Treliving fan 960 1/14/2016

[hockey.modern]

Thanks MMR, will start posting cole notes soon.

Edit: Actually nvm, Sureloss added everything important haha.

Treliving evaluates so-so first half

- Evaluation show inconsistency. Slow start, better play in December which has allowed them to get back into the hunt but still needs improvement.

- Players we added from the outside add to the direction we are going for.

- The development of a player is not a straight line.

- We have internal expectations that we look at. We are still building this team and we are going through a transition period where we have to look at the positives going forward.

- Expects to be a playoff team as the minimum expectation.

- Want to be a team that can dictate the play. Hold onto the puck is what generates the offence on a consistent basis. Multiple lines that can carry the play instead of just one. In today's game, mobility of defense allows you to defend less.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Thanks MMR, will start posting cole notes soon.

Hey, no problem hockey-modem.

[sureLoss]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/hockey-c...so-first-half/

Full summary:

Overall evaluation
looking back on first half - inconsistent
slow start and then there was better play in December - some encouraging things but things we also need to work on

Have higher expectations been an issue?
thought we improved the team over the summer
expected some organic growth from last year
there was expectation that they were going to be better at the start
however development of a team is not a straight line
on most nights we still rely on very young players - not an excuse just a fact
follow the ebb and flow of some of those younger players
still building this team, in some cases in a transition period

What were the internal expectations?
we expect to be a playoff team - that is a minimum expectation
wanted to be a team that dictated style and pace of the game more than we have done so in the past - i.e. being hold on to pucks, being able to generate more offense throughout the lineup (not just one line)

on Ramo:
when we sent Ramo down it wasn't punishment, it was to get him going but turned out to be a short stay
been on a role since he came back
lets face it - at beginning of year lots of pucks were going into our net
both goaltenders would say that they needed to play a little better but the chances, the rate we were giving up and the type was a big problem
our 3rd 10 game segment our goaltending was top 5 in the league in terms of save %, 5 on 5 save % and special teams save %
it correlates, you get saves, you defend better, you start winning more games

on TJ Brodie:
the game has really shifted his way, the mobility - 5 on 5, skating
thinks he is becoming an elite defenceman throughout the league
very few things he can't do at a very high level
very difficult to replace top players when they are injured
obviously felt void when TJ was out, record is reflective of how important he is when he returned for us

Granlund:
really intelligent player
been stuck inbetween the AHL and NHL
why? when in Stockton he is #1 center, here he is playing limited limits
on this recall he has been playing a more offensive role
quality of competition has been higher - not playing against 3rd or 4th liners anymore
has done well but challenge is effort level needs to be consistent
faceoffs have been slowly improving - Conroy working with him on that

how is he looking at the rest of the season:
been a while since it was this clustered for everyone
this is still a long view approach
really important there is no appetite for short term fixes
continue to look how we build this long term
special teams just haven't been good enough
positive signs: last 10 game segement generated chances on the PP 2nd in the NHL. thinks they are at 46 right now. conversion rate isn't good
positive signs: penalty differential is +20. averaging 1.4 penalties against per game
special teams, keeping pucks out of the net, generating more offense and disicipline that are going to be areas that we need to improve upon to be a playoff team

trade deadline approach?
if there is ways to help team on a cost and philosphical basis that makes sense then absolutely that is the goal
spending young assets - throwing out picks and prospects for things that help you out for 15-20 games we have no appetite for
some internal decisions need to be made on our guys that need contracts

will there be a time/threshold where he will chase rental players?
absolutely. depends on where you are in a team's growth cycle.
doesn't mean we aren't looking for ways to help us short term - but the cost needs to make sense
if there is a deal that helps you for now you do it , but it won't be to the detriment of building organization

what can you tell us about how you are approaching the pending UFA?
will be in touch with the players and their reps just get a sense of where we are at and where they are at
we do our business behind closed doors
there have been situations where are players are kept past the deadline and signed in the summer

on the Cammalleri non-trade:
Brian and I talked a lot about Cammy's situation - I support it fully
in a lot of ways he was setting the table for the next manager - here is our price and if we don't get our price, we are not pedelling for the sake of pedelling
probably set up a better chance of re-signing Mike
each situation is unique and different
that being said only so many chips at the card table - need to replenishing the cupboards

on Sam Bennett's 4 goal process:
he is a special young guy
lot said about his drought
wasn't concerned about Sam at all - last thing he was worried about was Bennett every night
seeing him rewarded was good

[Jacks]

oops, repost

[hockey.modern]

Treliving also wants this recall from Granlund to be his last.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Well, you could say that about LA last season. But they are back in the game, they are spending money and will likely win a couple more cups in the next 10 years. I don't quite get this long-term investment attitude for an NHL franchise business. What's long-term these days? Star forwards reaching their peak by 23-24 years of age. Star defensemen - a bit later. When DO you invest short-term and pay heavily to get a cup now? Nobody knows at the end of regulation which team has the best chances to win the cup. So, it's always gonna be somewhat a gamble. I believe this is just another politically correct way of saying: "the owners told us not to spend too much money at this point".

Not saying that a team needs to sell its best assets for questionable benefits. But to say that ALL our trades will be only for long-term benefit tells me that the team doesn't even hope for winning the cup in the near future. That's not right. I sincerely hope I am wrong assuming this.

My understanding was that Treliving has indicated in the past that they have a plan and a structure in place in terms of how they are going to pay certain players over the long term. So any fixes additions would have to fit into that structure. I don't believe that means the Flames won't ad short term impact win now players. We are probably still a couple core players away from where the team needs to be and those players will need to be included into the teams long term structure.

