[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Actually, teams that properly manage their assets stay away from the rebuild scenario. Sure, there are teams that lose players to free agency, but many times that is by choice because they have the players in their system that can step in and help absorb the loss. The Flames are NOT one of those teams. This team is pretty asset poor and does not have a single prospect to step in and backfill the loss of one of their top line players. Gaudreau walks away and a gaping hole in the team is exposed. The Flames need to manage this situation extremely carefully, otherwise it sets the team back for years.



I'm not sure that is a very good example to use. The Islanders did everything humanly possible to resign Tavares and were not expecting him to leave. They were extremely disappointed when he left and it did leave a significant hole in their team. They survived for a couple of seasons, but now they are being exposed for not having the talent to back up that loss. Mange that situation right and they would have had some more bodies in the pipeline that could be helping a struggling team right now.



Not even remotely close to the same level of player. Zach Hyman is middle tier player that you should be able to easily backfill. Every team should have a potential Zach Hyman or two in the system. Losing Hyman is akin to the Flames losing Mangiapane for nothing. It hurts, but you should have a player of that level in the system at any given time. He isn't a star player and you shouldn't have as many concerns about that level of loss. I still think the smart move is to manage those assets accordingly and make sure you never lose anything of value for nothing, but that's my philosophy. I'd rather see the team be self-sustaining rather than have major ebbs and flows in performance.



Sharks did lose Pavelski, but he was an older player where the risk of resigning him was substantial. He was going to be a 35 year old and was still looking for big money, taking $7M per season from the Stars. The Sharks made the right decision IMO, as Pavelski went from scoring 38 goals and 64 points to 14 goals and 31 points the following season. Pavelski was NOT their leading scorer or best player, so the potential loss and return was marginal. This is one of those free agency losses that you actually don't think twice about as the player was heading into a retirement decline.

Pietroangelo was a situation like Tavares, where the Blues were not expecting him to walk. They tabled a number of deals and did everything they could to keep Pietroangelo in the fold. When he did walk, they went out and grabbed Torey Krug to replace him. The loss of Pietroangelo was also minimized when the Blues did some good succession planning and used the loss of Bouwmeester's salary to sign Faulk, having another top talent on the blueline to make the loss not quite as impactful. Then when the big salary walked, they backfilled it with a capable player in Krug. The loss of Pietroangelo was still substantial, but good asset management by the Blues made that bearable.



And look at the state of that organization. What a gong show.



Yes, they should. The writing is on the wall. Try and make a hockey trade.
Get something for him to keep the team chugging along. They're about to feel the pinch from the failed 2018 draft, so a lateral move or some prospects/picks may be beneficial long term. They should have a succession plan in place to deal with the potential loss of Forsberg, so they should execute it.



That's pretty much a lateral move. One player in, one player out. If you knew Brodie was not in the plans, then deal him and have the assets from that deal as a bonus. Tanev + two prospects is better than Tanev alone.



Cap space only has value if you use it. The Flames are sitting on cap space. Is that really helping right now? No. The same holes exist. Sure, the Flames have some cap space to address it, but Treliving can't seem to make a deal to use that space.

Losing Brodie for nothing was another mistake in Treliving's reign of error. Sure, we were able to grab Tanev, but the loss of Brodie really hurt Giordano and made him a lot less effective, to the point where the team decided to not protect him and instead protect Tanev, a player many thought would be exposed in the expansion draft. I'm not suggesting the Flames should have resigned Brodie - I was happy they didn't - but they did make a mistake in not dealing him for assets when it was obvious he was an after thought in their signings. The Flames signed Tanev when Brodie was still available, so that should give you an idea where they ranked Brodie on their priorities list. This was a missed opportunity to recoup assets.

Bottom line here is Treliving should have had a deal in place with Gaudreau before his NTC kicked in, or had a trade in place. Gaudreau is a player the Flames cannot replace from within. The Flames are a one line team and are facing losing the play driver on that line for nothing. The hole that will leave in the roster is obvious and inexcusable. The team should have a succession plan in place for every player on the roster and know exactly what they are going to need in return to replace that player. They should know where the line in the sand is, and what conditions force their hand. There is the problem. I don't think Treliving has such plans to deal with succession and potential loss. It's why the Flames have been and will continue to be a middling team. Losing Gaudreau for nothing moves this team from middling into bottom feeder status, now and for the foreseeable future.

Few things:

Dismissing the comparisons doesn't really add up to a whole lot. Every ufa is different; different players, different people, different markets, different time, different cap, different circumstances all together. Seems like your argument basically amounts to Monday is different than Tuesday. The point being made is teams lose ufa's. That's it, and that won't change. The Flames are not the only team that loses players 'for nothing'. They are not the first, nor will they be the last.

The loss of Brodie may have resulted in a downgrade of Gio's play but on the flip side you could say the addition of Tanev appears to be of great benefit to Hanifin and Kylington and, in my mind, the Flames are better off today than they would be with a Gio-Brodie tandem. So, what are we bemoaning? the lost step of a, at the time, 37 year old D? Okay. I will go out on a limb and say that had the Flames resigned Brodie Treliving would still be getting pinned to the wall here for one reason or another. You suggest the Flames should have dealt Brodie at the TDL but, as pointed out by JayDub, Brodie was hurt at the time. So what were the offers on Treliving's table? Neither you or I know that. Did Treliving even have license to sell at that deadline? Was this his own decision? What else don't we know?

Regarding Tanev-Brodie, what I recall is that the Flames were in conversations with Brodie on a new deal but when they prioritized Markstrom, Brodie took what he had on the table with the Leafs. The Flames then signed Tanev. Not bad work for a guy who I am told doesn't have a plan, repeatedly.

Pretty easy to say things like "Treliving should have had a deal in place before Gaudreau's NTC kicked in". I'm fairly sure everything you say in your last paragraph Treliving understands. You might not like him, but he is not an idiot lost in the woods. You point to him not having a plan, yet wouldn't the Tanev signing suggest he absolutely had a plan in the event Brodie left? Lets also bare in mind that your heavy criticism on a supposed lack of foresight should be balanced with other previous statments we've seen from yourself. What was that trade you were advocating for so strongly summer of '20? Gaudreau to Philadelphia for Voracheck, Frost and a 1st? Woof. Talk about inexcusable. We can say these things, Flames should have traded Gaudreau, but we don't know what deals could have been had. We don't know how other GM's valued Gaudreau. I do think it is a reasonable assumption that if Treliving was presented with a deal he couldn't refuse, he would have moved him.

You're not alone but I don't understand why some people around here assume Treliving hasn't thought of the things they seem to get hot and bothered by. Fairly sure Treliving knows what is at stake. Why would he behave any differently than any other reasonable person would? In my profession, which is regulated by law, I am held to a standard of reasonable care. What would have other registered professionals have done in my shoes? Did I meet that standard? I have a hard time believing Treliving isn't held to standard himself. He is employed by some fairly intelligent people with experience. I doubt very much Treliving is acting as a rouge agent and on the brink of losing, arguably, the organizations most prized on ice asset without discussing all scenarios extensively with his staff and employers.