[News Roundup] Garbage bag day: Monahan had 4 surgeries!

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I understand that, as you've said it multiple times now.


What I'm saying is that when you start taking things that can't possibly be held against him yet - like drafting - adding it to your list of grievances... it starts to seem like a more unbalanced and biased take.

Seeing as he took over a team in the early stages of a rebuild that still features a core of young players who aren't finished products, I think much of what you're taking issue with stems from impatience and such a harsh overall judgement is very premature. Just my opinion.

I think 4 years of mediocrity under his tenure allows for one to start questioning his ability.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Angelino

I think 4 years of mediocrity under his tenure allows for one to start questioning his ability.

rome wasn't built overnight

i know this is an unpopular opinion because sports is an emotional subject, but it takes time to have plans come to fruition, especially when you're talking about developing human individuals in an industry like pro sports. Look at how long it took Tallon/Bowman to build the blackhawks into a perennial contender - and that's with teows and kane. Or the predators. This sentiment that you need to go from zero to hero in the span of a few seasons or you need to be replaced is probably why the flames have been extremely mediocre since the early 90s. I've said it on this board and I'll continue to say it - unless you totally luck out with a franchise changing player ala pittsburg, you are not going to turn over a bottom feeder franchise into a cup winner without lots of patience

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Darryl Sutter did just that here, in his first year as GM

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ Darryl Sutter did just that here, in his first year as GM

He said "perennial contender". The Flames under Sutter were a de facto contender in the first year. I wouldn't say they were after that other than the first post-lockout season when they finished 1st in the NW (but even then behind Detroit, Ottawa, Buffalo, Nashville, Dallas and Carolina in points.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by stone hands

rome wasn't built overnight

i know this is an unpopular opinion because sports is an emotional subject, but it takes time to have plans come to fruition, especially when you're talking about developing human individuals in an industry like pro sports. Look at how long it took Tallon/Bowman to build the blackhawks into a perennial contender - and that's with teows and kane. Or the predators. This sentiment that you need to go from zero to hero in the span of a few seasons or you need to be replaced is probably why the flames have been extremely mediocre since the early 90s. I've said it on this board and I'll continue to say it - unless you totally luck out with a franchise changing player ala pittsburg, you are not going to turn over a bottom feeder franchise into a cup winner without lots of patience

I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that the Flames should be perennial contenders overnight. Incremental progression however shouldn’t be out of the realm of expectancy after nearly half a decade. Perennial playoff qualifiers would be a good start. Yes, Rome wasn’t built overnight but it was built incrementally over the years. But like I said before Trelivings career as gm will be determined by his next coaching decision.

[---Hatrick---]

Originally Posted by stone hands

rome wasn't built overnight

i know this is an unpopular opinion because sports is an emotional subject, but it takes time to have plans come to fruition, especially when you're talking about developing human individuals in an industry like pro sports. Look at how long it took Tallon/Bowman to build the blackhawks into a perennial contender - and that's with teows and kane. Or the predators. This sentiment that you need to go from zero to hero in the span of a few seasons or you need to be replaced is probably why the flames have been extremely mediocre since the early 90s. I've said it on this board and I'll continue to say it - unless you totally luck out with a franchise changing player ala pittsburg, you are not going to turn over a bottom feeder franchise into a cup winner without lots of patience

So you're saying... it's a process?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Angelino

I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that the Flames should be perennial contenders overnight. Incremental progression however shouldn’t be out of the realm of expectancy after nearly half a decade. Perennial playoff qualifiers would be a good start. Yes, Rome wasn’t built overnight but it was built incrementally over the years. But like I said before Trelivings career as gm will be determined by his next coaching decision.

Year one of Treliving was a weird "made the POs with smoke and mirrors and then faced the best possible opposition" year. Year two was a year in which Treliving amassed picks from expiring contracts and/or aging vets like Sven, Glencross and Hudler. And used them in the offseason to pick good players or get others (Hamilton). Year three they make the POs. This year was a disappointment but any thought that progress would be linear is, IMO, not realistic.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Year one of Treliving was a weird "made the POs with smoke and mirrors and then faced the best possible opposition" year. Year two was a year in which Treliving amassed picks from expiring contracts and/or aging vets like Sven, Glencross and Hudler. And used them in the offseason to pick good players or get others (Hamilton). Year three they make the POs. This year was a disappointment but any thought that progress would be linear is, IMO, not realistic.

I never used the word linear. I do understand injuries etc happen and can derail a season. I am not impressed with his decision making and it has lead us to non playoff hockey. I don’t see the franchise moving towards relevancy under his regime. Coaching decisions, asset management, free agent signings etc all play a factor. Calgary is lucky to make the playoff every other year at best right now. And when they do make the playoffs it’s an early exit most of the time. Would I like for things to be different? Yes. Do I anticipate things changing dramatically? No. If you believe in Treliving, that’s great. I’m not a fan from what I have seen.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Angelino

If you believe in Treliving, that’s great. I’m not a fan from what I have seen.

