Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Some of his first moves were to draft bigger players like Hunter Smith,.

Treliving was hired at the end of April in 2014. He had nothing to do with drafting players that year. Burke who was interim GM is responsible for who was drafted for that draft class. Bollig trade, that was Treliving but all the picks were selected on the traits Burke wanted.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

It's feeling less and less like he's the GM to take us to the next level.

[Dajazz]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Actually, the Maple Leafs have done just fine without Matthews this season. They've won something like a dozen games without him in the lineup. You would think they'd have missed their Franchise Center, but they didn't skip a beat.

Mike Babcock isn't the main reason why this team has turned it around. In fact, he coached the 15-16 Leafs to the worst record in the NHL which was what lead them to Matthews in the first place. When you draft well and build strong depth especially at forward like they have, they're always in games because they score their way out of trouble. They get down by 2 and their dynamic players can get it back.

The Flames go down by 2 and we're done. With this team, all the opposition has to do is shut down the 1st line and we can't win. The Flames only have 3 or 4 wins when the first line doesn't score. The season is almost over, that's just utterly pathetic.

How could a less talented team that was coached by Hartley always come back? Always.

This is coaching to Corsi and some depth issues. Fire GG in to the sun and trade for top 6/9 skill and that's it.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

How could a less talented team that was coached by Hartley always come back? Always.

This is coaching to Corsi and some depth issues. Fire GG in to the sun and trade for top 6/9 skill and that's it.

I think a new coaching staff that can actually instill confidence in the team, make good in-game and game-to-game adjustments, coach a creative PP, and improve goaltenders rather than cause them to regress would go a long way. Add a 1st line RW, re-engineer the 2nd line with Janko between Tkachuk and Bennett, properly slot Ferland on the 3rd line with Backlund and Frolik (he adds jam and some shooting prowess to that line to replace some of what Tkachuk gives them now, Backlund helps to get the best out of Ferland), and create a 4th line of speedy, hungry, inexpensive youngsters like Lazar, Dube and Foo to wear down the opposition (you could even add Mangiapane to that line for a bit of puck handling skill and scoring). You probably have to give up one of Hamonic or Stone, so you will need Andersson to step up to be your 3rd pair RD.

Of course, the question is who you can get for your 1st line RW. I would trade Hamonic or Michael Stone (you would probably have to add Klimchuk or Poirier to the latter and retain some salary) for a mid-round 1st, flip that pick, the Panthers' 4th round pick, Phillips, and Kylington to Ottawa for the rights to Mark Stone (the Sens don't have the budget to re-sign him if they are re-signing Ceci and saving space for Karlsson), and sign him for 5 years/35M. If Valimaki looks ready to take the next step in training camp, I would put him on the 2nd pair and bump Brodie down to the 3rd pair with PP time (to spread out the inexperience a bit), keeping Kulak as the 7th D. Buy out Brouwer, sign Janko to a 2.5M bridge deal, overspend a bit to get a top-notch UFA backup or platoon goaltender like Raanta or Dell for 2-3 years (to backup Smith 2018-19 but possibly platooning with Parsons by 2019-20), and you are golden.

Gaudreau-Monahan-Stone
Tkachuk-Janko-Bennett
Ferland-Backlund-Frolik
Mangiapane/Lazar-Dube-Foo

Gio-Hamilton
Valimaki/Brodie-Hamonic/Stone
Brodie/Kulak-Andersson

Smith
Raanta/Dell

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by dino7c

suck and win the lottery is the general consensus for shrewd team building...

there has to be another way

Kings didn't suck and as far, as I recall, had no top 5 picks on their cup-winning teams. Daughty was their only top-10 pick, but I hadn't double-check it.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Treliving was hired at the end of April in 2014. He had nothing to do with drafting players that year. Burke who was interim GM is responsible for who was drafted for that draft class. Bollig trade, that was Treliving but all the picks were selected on the traits Burke wanted.

