|
View Poll Results: Should the Flames bring back Treliving
|
|
Yes
|
   
|
259 |
38.89% |
|
No
|
  
|
17 |
2.55% |
|
This is so obviously yes it shouldn't be a poll question
|
  
|
390 |
58.56% |
04-20-2017, 01:14 PM
|
#181
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
I don't know if I trust this. The trade deadline was when Elliott was playing his best hockey of the season. We already had Johnson... so why are we trading anything for Bishop?
|
If true, I imagine Elliott was going the other way.
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:17 PM
|
#182
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
I don't know if I trust this. The trade deadline was when Elliott was playing his best hockey of the season. We already had Johnson... so why are we trading anything for Bishop?
|
Because when Elliot crumbles it's into a million pieces. Protect the team with a proven starter just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:17 PM
|
#183
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Nieuwendyk
If true, I imagine Elliott was going the other way.
|
Considering what LA gave up for Bishop, that would make even less sense.
We were riding Elliott to a 10-game winning streak at that point. Why would we trade him, or trade for another goaltender at all?
At least for the Kings there is some logic with Quick coming off injury.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:17 PM
|
#184
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
I don't know if I trust this. The trade deadline was when Elliott was playing his best hockey of the season. We already had Johnson... so why are we trading anything for Bishop?
|
Probably because for the price paid, that would be a hell of an insurance policy for a goalie that was garbo for the first few months of the season.
__________________
Oliver Kylington is the greatest and best player in the world
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:17 PM
|
#185
|
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Ha ha ha. Oh boy. I will take this with a grain of salt but if there's any truth to this it's time for King to go. I will say the timing of a Bishop trade would have been odd as that's when Elliott was on fire and the Flames are already missing their 2nd and 3rd round picks from this year's draft.
|
There have been rumblings that K. King has always coveted a hockey ops position; this would seem to align with those rumours.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:20 PM
|
#186
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: DeWinton
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:22 PM
|
#187
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
There have been rumblings that K. King has always coveted a hockey ops position; this would seem to align with those rumours.
|
Yes but the entire idea of bringing Burke in was to separate King from hockey decisions. To me this appeared that the owners were pushing King aside leaving him to run the business operations for the Stamps, Flames, Roughnecks, etc. Knowing Brian Burke like we all do does anyone really think he would accept a job as president of hockey operations if he still had to run his decisions by King. Just doesn't sound very plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:22 PM
|
#188
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by daredevil
Been sitting on this for a while (mods can PM for source if they wish).
I've been told the only reason why a new contract hasn't been signed is that Treliving wants assurance from ownership that King will stop meddling in hockey ops decisions.
He and Burke have a good working relationship but King insists on being the final approval on deals.
The most recent example I was given:
Apparently at the deadline a deal was made for Bishop but they needed Kings approval to proceed. They were given 15 mins to finalize by Yzerman. They tried to reach King on the phone and couldn't get him within the window, so he was dealt to LA.
Take for what it's worth (not a Julius example).
|
Ok, grain of salt for sure, but IF this is true King needs to go or at the very least be done with having any input on hockey decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:24 PM
|
#189
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Also if that rumor was true it could have been Johnson going the other way. All Tampa wanted was a temp back up for Vasilevsky.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:26 PM
|
#190
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Beyond trading for Bishop not making any sense, I really have a hard time believing King wouldn't be in the war room on trade deadline day if transactions required his approval.
Things just don't add up here. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:27 PM
|
#191
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by daredevil
Been sitting on this for a while (mods can PM for source if they wish).
I've been told the only reason why a new contract hasn't been signed is that Treliving wants assurance from ownership that King will stop meddling in hockey ops decisions.
He and Burke have a good working relationship but King insists on being the final approval on deals.
The most recent example I was given:
