New Poll: Should/Will the Flames Keep Treliving

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

One of the things that fans seem to ignore is that GMs can't simply go out and get whatever players they want, in order to execute their vision. You can have a plan to acquire certain types of players, but you are still limited by what is actually available at the time.

For example, the Flames covet speed. However, in 2013 and 2016, the best player available to them were Monahan and Tkachuk. Neither is a fast skater, but both were correct picks.

That's why it is important to understand that management needs to be flexible, and needs time to execute. Drafting, developing, and trading players is not an exact science. You can make all the right decisions, but how the players, and the team, turn out is still largely up to the players. You simply can't predict development paths.

Which, again, brings it all back to process, vision, and stability.

This prompts me to think that the best read on a GM's vision is to watch how he handles the later rounds of the draft, where the "best player available" is considerably less obvious, and the options much more fluid. To my eye, Treliving and his scouts have been crushing the later rounds of the draft.

[Enoch Root]

There is a finite amount of icetime and opportunity to hand out. As a result, there will always be disgruntled players. That isn't on management.

What is on management, is how it is handled. And I don't see any problems with how management handled any of those situations. In Neal's case in particular, I was extremely pleased with how management handled it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This prompts me to think that the best read on a GM's vision is to watch how he handles the later rounds of the draft, where the "best player available" is considerably less obvious, and the options much more fluid. To my eye, Treliving and his scouts have been crushing the later rounds of the draft.

Exactly.

And in past regimes, those late picks were often used to grab size. Under Treliving, they are mostly used to acquire skill.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Can anyone articulate what any GM's vision is for his NHL team? I think it is probably a meaningless question, because these sorts of things tend not to be published, nor are they static and inflexible mandates.

I think Enoch's post is easily the most sober and astute evaluation of the Treliving and his tenure. Contrary to Estrada's contention, stability works at least as often as it does not. New GMs in their first NHL jobs—like Don Sweeney or Joe Sakic—have been frequently panned in the early going for their poor performance, only to see their teams emerge after years of building into NHL powerhouses. By the same token, seasoned GMs brought into an organization—such as Ken Holland in Edmonton or Lou Lamarillo in Toronto—do not always breed success. Like any job, its one that takes time to learn and to be successful in, and I think this is the situation in which the Flames find themselves.

I think the empty "lack of vision" critiques from outside observers stem from watching a first-time GM navigate the learning curve. But I also think that Treliving deserves credit for quickly recognising his own mistakes, and being completely undeterred in correcting them. I think it shows a commitment to making the team as good as possible, and an eagerness to improve on the original plan as he goes. His activity strongly suggests that he recognises the same problems with the team that we all see, and he has been working hard to correct them. For me, a big part of the equation is less so about what Treliving has done in the past as it is about what can be expected moving forward: if Treliving is fired, who is replacing him? A seasoned GM looking for one more shot like Ken Holland? Or another rookie waiting in the wings for his first opportunity like Craig Conroy? I don't see either option as particularly appealing, since there is absolutely no guarantee of success with the former, and another lengthy learning-curve most likely to accompany the latter. The Flames have already made a huge investment in Treliving's education, and it seems like a good bet to see it through to the payout—just as Colorado did with Sakic, and Boston with Sweeney.

So that’s a no. I wish a Treliving supporter would give a meaty defense of his overall plan instead of a plea for stability or asserting more good than bad moves.
I’d argue he has been following a vision of sorts, that hasn’t worked too well. He has a pattern of making certain types of moves (stopgaps for goalies, investing heavy in defense, trade picks for players, use of buyouts, UFA signings, spend to the cap, commitment to the current core, hire coaches who preach possession hockey).

I guess you can give him credit for all the attempted moves. Every GM has trades that don’t come to fruition but for some reason, Calgary’s seem to be out in the open. So I don’t know which attempted moves to give him credit for and which you don’t.

I agree the future is more important than the past and I’m sure Treliving is informing his superiors of his plans. What I wouldn’t give to know what he has been saying for last 6 years. Unfortunately we only have his past actions on which to form an opinion.

When he was hired, I thought we were getting a moneyball style GM who would find value in players that may be under appreciated in some ways. The Drew Shore trade was going to be an example of that. Unfortunately there haven’t been many successes here and worse, seems to overpay far too often for such players (Lazar, Stone come to mind). Meanwhile the Canadiens have benefitted from two players who would have fit this bill but we sent packing.

Personally I have limited confidence in his approach but under no illusions he is going anywhere. So we’ll just have to evaluate what he does this off season. If he wasn’t so good with the media, I believe he’d be under a lot more scrutiny.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Treliving started his job in 2014. Now, Burke was still guiding him and so on for a few seasons, but 2014 is the year that Treliving was brought in to be the GM of the Calgary Flames.


