Should Treliving Be Fired?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bax

The job itself is a different lifecycle. Brad was hired because of his philosophy and strategy on how to rebuild this team. Everyone knew this would be a long process. And now some posters want to abandon that process, despite a lot of clear wins and a clear vision from the GM after only 2 seasons?

Boggles my mind

I'm personally not saying we should abandon the process. I think Treliving has been OK (just OK, not amazing, but not horrible).

The same could be said for Hartley though too. The process was always going to be a long one and is rarely ever a smooth road to the top, yet some people seem to expect instant results from a rebuild that isn't near complete. Honestly, Hartley's biggest failure was probably overachieving last year and setting expectations too high.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think you're missing the biggest point i'm trying to make.

I don't think you should fire either, but if you're going to start accountability for last season, then the person most responsible for the biggest failure is where you start.

Ok, well if your idea of holding someone accountable is firing them, then this league would be a bare bones league with no one holding a job anywhere.

I get it. You want to hold BT accountable. Why does that have to mean firing him? For all we know, he sat down with Burke and the owners and was held ''accountable'' during the teams exit meetings. Maybe he's changing things around. Maybe he has edited his plan. But holding someone accountable by firing them is a fools' plan. If all of us at our jobs were held to such standards, none of us would be employed.

[Zarley]

I actually think letting Byron go while we still had guys like Raymond on the team was one of his major mistakes this year. Despite his small size, he was one of the hardest forecheckers on the team and really set the pace of play while he was on the ice. It's concerning that the GM didn't recognize that.

[IntenseFan]

The ever increasing melodrama on this board is why I haven't been around much lately.

This thread, which now has 5 pages of responses, is not the "dumbest thread of the year". You can disagree with the premise of the thread and voice your opinion that our GM should in no way be fired, but when the Flames are firing people one year removed from a Jack Adams, it is a fair question to ask.

The Flames seem to have transitioned into win-now mode again and the feeling from the front office appears to signal they believe they have hacked or shortened the rebuild (for the record I disagree).

If we are back in win-now mode, we have to evaluate the GM on that basis. So even if the feeling is that he should be given at least another year to prove himself, the question is reasonable given the shift in emphasis.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Ok, well if your idea of holding someone accountable is firing them, then this league would be a bare bones league with no one holding a job anywhere.

I get it. You want to hold BT accountable. Why does that have to mean firing him? For all we know, he sat down with Burke and the owners and was held ''accountable'' during the teams exit meetings. Maybe he's changing things around. Maybe he has edited his plan. But holding someone accountable by firing them is a fools' plan. If all of us at our jobs were held to such standards, none of us would be employed.

I think you quoted before my edit went through.

I don't think accountability means firing someone in every instance. To the contrary I think accountability is having conversations where you tell people that they need to be better. That's what needed to happen here to both Hartley and Treliving.

Both deserve 1 more season.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Not now, but I do wonder about next season.

Lots of Hartley criticisms are hoo-ha, and I liked him. But I accept if he's not the guy the gm wants and the results aren't there then he has to make the change. That's treliving's job.

Thing is it puts the onus squarely on treliving now. 3 seasons in its his roster. It'll be his coach. No playoffs should probably equal no job for the gm.

[Singularity]

No.....

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Not now, but I do wonder about next season.

Lots of Hartley criticisms are hoo-ha, and I liked him. But I accept if he's not the guy the gm wants and the results aren't there then he has to make the change. That's treliving's job.

Thing is it puts the onus squarely on treliving now. 3 seasons in its his roster. It'll be his coach. No playoffs should probably equal no job for the gm.

^
^
^

(that's why we need another option in the poll)

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think it's completely fair to talk about Treliving and how accountable he should be for the recent failures.

I personally don't see what he has done to earn the "one of the top GMs in the league" description.

Treliving holds himself accountable. And it is fair to ask if he's accountable for the team's record. Asking whether he should be held so accountable that he's fired is silly.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Loooool

[Yappin Tappin]

I logged in just so I could vote and make the poll even more lopsided than it already was.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Treliving holds himself accountable. And it is fair to ask if he's accountable for the team's record. Asking whether he should be held so accountable that he's fired is silly.

It might be silly. You may be correct.

But firing your coach 1 year after a Jack Adams win and after a season where your young core take huge strides forward brings that type of scrutiny. It only intensifies when the biggest failure of the season was not addressed by the GM himself.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Treliving is well on the way to making us a perennial contender.

Let's hope so. The difference between being well on the way to being a perennial contender and actually being one is huge.

This seasons 26th place finish must have been an important part of the wizards grand plan.

[InBurkeWeTrust]

This thread is a joke, right?

[AltaGuy]

This is the worst.

Treliving to me is one of the shrewdest GMs around. This move was perfect: Hartley's style of play was horrible for possession, and I like the proactive approach. Why wait until we are bad again to do something about poor possession? Quite aside from poor goaltending, even when we made the playoffs we played a style that relied on fluke comebacks and a passive defense.

I think - and hope - he has a ton of life left.

[Simanium]

Treliving is a smart GM, stay the course.

[AC]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

The ever increasing melodrama on this board is why I haven't been around much lately.

This thread, which now has 5 pages of responses, is not the "dumbest thread of the year".

Yeah come on guys, this thread is definitely not the worst ever.

Not when Par just recently asked if we should intentionally tank this upcoming season.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I actually think letting Byron go while we still had guys like Raymond on the team was one of his major mistakes this year. Despite his small size, he was one of the hardest forecheckers on the team and really set the pace of play while he was on the ice. It's concerning that the GM didn't recognize that.

Mason Raymond and Paul Byron were waived at the same time....

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by AC

Yeah come on guys, this thread is definitely not the worst ever.

Not when, Par just asked if we should intentionally tank this upcoming season.

It's the worst today? It's the worst today...so far?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I actually think letting Byron go while we still had guys like Raymond on the team was one of his major mistakes this year. Despite his small size, he was one of the hardest forecheckers on the team and really set the pace of play while he was on the ice. It's concerning that the GM didn't recognize that.

Neither Byron or Raymond are part of the long term plans for this team, nor should they be. The fact that the option to exit Byron from the organization came up earlier than the option to exit Raymond does not make it a mistake by the GM, even if Byron is the more appealing asset of the two.