Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Keep in mind that before Neal was signed the Flames had a deal in place with Ryan Reaves. His bags were packed, but Vegas matched at the last minute. That’s when the Flames made the offer to Neal. Hard to imagine an offer being made to Neal if the Reaves signing goes through (I’m pretty sure the Flames wouldn’t have had the cap space).
I know this is a results-driven business. But Treliving has been a very active GM, and as you outline, the victim of a lot of bad luck, timing, and the fact Calgary is not a very attractive destination for a lot of players (something which will continue to be a factor for Treliving’s successor). He should have broken up the core, but this was a terrible offseason to make trades, with only two trades of consequence in a 31 team league. This season is also terrible timing to make a big deal of the kind this team needs.
|
I have never been as big of a fan of BT as most , and here's the reason. His teams are never as good as the sums of their parts, because IMO he doesnt have a long term vision of what he wants his team to be and how to get there. He just keep trying to add 'good parts' no matter if they fit or not.
How did Hamonic fit into this teams build or culture? Was he going to be a fast puck moving D? Or did BT see a guy who should be 'good' and want the part? (Or did he just want to outbid the Oilers to keep him away.....)
Did James Neal or Brouwer REALLY fit into this teams build at the time? Sure a goal scoring winger for JG and SM was needed. But were these players skillset condusive to playing with those guys?
Even the goalie debacle for 5 seasons is another example of no long term plan. Kept throwing away picks and 'hoping'. There clearly wasn't a plan other then "Luck into a value bounce back goalie" - I would rather him had made a player for some teams young backup and overpaid OR just stick with average goaltending without wasting assets and go get stars for other positions and live with trying to win 5-4.
Add in all the different coaches who all play different systems, it doesnt speak to someone who actually has a plan. It looks like reactionary actions to me.
Long term stability is important in a GM IF that GM has a long term plan and creates long term culture.
Judged by all his moves individually and in isolation I think you can make an argument that there is more good then bad and at the time, in theory, they 'kind of make sense' to plug a hole at that exact time.
But a team isnt created by acquiring pieces in isolation and this team's vision is what I think BT lacks.