IMO, the GM is the guy you look at as being responsible for all areas of hockey - amateur and professional scouts, contracts, coaching hires, roster movement, etc. He is ultimately responsible for what happens in each area, as he either directly hires and manages people in those areas, or he hires VPs who then become directly responsible. The buck still stops with Treliving, however.


Do I think that the Calgary Flames of 2019/20 are a better team than the Calgary Flames of 2014/15? Unquestionably so. Of course they are. I mean, they better be! Treliving got hired as the GM of a team that was in the early stages of a rebuild.


Of course you have the previous GMs fingerprints on this team - Sutter's, Feaster's and now Treliving. They all were responsible for the existing core in some way. However, every current member of the team has a contract that was signed by Treliving, and by now, he has had every opportunity to make moves with respect to the core. This is Treliving's team. You can thank the previous management for initially bringing those players into the fold, but it is Treliving's job to identify them as players he should keep, or players that don't make sense long-term. I actually think he has done a fairly good job here as well.


Whatever I think about the individual moves, or what areas he has been extremely good in and what areas he has been poor in is relatively irrelevant. This is the question that I ask myself now:


Did Treliving do a good enough job building a contender? Is it fair to expect a rebuilding team to contend after 6 years of rebuilding?


That's where I start to think that Treliving perhaps is deserving of being let-go. This team is not a contender. They don't appear to be anything more than just a bubble team. Now, you can argue that he has been great at RFA or general player re-signings (Brodie, Gio, Monahan, Gaudreau, Lindholm, etc.) will prove you right, but I think he took an enormous and unnecessary risk with the Tkachuk re-signing.



He may be good at drafting, and poor at UFA signings. He may be good at managing and dealing with the media, but poor at hiring coaches. He has done really great things, but he has also had his failings.



I just look at this team now after 6 years of him running it - is it the team that I hoped for? Well, I am actually fine with a new rebuild, so the answer is definitely a no. This team is not poised for a cup run. I don't care if it is the players that wilted, or poor coaching, or not being able to find a goalie that can steal an occasional game, or just bad luck running into to the top teams in the NHL - I don't see this team right now as being able to beat any strong team in the NHL right now. I think it performs like a middle of the pack team, and I think it is a middle of the pack team.


Whether it is a roster problem, whether it is a coaching issue, whether it is a culture problem - I don't know what it is and I don't know how to fix it - but that's why the Flames pay Brad Treliving instead of me. It is his responsibility to ensure that this team is as competitive as possible. After six seasons, I still don't see that.


Now, if you want to argue that Burke's fingerprints are all over this still and that Treliving hasn't had enough time, that's a different argument. I just see that he was hired in April 2014, it is now August 2020, and I don't see a team that is capable of winning the cup - nor do I even see a team that I am confident in to make the playoffs next season. Maybe if it wasn't a cap team I can understand - some teams have owners unwilling or unable to spend to the cap, putting their teams on slightly uneven ground. This is a cap team and has been for a while. There really is no excuse that satisfies me at this point as to why the Flames are not at the very least a top team that you can expect to meet the low bar of consistently making the playoffs.


That's where I am at, and that's why I think Treliving probably should be let go.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So that’s a no. I wish a Treliving supporter would give a meaty defense of his overall plan instead of a plea for stability or asserting more good than bad moves.
I’d argue he has been following a vision of sorts, that hasn’t worked too well. He has a pattern of making certain types of moves (stopgaps for goalies, investing heavy in defense, trade picks for players, use of buyouts, UFA signings, spend to the cap, commitment to the current core, hire coaches who preach possession hockey).

I guess you can give him credit for all the attempted moves. Every GM has trades that don’t come to fruition but for some reason, Calgary’s seem to be out in the open. So I don’t know which attempted moves to give him credit for and which you don’t.

I agree the future is more important than the past and I’m sure Treliving is informing his superiors of his plans. What I wouldn’t give to know what he has been saying for last 6 years. Unfortunately we only have his past actions on which to form an opinion.

When he was hired, I thought we were getting a moneyball style GM who would find value in players that may be under appreciated in some ways. The Drew Shore trade was going to be an example of that. Unfortunately there haven’t been many successes here and worse, seems to overpay far too often for such players (Lazar, Stone come to mind). Meanwhile the Canadiens have benefitted from two players who would have fit this bill but we sent packing.

Personally I have limited confidence in his approach but under no illusions he is going anywhere. So we’ll just have to evaluate what he does this off season. If he wasn’t so good with the media, I believe he’d be under a lot more scrutiny.

How is it a no? What are you looking for, and what do you think a GM does?

