Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Here is what we know:
Since Treliving has been GM, the Flames have attempted to acquire Ben Bishop on 3 different occasions.
The First time, the player waived his no-trade clause except the deal was nixed apparently from ownership.
The Second time, Ownership was not available to give the OK.
The Third time, the player in question seemingly preferred another destination.
These events do not lead me to believe that the Flames ownership group was interested in acquiring Ben Bishop.
We can speculate as to the why, but it seems obvious to me that there is a disconnect between what hockey ops wants to do and what ownership will allow them to do.
Maybe the owners just really didn't like Bishop, maybe they didn't want to spend the money, but either way, it gives credence to the rumour that Treliving was only willing to re-sign if he had autonomy from that kind of interference.
In light of getting swept in the playoffs on a bucket of bad goaltending, that ownership interference looks much worse, but it may have given Treliving the ample evidence he needed to justify the lack of oversight. "This is what happens when you're involved in hockey ops."
|
We don't know most of that as incontrovertible fact. It is mostly speculation.
This type of thinking is understandable, given our inclination to want to have everything explained with clear reasoning, not to mention the satisfaction of connecting the dots and alleviating our dislike of the unknown.
There is without questions enough rumours swirling for this to warrant some 'what if' discussion. But I think we really need to stop short of concocting these elaborate narratives that give credence to tiny shreds of information that fall far short of being concrete evidence.
It seems that way too many of these rumours, innuendo and theories are quickly becoming written history of the events as if they are gospel. As time goes by it gets more and more entrenched into the people's minds becoming unquestionable truth.