As for supporting cast this gets addressed as the team moves forward.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Pat Steinberg praised Burke for not trading away Cammy at a low value, and I thought Brad had an interesting response. He politely agreed, but I got that sense that it was not something he would ever do. He mentioned that it was a nice gesture to refuse to trade Cammy for nothing, and that could have increased his chance of re-signing. Other than that, it didn't seem like Brad actually liked how that turned out.

Very happy to hear this. I was never a fan of the rationalization of why Cammy was not traded and felt it had more to do with Burke's ego than anything. It was a waste of an asset.

[djsFlames]

Brad said it himself. We're relying on young players, which equates to inconsistency. Why not invest in a couple "now" vet players that can be relied on to bring their resume to the ice consistently?

I actually think we're a little too far on the young side of the scale at the moment. I wouldn't mind seeing a 30 year old 50 point player being brought in to play on the right side of Monahan and Gaudreau. Last year proved the importance of have veteran guidance for young players, and the kind of results it brings you. Our young guys will come into their own faster with that presence as well.

For once, I'd like to see a couple of Iggy-era type acquisitions. Not because our window is now but because I think it helps us get a bit more out of the young players. A roster full of 20 somethings is going to lack direction and the window to compete will be put off further.

[Vulcan]

IIRC he's saying much the same as last season approaching the trade deadline. In other words stay the course as they rebuild.

[Monahan For Mayor]

They definitely want to keep Granlund at centre it seems. Only logical reason I can think of is they want him to take over Backlunds spot.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

My understanding was that Treliving has indicated in the past that they have a plan and a structure in place in terms of how they are going to pay certain players over the long term. So any fixes additions would have to fit into that structure. I don't believe that means the Flames won't ad short term impact win now players. ...

Thanks to sureLoss' recapture of the interview, this does make sense now. Treliving did not say "long-term only", which was a comment someone else heard and the one I saw as a concern.

[djsFlames]

I really, really do think that Brad should make a push to acquire Kevin Hayes.
He checks a lot of boxes for this team right now and long term.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Very happy to hear this. I was never a fan of the rationalization of why Cammy was not traded and felt it had more to do with Butke's ego than anything. It was a waste of an asset.

I agree, it was a BS excuse. As if other GMs would suddenly see Brian freaking Burke as a push over for selling an asset cheap in a tough market.

[FBI]

So sounds like Treliving will trade Hudler even for a third if it comes to that? I'm sure he could at least get a second.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Brad said it himself. We're relying on young players, which equates to inconsistency. Why not invest in a couple "now" vet players that can be relied on to bring their resume to the ice consistently?

I actually think we're a little too far on the young side of the scale at the moment. I wouldn't mind seeing a 30 year old 50 point player being brought in to play on the right side of Monahan and Gaudreau. Last year proved the importance of have veteran guidance for young players, and the kind of results it brings you. Our young guys will come into their own faster with that presence as well.

For once, I'd like to see a couple of Iggy-era type acquisitions. Not because our window is now but because I think it helps us get a bit more out of the young players. A roster full of 20 somethings is going to lack direction and the window to compete will be put off further.

Young players are inconsistent because they are learning the game. That comes through experience. I don't think another vet is going to change that. Only experience is and we have plenty of vets already. Gio, Stajan, Wideman, Hudler, Frolik, Jones, Raymond, Engelland, Russell, Smid. The whole veteran thing seems to get way overblown around here. Getting a 50 point player is nice and all but what is the cost? Assets? Over-payment? Bad contract in later years?

[dying4acup]

Treliving was also asked if there was a situation existed where a rental makes sense. He said (adlibbing) that there definately was a scenario where a team is on the cusp, and bringing in a rental to put you over the top would make sense. But now is not that time.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The Flames are in good hands. He may not win every trade or signing, but the thought process behind the decision is rock solid.
People talk about the wizardry, but BT is simply smart, prepared and it seems like he has the support of Burke and ownership in doing this the right way.

[badger89]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Pat Steinberg praised Burke for not trading away Cammy at a low value, and I thought Brad had an interesting response. He politely agreed, but I got that sense that it was not something he would ever do. He mentioned that it was a nice gesture to refuse to trade Cammy for nothing, and that could have increased his chance of re-signing. Other than that, it didn't seem like Brad actually liked how that turned out.

That wasn't my take at all. Sounded like he was good with the decision. In fact he gave a couple of rationals for it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[badger89]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/hockey-c...so-first-half/
on the Cammalleri non-trade:
Brian and I talked a lot about Cammy's situation - I support it fully
in a lot of ways he was setting the table for the next manager - here is our price and if we don't get our price, we are not pedelling for the sake of pedelling
probably set up a better chance of re-signing Mike

This doesn't sound like he is against that decision at all. I listened to the interview as well and he genuinely seemed good with it.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if Hudler gets the same treatment. And maybe even re-signs for a reasonable amount.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by badger89

This doesn't sound like he is against that decision at all. I listened to the interview as well and he genuinely seemed good with it.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if Hudler gets the same treatment. And maybe even re-signs for a reasonable amount.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

This doesn't make me as happy as the first poster's interpretation. I fully agree you can't trade every pending UFA but if the team is going nowhere and they are not in your long term plans, it is craziness not to get what you can.

In Cammy's year, that team was way out of it. And although he is performing for Jersey, I'd rather not have him here at his price. He should have been dealt.

It would be tough on the team to see all of Russell, Hudler and Jones traded. But I'm not thrilled with seeing any of them re-signed. And its not like this team is on the cusp.