Do you want to see a player list of the Flames' next Stanley Cup team?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This prompts me to think that the best read on a GM's vision is to watch how he handles the later rounds of the draft, where the "best player available" is considerably less obvious, and the options much more fluid. To my eye, Treliving and his scouts have been crushing the later rounds of the draft.

The best view of a GM’s vision is how they draft in the late rounds of a draft? Is it possible there is confirmation bias in that view? You like how the Flames have drafted in the later rounds so therefore it is indicative of their vision? IMO it is indicative of how they like to pick in the late stages of a draft and not much more than that. And Mangiapane has definitely been a great pick.

I don’t profess to know how the Flames work but for many years my next door neighbor was the assistant GM of the local NBA team and heir apparent to retiring GM. He had surprising little involvement in the later rounds of the draft and street free agent signings and the GM had little to no involvement but certainly did have ultimate sign off.

I guess I just see there is a whole lot more to the plan than how you use your late picks.

[Enoch Root]

For sure there is a LOT more to what they do than late round drafting. And yes, the GM and asst GMs aren't the guys making those picks (that's what the scouts are for). But the scouts are given direction, and that direction comes from the GM and his team.

Also, any time an 'outsider' asks about drafting, everyone involved says it isn't/wasn't up to them, and I think that this is because people always want to question individual picks, which is a tiresome, and no-win situation for those people. The easy out is just say 'I wasn't really involved'. (not saying this is always the case, but I would imagine it happens a fair bit)

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The best view of a GM’s vision is how they draft in the late rounds of a draft? Is it possible there is confirmation bias in that view? You like how the Flames have drafted in the later rounds so therefore it is indicative of their vision? IMO it is indicative of how they like to pick in the late stages of a draft and not much more than that. And Mangiapane has definitely been a great pick.

.

I think you have to judge a GM by who he picks in the 6th round. BT has been very successful in that regard. His UFA signings have not been great, but that is not relevant. His trades have been at best below average, but again not something I look at. He is average at RFA signings, but it is not something I personally look at. The results on the ice have been poor, but he hits home runs in the 6th round with Mangiapane and I think very soon Phillips.

[Flash Walken]

Everyone knows the most accurate way to judge a general manager's performance is who the team picks between picks 150-180.

[Textcritic]

Straw-man arguments are always the very best way to carry forward a discussion.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How is it a no? What are you looking for, and what do you think a GM does?

Do you want to see a player list of the Flames' next Stanley Cup team?

I want a GM who knows the appropriate time to trade 1st round picks.

It has not been that time at any point in the last six years, and a responsible GM would know that.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think you have to judge a GM by who he picks in the 6th round. BT has been very successful in that regard. His UFA signings have not been great, but that is not relevant. His trades have been at best below average, but again not something I look at. He is average at RFA signings, but it is not something I personally look at. The results on the ice have been poor, but he hits home runs in the 6th round with Mangiapane and I think very soon Phillips.

Brad’s UFA blunders are the reason we’re going to be paying the ghosts of Stone and Brouwer, along Lucic’s still-beating heart, a combined $7.92M next year for, optimistically, 20 points.

How is that not relevant?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I want a GM who knows the appropriate time to trade 1st round picks.

It has not been that time at any point in the last six years, and a responsible GM would know that.

I disagree.

Treliving would have been well served dealing picks for either Schenn or Ryan O'Reilly in 2017/18, or even both.

We traded one anyways for Hamonic, and the other ones (Valimaki and Pelletier) have done nothing so far to help this team.

But if we currently had ROR on this team instead of Lucic (because Neal was signed the summer of 2018 and wouldn't have been had ROR been acquired) I'd wager we'd be in much better shape right now.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I want a GM who knows the appropriate time to trade 1st round picks.

It has not been that time at any point in the last six years, and a responsible GM would know that.

2 x 1st round picks (one of those was lottery eligible given the team constructed sucked)

6 x 2nd round picks (I might have this wrong, but think it was 2 in the Hamilton deal, 2 for hamonic, 1 for Elliott,and then 1 for Lazar)

He traded top picks before the roster was in a position to do so. He then couldn't be aggressive in using high picks the year he actually should have to bolster a team that had a lot going for it last year.

He has very little read on his roster in my opinion.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Brad’s UFA blunders are the reason we’re going to be paying the ghosts of Stone and Brouwer, along Lucic’s still-beating heart, a combined $7.92M next year for, optimistically, 20 points.

How is that not relevant?