Yeah I think you've said it every other post for the last 3 pages of this thread.

We get it.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yeah I think you've said it every other post for the last 3 pages of this thread.

We get it.

Yes everyone has varying opinions. That is what makes the forum great.

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by Angelino

Yes everyone has varying opinions. That is what makes the forum great.

But not everyone repeats themselves like scratched record.

Over and over and over again.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Angelino

I never used the word linear. I do understand injuries etc happen and can derail a season. I am not impressed with his decision making and it has lead us to non playoff hockey. I don’t see the franchise moving towards relevancy under his regime. Coaching decisions, asset management, free agent signings etc all play a factor. Calgary is lucky to make the playoff every other year at best right now. And when they do make the playoffs it’s an early exit most of the time. Would I like for things to be different? Yes. Do I anticipate things changing dramatically? No. If you believe in Treliving, that’s great. I’m not a fan from what I have seen.

You didn't say linear, but I didn't say that you did.

You did say "incremental progression", which I think has occurred and which I say isn't going to be linear. And the bulk of your post talks about things like "most of the time" - over a four year term, the first two of which were building from a "start from scratch" perspective. Would you say Cheveldayoff is a bad GM because the Jets haven't made the POs "most of the time" and the one time they did they made an "early exit"?

Coaching decisions? There's been two - an extension of Hartley, and his replacement. FA signings have been a mixed bag, but again a really small sample size and you don't seem to give any credit for good ones.

I will say this, they made the POs twice under him. That's more than in the five years before he got in, under Sutter and Feaster.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Dan403

But not everyone repeats themselves like scratched record.

Over and over and over again.

People keep challenging his view....

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

People keep challenging his view....

That’s correct. I’m just stating my opinions. Others don’t agree that’s fine. Calgary is out of the playoffs. I prefer the team to be in the playoffs. I believe organizational changes like better scouting and a competent coach could work wonders. I’m not impressed with the team treading water on the outside of the playoff picture and think decision making over the last 4 years has lead us to where the team currently stands.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He said "perennial contender". The Flames under Sutter were a de facto contender in the first year. I wouldn't say they were after that other than the first post-lockout season when they finished 1st in the NW (but even then behind Detroit, Ottawa, Buffalo, Nashville, Dallas and Carolina in points.

Meh, that’s nitpicking.

I thought they were looking good under Keenan but a D decimated by injuries and many broken bones limited them to 6 games in the first round.

They didn’t end up with playoff success but they were a perennial playoff team for a few consecutive years.

Sutter in his first 4 years took a non playoff team and made the playoffs 4 out of 4 times. Tre has shown no tangible on ice step change, he is stuck in bubble team mode, and a sorely disappointing year.

And the first year he made the playoffs and won a round was Feaster’s team.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Meh, that’s nitpicking.

I thought they were looking good under Keenan but a D decimated by injuries and many broken bones limited them to 6 games in the first round.

They didn’t end up with playoff success but they were a perennial playoff team for a few consecutive years.

Sutter in his first 4 years took a non playoff team and made the playoffs 4 out of 4 times. Tre has shown no tangible on ice step change, he is stuck in bubble team mode, and a sorely disappointing year.

And the first year he made the playoffs and won a round was Feaster’s team.

I tend to think a contender does more than make the POs. Sutter had a team near the top of the standings only once. I think his teams actually got worse each year as far as personnel went. He made the second round once.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I tend to think a contender does more than make the POs. Sutter had a team near the top of the standings only once. I think his teams actually got worse each year as far as personnel went. He made the second round once.

Ok, that is fine. I can’t be bothered to reiterate the obstacles the Flames faced in the first round exit in Keenan’s last year. Everybody knows about the injuries which were far beyond usual and in my mind impacted that exit.

The whole point if the question was about the timeline where you can judge the impact of our first gig GM who is 4 years in.

My point was that Sutter and Feaster both made marked impacts on the ice in less time.

I don’t have confidence in the current guy based on where we are at today.

[the2bears]

^ Are you saying Feaster was better?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by the2bears

^ Are you saying Feaster was better?

I said you could assess his impact.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ok, that is fine. I can’t be bothered to reiterate the obstacles the Flames faced in the first round exit in Keenan’s last year. Everybody knows about the injuries which were far beyond usual and in my mind impacted that exit.

The whole point if the question was about the timeline where you can judge the impact of our first gig GM who is 4 years in.

My point was that Sutter and Feaster both made marked impacts on the ice in less time.

I don’t have confidence in the current guy based on where we are at today.

Feaster' impact was getting rid of aging stars and creating a lottery team. I guess that's something. I think Treliving has added more positive players in the last few years. I also think he's had much more of a plan in place. He's made some errors in executing that plan, in goal and in getting secondary scoring for example. But he knew what he wanted to do. His player choices didn't pan out in a few instances.

Feaster had a home run late round pick. He also made a couple really bad trades that set back the rebuilding not adding good enough assets.

You've repeated that you do t have confidence but you really don't distinguish between what Treliving has and hasn't done versus his predecessors, other than in very vague terms.