Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
I can understand the outrage at Treliving right now, but I think it is unwarranted. He isn't terrible. Riseborough was terrible. Feaster was terrible.
Conversely, I don't understand the outcry of support for him either. Just because he isn't terrible doesn't mean he is great either.
Pick ONE word to describe his entire tenure as the Flames GM in relation to success. What is that word for you? For me, it is mediocre. Not terrible, not great.. just mediocre.
This might surprise some people (it did me) but here are some of his Tenure facts:
Currently, Treliving is the 6th longest tenured GM in the NHL. That surprised me actually.
Treliving is also now the 2nd longest serving GM of the Flames. Only Fletcher has had more time.
He came near the start of a rebuild, and his task was to build a contender. Has he succeeded?
Absolutely not. Sure, last season some people called the Flames a contender. A few seasons ago as well when they finished 2nd overall in in the league. But something was missing - and actual playoff run.
Contenders make the playoffs year in year out during their 'window'. Calgary doesn't. They didn't the previous season. They did the season before.
Contenders also usually have a couple of runs (or more) in them - a run to me is conference finals. More than half the team make the playoffs. Simply making the playoffs isn't a contender.
Also, at some point, I think it is fair to say that during a team's contention window, they should actually play for the cup. True contenders make the cup finals. People pointed at Colorado as maybe being a contender, but many didn't have them as true contenders because they actually never made it out of the 2nd round.
Treliving has essentially built a decent team. Not terrible, not great. Just 'mediocre'. Can anyone claim otherwise? I think both sides of the spectrum here are arguing through emotion. When you look at the Flames from the start to present under Treliving, can anyone say: "They have been terrible" or "they have been great" with a straight face? No.
So no, I don't think that Treliving deserves to get fired. I still argue he could have been more proactive when it came to Johnny, and he definitely shot himself in the foot with his terrible coaching hires, but overall, I don't think his overall body of work has been terrible and deserving of being fired.
Likewise, I don't see a rationale for him to be kept at all costs. If there is a competent GM somewhere that would be interested in taking over the role, I would support a move. Why not? Treliving has had 8 years, and hasn't built a great team.
If you want to know what a bad GM is and what a great GM is, just look at the Calgary Flames' history.
Fletcher - A GOD here in Calgary. Was a rookie GM in Atlanta at first, but he definitely grew into his role and became a literal GOD here.
Riseborough - The devil, no? Also a rookie GM.
Al Coates - I honestly say underrated given his situation. I think he guided this team exceptionally well given the environment. Was he perfect? Absolutely not, but he was far from bad and I think he has been underrated. Rookie GM too.
Button - Rookie GM (see a pattern yet??). I don't think he was bad (and I was surprised it was only 3 seasons - thought it was longer). I don't think he was bad, and I don't think he was great.
Sutter - Rookie GM - and honestly, fantastic. Sure, it didn't end well, and that's what you get with a rookie GM who hasn't seen the life-cycle of a team firsthand. I think he would have improved, but it is what it is. Stanley Cup Finals, so yeah, fantastic.
Feaster - Established GM. Terrible though. Terrible trade values, terrible media availabilities, and started turning this organization into a laughing stock.
Burke - Interim, so I won't comment (nothing but positive to say).
Treliving - Rookie GM. Didn't build a contender, but gave Calgary a few good regular seasons. I won't comment on what is happening right now since the off-season isn't over, but this is not looking good at the moment (but things can drastically change too). His bright spot was how quickly and efficiently he dealt with what was an embarrassing situation with Peters, the 2nd in the west season, and last season. However, a few seasons of not making the playoffs, 1st round exits, and the furthest this team achieved was two second round exits.
Yeah, I think Treliving has been mediocre thus far. However, Fletcher wasn't experienced or even a great GM to begin with, but he learned as time wore on and became a literal God. Will Treliving? I don't know. I assume he will get better. If there is an upgrade, I suggest the Flames grab it, however. Unless there is an upgrade, there is no point in firing him and hoping for change. He isn't awful enough to get rid of, that's for sure, and us Calgary fans remember what awful was.
So no, I don't support either extreme on this argument - those that are adamant that Treliving sucks, and those that are adamant that he is a great GM. There is ZERO proof either way of that being the case.
|