I should have made the sarcasm clearer. I voted he should go but the Flames will keep him because that is just the way it goes. He is not a very good GM like Jim Benning, he is not a great GM like Lou or Don Sweeney, BT is a below average, bottom third of the league GM. For that I think he has some stability in Calgary. He does nothing particularly well, he does a lot of things pretty poorly but that should be good enough for some stability. Frightening thing for the Flames is he will have to sign a couple UFA's this summer on the backend and will likely make a trade or two.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

2 x 1st round picks (one of those was lottery eligible given the team constructed shucked)

5 x 2nd round picks (I might have this wrong, but think it was 2 in the Hamilton deal, 2 for hamonic and then 1 for Lazar)

He traded top picks before the roster was in a position to do so. He then couldn't be aggressive in using high picks the year he actually should have to bolster a team that had a lot going for it last year.

He has very little read on his roster in my opinion.

You missed the 2nd for Elliott and the 3rd for Smith.

[bubbsy]

That's some crazy draft capital that translates to Lindholm, Hanafin, hamonic on this year's roster (that's frigin fugly).

By this summer that's 8 x 1st/2nd rounders spent (plus ferland, Adam fox), for a contribution of Lindholm and Hanafin.

Now, we approach a summer where it's universally agreed by fans, media, analysts that the core isn't good enough and needs to change, yet thd gm used up all this draft capital over the past 5 years on that?!?!

Treliving should have to essentially re-interview for retaining his job, and plan before he's given the authority to do anything this summer.

How CP gave this genius a higher gm rating than Darryl sutter is beyond me. Sutter blew a lot of draft capital, but those trades brought in big time players like kipper, tanguay, langkow, Simon, bouwmeester, cammalleri, jokinen.

I think we all wanted this somewhat unknown prodigy to be our guy, but there's too many warts in his process and results to not consider whether he should be the guy making the call for such a pivotal point for the franchise.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I disagree.

Treliving would have been well served dealing picks for either Schenn or Ryan O'Reilly in 2017/18, or even both.

We traded one anyways for Hamonic, and the other ones (Valimaki and Pelletier) have done nothing so far to help this team.

But if we currently had ROR on this team instead of Lucic (because Neal was signed the summer of 2018 and wouldn't have been had ROR been acquired) I'd wager we'd be in much better shape right now.

You trade 1st round picks when you’re trying to get an already-good team to take that next step.

This team has never shown itself to be one extra player away from winning rounds in the playoffs - they get obliterated in every seven-game series where they don’t get to play 35-year old Sedin twins and Eddie “the Legend” Lack.

ROR doesn’t make up for Monahan and Gaudreau’s complete inadequacy. I like ROR/Lindholm/Backlund/Ryan a lot more than what we have now, but it isn’t enough.

We need new top players. Everything else is rearranging deck chairs.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

That's some crazy draft capital that translates to Lindholm, Hanafin, hamonic on this year's roster (that's frigin fugly).

By this summer that's 8 x 1st/2nd rounders spent (plus ferland, Adam fox), for a contribution of Lindholm and Hanafin.

Now, we approach a summer where it's universally agreed by fans, media, analysts that the core isn't good enough and needs to change, yet thd gm used up all this draft capital over the past 5 years on that?!?!

Treliving should have to essentially re-interview for retaining his job, and plan before he's given the authority to do anything this summer.

How CP gave this genius a higher gm rating than Darryl sutter is beyond me. Sutter blew a lot of draft capital, but those trades brought in big time players like kipper, tanguay, langkow, Simon, bouwmeester, cammalleri, jokinen.

I think we all wanted this somewhat unknown prodigy to be our guy, but there's too many warts in his process and results to not consider whether he should be the guy making the call for such a pivotal point for the franchise.

Kipper for a 2nd

576GP 305W 192L 68 OTL 2.46 .913 41 shutouts, 1 Vezina, 1 Jennings, First Team All Star, 2005-06.

Tanguay for Leopold, 2nd, conditional 2nd (2007)

Tour 1: 159 GP 40G 139A 179P
Tour 2: 183 GP 46G 99A 145P

Langkow for Gauthier and Saprykin

392 GP 123G 165A 288P over 6 years

Cammalleri for a 1st + 2nd, but recouped 1st + 2nd (2009) immediately by trading Tanguay to the Habs - Not counting his 2nd tour because Feaster acquired him.

81 GP 39G 43A 82P

Jokinen for a 1st, Lombardi, and Prust - counting all his numbers because Darryl brought him back after 26 games.

236 GP 59G 106A 165P

Bouwmeester for a 3rd + Leopold’s negotiation rights

279 GP 18G 79A 97P

Bourque for a 2nd

249 GP 88G 76A 164P

Huselius for Montador + Johner

216 GP 74G 108A 182P

Say what you will about any of those moves, they’ve produced a whole lot more than Treliving’s notable moves. And all these players were acquired between 2004-2009, with the exception of Kipper in November 2003.

Tre has Dougie, Lindholm and... who else has Brad acquired that has produced at a noteworthy level?

Doesn’t make sense.