Apparently at the deadline a deal was made for Bishop but they needed Kings approval to proceed. They were given 15 mins to finalize by Yzerman. They tried to reach King on the phone and couldn't get him within the window, so he was dealt to LA.
Take for what it's worth (not a Julius example).
|
I am choosing to believe this hook line and sinker.
I imagine Elliott was going the other way, along with 2nd pick before the Lazar deal.
Show Tre suspected Elliott could not be trusted in playoffs.
And also means he could very well say f*** this s***.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:27 PM
|
#192
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
I'm not trying to validate the sense of it, because it isn't known what was going the other way. But if we assume the price was very low, since LA didn't give up much, wouldn't you have rather had a Bishop/Elliott combo going into playoffs (if Johnson was our version of Budaj)?
The point of the post was less to debate the merits of the potential trade, more so to offer an explanation as to why there might not be a new contract for Treliving.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:28 PM
|
#193
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
I don't know if I trust this. The trade deadline was when Elliott was playing his best hockey of the season. We already had Johnson... so why are we trading anything for Bishop?
|
I think as an insurance for Elliott (which would have been beneficial in hindsight). At that time, Johnson was looking atrocious and we had zero desire to start him.
__________________
"You're a wizard, Johnny Tre"
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:29 PM
|
#194
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Beyond trading for Bishop not making any sense, I really have a hard time believing King wouldn't be in the war room on trade deadline day if transactions required his approval.
Things just don't add up here. Sorry.
|
kind of agree. It isn't like the trade deadline day came out of no where. I think the reason it had more to do with cap space. Probably needed double what they had to take on Bishop.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:30 PM
|
#195
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by daredevil
Been sitting on this for a while (mods can PM for source if they wish).
I've been told the only reason why a new contract hasn't been signed is that Treliving wants assurance from ownership that King will stop meddling in hockey ops decisions.
He and Burke have a good working relationship but King insists on being the final approval on deals.
The most recent example I was given:
Apparently at the deadline a deal was made for Bishop but they needed Kings approval to proceed. They were given 15 mins to finalize by Yzerman. They tried to reach King on the phone and couldn't get him within the window, so he was dealt to LA.
Take for what it's worth (not a Julius example).
|
ugh, my god if that's true, then I'd be really displeased with KK. I always thought he would never meddle with any roster management items and left it to the guys who are in and thinking the game every minute of the day.
I understand as he is the big boss but maybe only list a few key players you need to sign off on if they were part of a deal and let Burkie and Tre do their thing.
__________________
"You're a wizard, Johnny Tre"
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:31 PM
|
#196
|
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
For what it is worth, daredevil's source sounds fairly credible. He/she is not part of the Flames org., but is well connected within the upper echelons of hockey and NHL circles, and there is good reason to believe that he/she has access to this sort of information.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:33 PM
|
#197
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
If true, it's hilarious in a soul crushing kind of way. I'm not sure what's worse...that the Flames are contending with the red tape of having to get King's approval on every decision, or that King, in light of this fact, would have his phone on vibrate in his murse during a critical hour.
__________________
Is your cat doing singing?
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:37 PM
|
#198
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverKast
Wouldn't full Oiler be bringing in Lanny to run the show?
|
Agreed. Lanny is a great community guy but I just don't see him in a management role. Plus the game has changed a lot since he played.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:41 PM
|
#199
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedarMeter
|
biggest difference in the series
no goal tending option...seriously
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
CedarMeter,
ClubFlames,
ComixZone,
Flames Draft Watcher,
Joe Nieuwendyk,
kkaleR,
Monahan For Mayor,
OffsideSpecialist,
Old Yeller,
Savvy27,
taxbuster,
Textcritic
|
|
04-20-2017, 01:45 PM
|
#200
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob
kind of agree. It isn't like the trade deadline day came out of no where. I think the reason it had more to do with cap space. Probably needed double what they had to take on Bishop.
|
That trade didn't happen on deadline day...it was the Sunday before
should probably have his phone on though
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17 PM.
|
|