This is what Treliving said when he was hired. I don't quite see how people believe he is some progressive speed&skill GM:

According to Treliving, part of the attraction of taking the Calgary job was the chance to work with a like-minded individual who shared many of the same ideas on how to build a winning team. That truculence Burke always likes? Treliving demonstrated that in his playing career, spent mostly in the low minors, where he registered a lot more penalty minutes than points.

"Turn on the TV tonight and watch the games," said Treliving. "It's hard hockey. It's heavy hockey. It's a big boys' game out there. In order to have success, I fully believe you have to have a team that can play in those games."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ticle18300124/

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

I would trade Hamonic or Michael Stone (you would probably have to add Klimchuk or Poirier to the latter and retain some salary) for a mid-round 1st, flip that pick, the Panthers' 4th round pick, Phillips, and Kylington to Ottawa for the rights to Mark Stone (the Sens don't have the budget to re-sign him if they are re-signing Ceci and saving space for Karlsson), and sign him for 5 years/35M.

I am not sure that adding Klimchuk or Porier to any trade proposal adds anything.

Ottawa would be looking for a premium young forward in trading Stone, to replace Stone.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by dino7c

suck and win the lottery is the general consensus for shrewd team building...

there has to be another way

Well at the very least, you have to make sure that when you do draft high, even if its not #1, you absolutely have to make it count. If Bennett became the player we all assumed he would be, this team is most likely in a totally different situation right now.

That one really stings.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

How could a less talented team that was coached by Hartley always come back? Always.

This is coaching to Corsi and some depth issues. Fire GG in to the sun and trade for top 6/9 skill and that's it.

Always?

Hartley - Comeback wins:
12-13: 2
13-14: 11
14-15: 23
15-16: 10

Gulutzan - Comeback wins:
16-17: 16
17-18: 12


I know everybody has an affinity for that 14-15 season because it was a ton of fun. But outside of that 1 fluky season where everything went right for us, Hartley's teams came back less than the Gulutzan Flames. So you're wrong that Hartley's teams always came back more than GG's teams.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Pointman

This is what Treliving said when he was hired. I don't quite see how people believe he is some progressive speed&skill GM:

According to Treliving, part of the attraction of taking the Calgary job was the chance to work with a like-minded individual who shared many of the same ideas on how to build a winning team. That truculence Burke always likes? Treliving demonstrated that in his playing career, spent mostly in the low minors, where he registered a lot more penalty minutes than points.

"Turn on the TV tonight and watch the games," said Treliving. "It's hard hockey. It's heavy hockey. It's a big boys' game out there. In order to have success, I fully believe you have to have a team that can play in those games."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ticle18300124/

Do you remember who won the cup in 2014? 2012? 2011?

The Kings and Bruins won 3 of 4 cups prior to Treliving coming on board by playing big heavy hockey. God forbid a GM saying he wants to replicate that.

The 3 years since it has been speed and skill that wins and we have watched the league move to that trend.

How many times have the Ducks pushed the Flames around the last 3 years?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Always?

Hartley - Comeback wins:
12-13: 2
13-14: 11
14-15: 23
15-16: 10

Gulutzan - Comeback wins:
16-17: 16
17-18: 12


I know everybody has an affinity for that 14-15 season because it was a ton of fun. But outside of that 1 fluky season where everything went right for us, Hartley's teams came back less than the Gulutzan Flames. So you're wrong that Hartley's teams always came back more than GG's teams.

You understand that 2013 was the Iginla flames, and the next 3 years were the beginning of a scorched earth rebuild?

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

You understand that 2013 was the Iginla flames, and the next 3 years were the beginning of a scorched earth rebuild?

Funny, 15-16 didn't seem like a scorched earth rebuild when we traded away a 1st and two 2nds for Dougie. That team had similar expectations to be better than the previous year, yet finished 5th last and gave up the most goals allowed in the entire NHL.

