I don't really buy the tenure argument as something to use against Treliving, or even something that we can point to and say "see, we know what he is."
These things aren't really a straight line, some things take time and hockey even from a management level is heavily about luck and the right things going right at the right time. Who is available when you want to make a move? Who do you have that others want or who wants to come here? It's never just a one-sided decision. You can sewer a team in a couple years. You can make zero gains, sure, but I don't think a single person can honestly say Treliving hasn't moved this team in the right direction and improved it since he arrived. Nobody. You can also pretty reasonably say that the pieces we have contain a ton of potential for improvement or for value in acquiring other pieces.
We have a bonafide starting goaltender for the first time since Kipper. We have a solid backup as well. We currently have center depth, and even though the "elite #1" isn't here, having Monahan, Lindholm, and Backlund down the middle is so much further ahead than we were 5-10 years ago. We have some great wingers in Gaudreau and Tkachuk. We have promising young guys like Mangipane, Dube, Andersson, and Valimaki. When good players like Brodie exit, we are able to attract good players to replace them like Tanev.
Bennett not working out hurt us. Not a single drafted goaltender working out hurt us. But that's life.
There have been some bad contracts and coaching choices that haven't worked out. Hard to fault Treliving for Peters, that could have still worked out for us, but oh well. Coaching might be the one thing that Treliving just has not gotten right, but that doesn't mean he won't.
You look at a guy like Poile. He took over an expansion team. It took him 5 years to make the playoffs, 12 years to win more than 2 games in the playoffs and get to the second round, and 18 years to get to the Cup Final. The progression wasn't linear. Once they made the playoffs, they still had bad years and missed them completely. They made the final and are struggling again 2-3 years later.
I don't know, long winded, but it feels like everyone's barometer of success is the Blackhawks or the Penguins, or to have the kind of empty hope that the Oilers have (shiny toys with zero success to show for it), and for middle-market type teams without multiple elite talents, that just not the way it usually goes. I wouldn't be sad if Treliving exits. I'm not going to say "he just needs more time" because he's had a decent amount of time. But what he's done in that time frame is also enough for me, and I expect if he sticks around the team will continue to get better and the problems that exist will be addressed, as he has done since he got here. Sometimes I do want him fired and changes to be made, but that's only because I love drama and I find the unknown and unexpected more entertaining. They could literally trade the entire team for picks and fire everyone, and I would be excited because it would entertain me. That doesn't mean it's smart.
So, I don't know. I don't see any good reason to fire Treliving. People keep trying to give them, but they're just short sighted imo. People keep naming guys like Rutherford or Conroy who would replace him, but there's little reason to think guys like that would come here (Rutherford) or improve the team (Conroy), at least not any more reason than thinking Treliving can still get us to the final.
|