Quote:
Originally Posted by TOfan
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.
|
Brad, you've had 7 years to run this team. Its been a failure. Its been long enough.
Its a business of results, why did you get to fire Hartley? Gultzen? Ward? Should they have gotten more than 1 "cycle"? No, similarly you shouldnt get to run this frnachise into ground anymore either.
You're arguments are really weak; your excuse is maybe the next guy can't turn it around either so thats the reason to keep up with your mediocrity?
Bolded part is a fact. 7 years, 1 playoff round win. Thats brutal.