Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Treliving has a plan, but it has largely not succeeded because of personnel. He had a plan for goalies prior to Markstrom. It was to use vets as stopgaps until Parsons or Gillies were established. He had a centre plan - Bennett/Monahan. Then Lindholm in the mix. He had a RW plan, but his choices for that slot were bad. His notion of a RHS D to play top 4 with Brodie, Gio and Hamilton was sound - he targeted the wrong guy.
If Gillies/Parsons, Bennett, Neal and Hamonic panned out like the plan assumed, you’d have a strong team at goal, D and down the middle. And you’d have a big goal scorer on the RW. Treliving’s flaw isn’t his plan. It’s mainly his pro scouting, plus just bad luck with goalies.
|
Let's say, not "pro scouting", but "asset valuation"?
I would take it further, based on what Conroy said about the manner of his work... he is a poor manager, not in a hockey sense, but in a leadership sense. He should read the OT thread started by the new upper management fellow
or read "About Face" by Col. Hackworth... Big picture - "the Flames are in" on every available player, yet Treliving is secretive and does all that by himself. Aside from not benefiting from hearing different opinions, you simply run out of time in a day if you are centrilizing all decision making and all the actual work. Presumably, you have AGMs because you trust those people (regardless of what we fans think of Maloney, Conroy, Snow and Pascal), so why aren't they negotiating deals? Maloney, especially, has done it before. Even if you want to reserve the final call for yourself, why not have these guys running down leads? Worried about leaks? It all seems to leak out anyhow. I would rather risk leaks than trade more than a 2nd rounder for Hamonic, or maybe you realize he is not who you thought he was. I mean, if they all agreed that Hamonic was the guy we needed, then they all suck (which is possible). Having run a company (admittedly at much lesser scale), I appreciate the benefits of "other" opinions and also the immense help of delegation...
Also, why are we in on every single available player, as the media suggests? They can't all possibly fit what we are trying to do. That to me suggests there is no real coherent vision, but just a reactionary mentality. "Building through the middle", Bingo, I would suggest is a strategy and a pretty standard one at that, but what is the actual vision? What are we trying to create? Like I said, if you have a coherent idea, there is no reason to be "in on everything". I hate the NBA, but, to take an example, the Raptors clearly had a plan, based on creating a strong "team", as opposed to relying on "stars" - the same sort of thing San Antonio did and I think Phoenix is doing now - I actively stopped paying any attention to the NBA, due to the China issue, so I may be wrong. Anyhow, what is the vision for the Flames? I just don't see a philosophy or theme here, just parts - even if there is emphasis on "up the middle".
Vegas clearly had/has a theme, Boston has a theme, some others too - they could be unproductive, but that is a separate issue. Given Calgary's status as a market, I think there is a theme that suggests itself, and Sutter the GM, to give him credit, had a pretty good grasp on it - he just exectued poorly, and perhaps also suffered from the "over-centralization" bugbear. What we should be doing is emphasizing "team" over "stars" (because "stars" are tough to attract here or you need to get lucky like the Oilers), you should emphasize "Western/WHL" boys, when possible, because they are more likely to want to be here, and, of course, you have to emphasize the draft, both in terms of quality (duh), but also QUANTITY (because you need a constant pipeline of talent to allow you to avoid the UFA market and because the more tickets you have the more chance you have of getting "lucky"). I would also suggest, and this is just my personal opinion - we would be better off emphasizing "heavy" hockey (because those players tend to be cheaper, and because the nature of playoff refereeing favours it). Sutter really had it pretty well nailed as a GM - where he failed was the draft. He drafted atrociously, so had to spend picks or money to fill holes, so had even fewer picks, and therefore drafted more atrociously, etc, etc. Treliving has fallen into the same deficit spiral, even though his drafting is good. He spent a bunch of picks too early, so does not have a pipeline, so must now spend picks and cash to fill holes, so has less picks going forward, etc, etc. Sutter's plan was actually great I think - he just needed to draft Zajac, Benn and Weber.
I am joking, but really - I think that's what we need to do - find the "local" kids who will want to be here - there is a much better chance that Point, or a Saskie like Warrener, will commit to the Flames, than a kid from NY or Toronto (obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but we are talking general theme).
Really, where I wound up here with my essay, I think Sutter vision is what we want - we just need an able executor of same vision, in terms of trading, drafting and contract negotiation.