My main point of that post was to point out that 14-15 season with all the comebacks was an outlier of a season where everything went right. Hartley gets a lot of praise for building a never say die attitude, but really, outside of 1 season, there really wasn't much of that.

[Ryan Coke]

What definition of comeback wins are you using? Trailing at any time in the game, just in the third?

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

What definition of comeback wins are you using? Trailing at any time in the game, just in the third?

Trailing after 1st and 2nd.

[Dajazz]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Always?

Hartley - Comeback wins:
12-13: 2
13-14: 11
14-15: 23
15-16: 10

Gulutzan - Comeback wins:
16-17: 16
17-18: 12


I know everybody has an affinity for that 14-15 season because it was a ton of fun. But outside of that 1 fluky season where everything went right for us, Hartley's teams came back less than the Gulutzan Flames. So you're wrong that Hartley's teams always came back more than GG's teams.

Hartley's team shouldn't have won at all with that roster. GG has a tremendous advantage with player material/talent. Your stats are nice, but the flames were in every game, or felt that way. Hartley is not the answer, but GG is down right an obstacle.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

Hartley's team shouldn't have won at all with that roster. GG has a tremendous advantage with player material/talent. Your stats are nice, but the flames were in every game, or felt that way. Hartley is not the answer, but GG is down right an obstacle.

I think you're way out to lunch. That "roster" had essentially the same pieces and core that Gulutzan has today. Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie. Hartley didn't have Tkachuk, but he had Hudler, Colborne and Byron who we could use right now instead of the current junk in the bottom 6. I'd also take Russell and Engelland over Hamonic and Stone any day. Even if you don't, the rosters were close and not as far apart as you're painting them to be.

I think it's clear your hatred for Gulutzan supersedes your judgement and rationale for actual reality.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Always?

Hartley - Comeback wins:
12-13: 2
13-14: 11
14-15: 23
15-16: 10

Gulutzan - Comeback wins:
16-17: 16
17-18: 12


I know everybody has an affinity for that 14-15 season because it was a ton of fun. But outside of that 1 fluky season where everything went right for us, Hartley's teams came back less than the Gulutzan Flames. So you're wrong that Hartley's teams always came back more than GG's teams.

There is also a lockout season under Hartley's tenure.

[Dajazz]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I think you're way out to lunch. That "roster" had essentially the same pieces and core that Gulutzan has today. Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie. Hartley didn't have Tkachuk, but he had Hudler, Colborne and Byron who we could use right now instead of the current junk in the bottom 6. I'd also take Russell and Engelland over Hamonic and Stone any day. Even if you don't, the rosters were close and not as far apart as you're painting them to be.

I think it's clear your hatred for Gulutzan supersedes your judgement and rationale for actual reality.

Wow, hatred. Nah, I just think he's a terrible coach for this team.

The fact that you prefer Russell, well. Yea. Let's just agree to disagree on GG.

[Shazam]

We need Russell so that Brouwer is better than someone else on the roster.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Funny, 15-16 didn't seem like a scorched earth rebuild when we traded away a 1st and two 2nds for Dougie. That team had similar expectations to be better than the previous year, yet finished 5th last and gave up the most goals allowed in the entire NHL.

My main point of that post was to point out that 14-15 season with all the comebacks was an outlier of a season where everything went right. Hartley gets a lot of praise for building a never say die attitude, but really, outside of 1 season, there really wasn't much of that.

Come on man. It was fairly common knowledge he Flames defied several statistics the year before to make playoffs. A drop off was absolutely expected. Treliving wanting to reward the team and build for the future used thst summer to trade picks thst were locked in for a 22 year old former top 10 pick that was absolutely living up to the hype.

I get your point but we have all watched this team under Hartley and Gulutzan. Hartley’s teams appeared to have an identity and we knew they were going g to work hard every game. Gulutzan’s team looked great at points and pathetic at others. Which team will show up? Well if it was a massive game we knew it would be the crappy version but other games it was a toss up