Flames were a far more entertaining team to watch. They are such a "blah" team under GG. We have spurts on the PP or chunks of zone time here and there that looks good but it seems like scoring chances are way down and our offense is certainly worse.

I agree that Hartley took the team as far as he could but Gulutzan was a poor hire. Should have been Boudreau who is having his typical first season with a team where he takes them from average to elite.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by the2bears

So instead of just taking the position himself, he plans this 3-4 year plan where he hires someone else, a rookie, so he can eventually take over the position himself.

It's like you're in a different time line from the rest of us. Does Spock have a beard in your world?

He couldn't take the position himself. Were you not paying attention to Ken King or Burke himself during his initial hiring?

Burke mulled over the position for a while because it wasn't a GM position and asked around with colleagues about the roles of being president. Ken King said they wanted stability in the organization in the event that GMs are let go.

It's sort of like I pay attention in our current time line....

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

To me, Hartley was a better coach than Gulutzan for several reasons:

1) Hartley tuned in the refs for bad calls
2) Hartley showed emotion when his team wasn't performing
3) Hartley's system was exciting to watch offensive, and while it resulted in injuries and bad possession stats, the Flames had fun tic-tac-toe plays and showed good 4-on-3 with the defensemen jumping up
4) Hartley did things like start his 4th line against the Sedins (automatic bonus point)
5) Hartley got career years out of Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, Stajan, Colborne, Wideman, and shaped Backlund and Byron to be the players they are

Versus Gulutzan, who's just apathetic to the game all the time and runs optional skates.

all fair points ...

but 1,2 and 4 point to Hartley being more entertaining as a person, not necessarily a better coach

3 I would suggest isn't a style to take an organization deep into the playoffs

and 5 would be obvious with 3 since if you're going all out offensively everyone will likely produce more.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The only one I am skeptical on is that Burke let it drop. Given the seeming aggravation in some of his interviews after the Hartley firing, I just got the sense that those 2 weren't/aren't on the same page with it. In addition to that, Burke seems to value "doing things the right way" as he sees it and his own sort of code. We see that with things like the xmas trade freeze that he put in. I could see him being irked about the "late" firing of Hartley. I don't recall him saying anything about that directly, but I remember some chatter about it being late.

Of course, that is just idle speculation.

I think Burke leaking it is probably the least likely as well, but he obviously knows how the game is played and how to play it. Part of the bluster with the media is to preemptively fend off the idea Burke could be anything but confrontational with them, but it's mostly an act.

[The Fonz]

Treliving has made some mistakes, but unless he's incapable of learning from those mistakes, letting him go would be a horrible move.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Do you not find it at all interesting that pretty much all of the best players on the team are not performing as expected? One or two guys having down years...sure. The entire core? Guys that were coming off great seasons last year...how is that even possible?

The coaches have done some good things but if the entire core of best players isn't performing there's has to be something not working.

Yes, but I suspect that has more to do with the players having to adjust their games and change the way they've played for the last few years. Is that on the coach? Probably a little bit, but to see this big a drop off IMO is mostly on the players. Backlund, Frolik, and Tkachuk seem to have no issues. I think our star guys focused on playing a more complete game, saw a drop off in offense, and since this is the first real tough stretch of their careers are struggling to get through it. I think this is especially the case for Gio and Brodie, Gio because he isn't jumping up into the play as much and Brodie because he's now playing the opposite side. I just think it's silly to write off Gulutzan as a bad move this early into the year. If the players can't adapt then maybe firing Gully is a good move, but at this point I'm willing to let them battle through this, and I'm confident they will. Might not be this year, might be next week. It will come around and when it does, look out.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

He couldn't take the position himself. Were you not paying attention to Ken King or Burke himself during his initial hiring?

Burke mulled over the position for a while because it wasn't a GM position and asked around with colleagues about the roles of being president. Ken King said they wanted stability in the organization in the event that GMs are let go.

It's sort of like I pay attention in our current time line....

Yeah, "sort of". I guess I look at your theory and see it as the longest path to get there.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

To me, Hartley was a better coach than Gulutzan for several reasons:


3) Hartley's system was exciting to watch offensive, and while it resulted in injuries and bad possession stats, the Flames had fun tic-tac-toe plays and showed good 4-on-3 with the defensemen jumping up
5) Hartley got career years out of Brodie, Giordano, Monahan, Stajan, Colborne, Wideman, and shaped Backlund and Byron to be the players they are

Hartley may have actually hurt the Flames cap situation.

We're paying for Gaudreau, Giordano and Monahan's career seasons right now when in fact they might be substantially inflated by a wide open style that is not conducive to long term success.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

all fair points ...

but 1,2 and 4 point to Hartley being more entertaining as a person, not necessarily a better coach

3 I would suggest isn't a style to take an organization deep into the playoffs

and 5 would be obvious with 3 since if you're going all out offensively everyone will likely produce more.

Here is the thing though,

In the last season under Hartley and the first season under Gulutzan, the Flames have scored within 1 goal of each other through 49 games on the season.

1 goal extra goal is all the 'creative offense' Hartley's system was able to provide over a structured 3 zone 5 man breakout, arguably with better offensive players.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Bingo

all fair points ...

but 1,2 and 4 point to Hartley being more entertaining as a person, not necessarily a better coach

3 I would suggest isn't a style to take an organization deep into the playoffs

and 5 would be obvious with 3 since if you're going all out offensively everyone will likely produce more.

Hartley wasn't all-out offensively IMO. He played well within his assets. He had a young and unskilled team and needed to keep the fans engaged in a rebuild. In terms of not being able to take that style deep into the playoffs, his Stanley Cup would certainly prove otherwise. And in terms of career-years, Brodie and Giordano and Monahan are actually worse defensively this season, despite playing in a defensive system under GG. Hartley instilled confidence into those players, and in turn, allowed them to get excited at both ends of the rink.

It's hard to get excited about a system that won't score 5-on-5, come back from being down goals, and therefore its hard to buy-in to the defensive side as well

[Northendzone]

I have to admit I am surprised that Elliot's work here is being questioned. To me he seems like a credible reporter who does his research and is thoughtful in what he says.

Maybe treliving hates the weather here, or the carbon tax, or the NDP and he wants to leave