Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I have said for some time now that I think the turnover of GMs in the NHL is too high, and I think you answered your own question: Seven years is definitely enough time to evaluate, and to judge whether the Manager has the team moving in the right direction. I guess where you and I differ is in our evaluation vs. results: they are not there on the ice, but I like what Treliving has been working toward. It is happening slower than I would have hoped, but I think he sees pretty clearly the problems with the team, and I like the way he has tried to address these issues; I like the way that he evaluates players, and I tend to like the players that he targets; I like that he owns his mistakes and works to correct them.
And this is the bottom line I keep coming back to: who is the best person to improve the team? Right now, I don't see a better option than Treliving for the Flames. While I am not convinced that high-profile figures like Lombardi and Rutherford are realistic options, I also don't believe they provide any improvement.
|
I wouldn't use results for a simple pass/fail judgment of Tre, but the time has shown that there are things he's good at and things he isn't good at. He's good with player talent and contracts. He's inadequate with coaching.
Knowing those things about him after seven years, there should be action taken to address his weaknesses. That could come from Tre, in the form of making a different kind of coaching hire. Or, it could come from ownership, either by forcing Tre into a situation to hire a better coach, hiring a new boss for Tre to work with him on sorting out the problem, or replacing Tre.
Despite never having been a big fan of Tre, I agree with you that just replacing him is probably the worst option for the team. Then again, leaving him to continue as is without his weaknesses being addressed is another bad option.