Do we bring back Tre ?

[Strange Brew]

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.

Didn't he officially have ultimate responsibility for hockey ops before Burke was hired? I thought his responsibilities changed with Burke's hiring but could be wrong.

Hard to believe Burke could live with this unless the guy has checked out.

[chedder]

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).

Holy wow if true. Kind of validates a lot our worst fears about King's status with ownership. He knows nothing about hockey, yet they let him make hockey decisions? This is the definition of a joke of a franchise. I hate this because we shouldn't even be making fun of Edmonton anymore if there any truth to this. If he handles hockey as bad as arena negotiations we are screwed.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, this is an odd conjecture. It makes me think that Friedman is spitballing more than usual.

I don't think any of this is spitballing to be honest. This sounds like it always has to me: internal source that friedman can't risk exposing by giving definitive information.

What is MOST telling about this in my opinion is the basic media blackout on this subject in Calgary. That tells me so much more when in context with Friedman's comments.

Why is this only getting play in the national media? Could it possibly be related to the president of the team's previous job running the city's newspapers.

Speculating on what seem to be complete opposite scenarios feels like trying to introduce a red herring to make it appear more like speculation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by chedder

Holy wow if true. Kind of validates a lot our worst fears about King's status with ownership. He knows nothing about hockey, yet they let him make hockey decisions? This is the definition of a joke of a franchise. I hate this because we shouldn't even be making fun of Edmonton anymore if there any truth to this. If he handles hockey as bad as arena negotiations we are screwed.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Come on. Don't be dumb.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Because ownership absolutely loves Ken King. The man deserves credit for hiring Darryl and turning the franchise around but that was well over a decade ago and the more he's been involved the worse things have got for the franchise. Heck there were even rumors he was driving Huff away from the Stampeders so it seems he's just a meddler.

are you trying to make me cry

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think any of this is spitballing to be honest. This sounds like it always has to me: internal source that friedman can't risk exposing by giving definitive information.

What is MOST telling about this in my opinion is the basic media blackout on this subject in Calgary. That tells me so much more when in context with Friedman's comments.

Why is this only getting play in the national media? Could it possibly be related to the president of the team's previous job running the city's newspapers?

Are there any writers that cover the Flames left that have any teeth? Francis maybe but he probably realizes that crossing King would pretty well end his career covering the Flames in any manner whether it be by paper or RSN. I was told that it was King that got Rob Kerr the PBP gig so there's little doubt he has a lot of influence which is why you will never hear a 960 guy badmouth or criticize him.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

*sigh*

That *sigh* with your profile picture made me laugh...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

That *sigh* with your profile picture made me laugh...

I want King to be so successful it hurts.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Come on. Don't be dumb.

I know, over the line. I will continue to make fun of all things Edmonton!

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[sureLoss]

News Update

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Brad Treliving has been suggested as a fit in Buf. I sense the Flames will attempt to extend their GM's contract as early as next week.

[Ashasx]

get

it

done

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Brad Treliving has been suggested as a fit in Buf. I sense the Flames will attempt to extend their GM's contract as early as next week.

Phew.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Brad Treliving has been suggested as a fit in Buf. I sense the Flames will attempt to extend their GM's contract as early as next week.

Oh Crap.. Dreger... Treliving is gone.

[ResAlien]

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 would say the answer to this is because GMs don't tend to be as short sighted as fans are and realize one hot streak does not a long term solution make.

Flames have been hot and heavy after Bishop for quite some time now and this makes sense. Hell, wasn't the original rumour that Elliott was supposed to get flipped to TB but the Bishop extension fell through?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

We better. He has been GM for 3 seasons taking over a rebuild and we have made the playoffs twice.

qouted for truth...

not sure what people's expectations are if they think Tre should be fired...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

...Flames have been hot and heavy after Bishop for quite some time now and this makes sense. Hell, wasn't the original rumour that Elliott was supposed to get flipped to TB but the Bishop extension fell through?

I don't think so. I don't recall hearing anything about this at all.

[Ruttiger]

Originally Posted by chedder

Holy wow if true. Kind of validates a lot our worst fears about King's status with ownership. He knows nothing about hockey, yet they let him make hockey decisions? This is the definition of a joke of a franchise. I hate this because we shouldn't even be making fun of Edmonton anymore if there any truth to this. If he handles hockey as bad as arena negotiations we are screwed.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

He's becoming your Kevin Lowe.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think so. I don't recall hearing anything about this at all.

I swear I recall a poster doing one of these same type of rumours "pm me for source" things and that was the original plan. Trade for Elliott, flip Elliott for Bishop but the extension demands were too high so we were left with Elliott. Maybe that poster was full of crap but I do remember that being the tale.

Anyway doesn't matter. If Treliving walks I would consider it no less than a debacle of monumental proportions.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ruttiger

He's becoming your Kevin Lowe.

Hahaha!

Yeah, no. Lowe is in a class of his own.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I swear I recall a poster doing one of these same type of rumours "pm me for source" things and that was the original plan. Trade for Elliott, flip Elliott for Bishop but the extension demands were too high so we were left with Elliott. Maybe that poster was full of crap but I do remember that being the tale.

Yes, there was a poster who said that .... can't remember their name though.