Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbsy
We can debate the nuances of these details as much we want.
At the end of the day, the topic of this thread is boolean in nature. The 7 year tenure of this gm has shown that he is capable of building a cup contending roster, true or false?
That's it. There is no in between.. If the answer is no, then management must fire him and find another candidate to get 7 years to prove their plan.
Brad treliving is not a gm with the competence required to build a cup contender, full stop.
Maybe I just value his ability in gathering 4-6 dmen and middle 6 forwards far less than most here...
|
Why 7 years? Why not 4? 8? 9? Is there some sort of rule of thumb on how many years a GM should get?
Understanding BT has had 7 years, but there’s also a 7 year investment with this GM the organization has made. He was/is a young hockey executive whom I’m sure the ownership has expected to grow. Why is a GM only permitted one rebuild or one ‘cycle’?
It seems to me many of the people here arguing for BT’s dismissal think who ever it is that replaces him will carry this team to a meteoric rise to greatness. I’m highly skeptical. Who out there replaces Treliving and is a no doubt about it better GM? Lombardi? Botterill? Or are the Flames going to roll the dice on another first timer like Kevin Weekes?
As for the bolded part, you state that as a fact, but it isn’t. Whether it is here or somewhere else, circumstances will dictate whether Treliving is able to build a cup contender. Labelling him as incompetent, as you have repeatedly done, is misguided.