Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Can anyone articulate what any GM's vision is for his NHL team? I think it is probably a meaningless question, because these sorts of things tend not to be published, nor are they static and inflexible mandates.
I think Enoch's post is easily the most sober and astute evaluation of the Treliving and his tenure. Contrary to Estrada's contention, stability works at least as often as it does not. New GMs in their first NHL jobs—like Don Sweeney or Joe Sakic—have been frequently panned in the early going for their poor performance, only to see their teams emerge after years of building into NHL powerhouses. By the same token, seasoned GMs brought into an organization—such as Ken Holland in Edmonton or Lou Lamarillo in Toronto—do not always breed success. Like any job, its one that takes time to learn and to be successful in, and I think this is the situation in which the Flames find themselves.
I think the empty "lack of vision" critiques from outside observers stem from watching a first-time GM navigate the learning curve. But I also think that Treliving deserves credit for quickly recognising his own mistakes, and being completely undeterred in correcting them. I think it shows a commitment to making the team as good as possible, and an eagerness to improve on the original plan as he goes. His activity strongly suggests that he recognises the same problems with the team that we all see, and he has been working hard to correct them. For me, a big part of the equation is less so about what Treliving has done in the past as it is about what can be expected moving forward: if Treliving is fired, who is replacing him? A seasoned GM looking for one more shot like Ken Holland? Or another rookie waiting in the wings for his first opportunity like Craig Conroy? I don't see either option as particularly appealing, since there is absolutely no guarantee of success with the former, and another lengthy learning-curve most likely to accompany the latter. The Flames have already made a huge investment in Treliving's education, and it seems like a good bet to see it through to the payout—just as Colorado did with Sakic, and Boston with Sweeney.
|
So that’s a no. I wish a Treliving supporter would give a meaty defense of his overall plan instead of a plea for stability or asserting more good than bad moves.
I’d argue he has been following a vision of sorts, that hasn’t worked too well. He has a pattern of making certain types of moves (stopgaps for goalies, investing heavy in defense, trade picks for players, use of buyouts, UFA signings, spend to the cap, commitment to the current core, hire coaches who preach possession hockey).
I guess you can give him credit for all the attempted moves. Every GM has trades that don’t come to fruition but for some reason, Calgary’s seem to be out in the open. So I don’t know which attempted moves to give him credit for and which you don’t.
I agree the future is more important than the past and I’m sure Treliving is informing his superiors of his plans. What I wouldn’t give to know what he has been saying for last 6 years. Unfortunately we only have his past actions on which to form an opinion.
When he was hired, I thought we were getting a moneyball style GM who would find value in players that may be under appreciated in some ways. The Drew Shore trade was going to be an example of that. Unfortunately there haven’t been many successes here and worse, seems to overpay far too often for such players (Lazar, Stone come to mind). Meanwhile the Canadiens have benefitted from two players who would have fit this bill but we sent packing.
Personally I have limited confidence in his approach but under no illusions he is going anywhere. So we’ll just have to evaluate what he does this off season. If he wasn’t so good with the media, I believe he’d be under a lot more scrutiny.