Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
No, but you completely dismissed the goaltending fiasco which killed the team out of the gate and set a prospect on a very poor trajectory during the most critical year of his career. Seriously, how many people that are high level managers can make a mistake of this magnitude, have immediate negative results that cripple their business unit, and actually not get sacked? I think the only thing that saved his ass was the Hamilton trade. As Bingo said, that home run allows Treliving an opportunity to stand there and take strike three. That's why I say I it's his next at bat that will define him.
|
The bolded bit is outrageously hyperbolic. I don't believe for a second that you think Treliving's job was in jeopardy because the Flames started the season with three goaltenders. Come on.
As for this "fiasco" that a lot of people have chosen as the primary source for their criticism of Treliving, I do not believe that everyone is making a fair assessment. Yes, I agree. Starting the season with three goalies was not a good situation, and certainly Treliving deserves to bear some blame for the problems this created. But when I read a number of these posts, I am struck by the apparent expectations of people. Treliving is clearly a bright, sensible guy, as are most NHL GMs. But, he is not god. He is not perfect, and even when he is doing a good job, it is likely that he—nor ANY OTHER OF HIS COUNTERPARTS—will ever do the job perfectly. Contrary to the Darryl Sutter propaganda that we all relished, no NHL GM—Treliving included—can simply do what he wants. He just can't. And because of that, EVERY NHL GM is going to find himself in tough situations that he will not be able to effectively fix—at least, not the way we think he should.
I have no doubt that the last thing Treliving wanted was to have three goalies poised on the roster at the end of camp. It was NOT the plan, but it happened, despite his best intentions. Many of you seem to believe this was a simple fix, but what do we really know about what he did or did not do to correct it? Without knowing, how can we even decide that this was a correctable mistake?
I gave Treliving a B+. His job is to build a team that in the long run will win a championship, and I believe this team is a lot closer to that goal than it was when he was hired. A lot closer. Anyone who believes that Treliving has committed anything close to a terminal offence is being irrationally over-reactive, and should probably never be put in a position of responsibility or management.