Have only read the thread in spurts, but put me in the camp of those thoroughly unimpressed with this (apparent) signing
Now, I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that Peters will be a failure, but there's also little to make me think that he's likely to be successful beyond throwing blind trust in Treliving. And that's not something I'm willing to do.
I (like many people) have spent much of the last two seasons first expressing dissatisfaction with the Flames performance under Gulutzan, then questioning Gulutzan's coaching generally, and finally calling for his firing. It's been two seasons of feeling that the potential of the team was being wasted.
So Treliving finally gives GG his pink-slip, and we're looking at a pool of potential coaches with some impressive resumes of success in the NHL; guys who have proven tat they can lead a team into the playoffs consistently, and win when they get there. Yet, from that deep pool, Treliving seems to have reeled in another guy who, on paper, looks a lot like Gulutzan: a guy with some success at other levels, but ZERO success at the NHL level.
A lot of posters who have called out the negative comments have said something along the lines of: "Look at the rosters in Carolina. No wonder he hasn't had success. Be patient." And that's fair to some extent. . . . BUT. . . .
Every expert looked at the team put together in Vegas and predicted struggles, yet the team has excelled like no other expansion team. And that is in no small part due to the way Gallant has coached them. He instilled a system that took advantage of his players strength, and got them to buy in to the point where they individually and collectively elevated their play beyond anything they'd done before. And that was something Gallant had done in Florida: He took over a team that had put up 66 points, and led them to seasons of 91 and 103 points.
What does that have to do with Peters? IMO, you may be willing to give him a pass based on having a crappy roster. But if you're going to bypass some proven coaches to hire him, I would at least like to see some evidence that he got a bad roster to elevate their play to some degree. Some evidence that they may not have been good, but they were better that they would have been without him. And I don't see it. In the season before he took over in Carolina, the team put up 83 points. The next few season, under Peters they put up 71 and 86 points. Basically, zero elevation.
Finally, when I tune into Elliotte Friedman's radio interview on the subject, I hear nothing about Peters being a good coach, just a defense of the hiring on the grounds that Treliving is familiar with him, he's Treliving's pick, and you have to let a GM hire his guy. So zero confidence added there.
I'm not despondent. I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that Peters will be a failure. But I see no objective evidence that would lead me to conclude that he's likely to be a success, which I would have had with a number of other guys that could have been hired instead.