Brad Treliving needs to go

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ thanks, well said

You mention Feaster with the Lightning and I think of Burke joining Anaheim. Though obviously not a first time GM, he goes there and then Pronger needed out of Nogoodville, and Scott Niedermayer wanted to play with his brother

In fairness, Tre tried the same kind of thing with Freddie Hamilton. So there’s that

Except Freddie was an AHL quality player. Having a guy on the lineup not fit to be there must've really pissed off the players fighting for that spot. Executives and their decisions...

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Thanks, but what do you think will allow him to be a palatable choice to continue - do you think:

1) he will learn and stop wasting good picks on garbage at the deadline and on "filler"?

2) that he (the organization) will actually learn how to pro scout and/or use statistical analysis to identify "bargains" or "lemons" on other teams?

3) that our coach selection will improve?

4) he will be better at assessing employee dynamics?

I appreciate that Fletcher got almost a decade to practice in anonymity and had pretty terrible results in Atlanta and we got the benefit of that experience. Sadly, that almost never happens in the "immediate gratification" world of today. Why do you think Treliving would be better going forward?

This is what i said in a different thread

Moving on from the question of are the owners the problem, here is what I would do if I was.

I would go to the management team and say what we are doing hasn’t been working and isn’t working. We aren’t on a path to winning a cup. Not even close.

I would ask for a plan that details what that plan to become a contender is. I would not time-box it or place other restrictive guard rails around the ask. I would ask the GM, as part of that plan, to detail what a realistic timeline is.
I would expect the plan to include:
- Details of timeline and milestones along the way so we know if we are tracking to expectation or not.
- Retrospective on why this re-build went wrong, what we learned and how we are applying those learnings going forward. With specifics.

Evaluation of the current roster and prospects
- Who do we think we can extract the most value out of to re-build the asset base in a sustained way
- Evaluation of when we should act to extract this value. Now? At the deadline? In the off-season? I would want this detail for each player that we would consider moving
- Which prospects do we see part of a future contending club
- What roster players are potentially part of that based on current age and upside
-Evaluation of the next 5 drafts to establish when ideally we should be bottoming out and how that aligns to the quality of those drafts. Kids are scouted in their early teens now – this is information that is available. The further out the less certainty, but still an important consideration.

- Overview of resources required including:
o Key positions including net-new roles requires and salaries required for each
o Overview of current scouting staff – amateur and pro. This would include specific summaries of which players they scouted, decisions and recommendations made, and if those proved to be positive and negative. This should be used to turn over anyone without a track record of being a strong talent evaluator
o Cap required by year

Plan for ensuring that when we are ready to contend we have maximum cap flexibility, or at least have maintained reasonable flexibility
o Other resources to be identified including if we are investing enough in scouting and analytics. Where can we fund more to create an advantage?
o Overview of key talent in front offices that we can try to recruit to supplement or replace the current management team.

I would then evaluate on the basis of the plan delivered if BT is the right guy

[DeluxeMoustache]

The GM should be preparing that plan on an annual basis, minimum, and being evaluated based on his progress and effectiveness

If he is operating without a plan, he needs to be shown the door yesterday

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

He was a new GM!! Of course he didn't inherit a young team with elite talent, high end prospects and oodles of cap space. Those GM's don't get replaced.

Ron Hextall left the Flyers in a pretty good spot.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Ron Hextall left the Flyers in a pretty good spot.

See also Yzerman, though he wasn’t fired.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The GM should be preparing that plan on an annual basis, minimum, and being evaluated based on his progress and effectiveness

If he is operating without a plan, he needs to be shown the door yesterday

Kind of a silly take. Of course Treliving has a plan. It could very well be ride this season out and make moves afterwards. He doesn’t need to declare his plan publicly.

Nice avatar though.

[Strange Brew]

These few examples just kind of prove that the number of newly hired GM’s who inherit worse situations is a lot longer.

Just seems like the arguments I’ve seen supporting Treliving’s work lack substance and support. Saying most new GM’s inherited a better situation is just wrong.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Kind of a silly take. Of course Treliving has a plan. It could very well be ride this season out and make moves afterwards. He doesn’t need to declare his plan publicly.

Nice avatar though.

No one is saying he should disclose his plan. The point is that maybe he shouldn’t be evaluated on his next plan because if he is surprised by what he is seeing this year then that’s rather damning, don’t you think?

The premise of the argument is that ownership should be asking Treliving for his “plan” and going from there. He has been GM for 7 years so I hope we’re past that. It would be a good interview question though for the new person.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

These few examples just kind of prove that the number of newly hired GM’s who inherit worse situations is a lot longer.

Just seems like the arguments I’ve seen supporting Treliving’s work lack substance and support. Saying most new GM’s inherited a better situation is just wrong.

Who’s saying that?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

These few examples just kind of prove that the number of newly hired GM’s who inherit worse situations is a lot longer.

Just seems like the arguments I’ve seen supporting Treliving’s work lack substance and support. Saying most new GM’s inherited a better situation is just wrong.

Depends on which basis you evaluate.
Cap space: Sure.
No pressure: Maybe. Based on what? What was the pressure from ownership. We don't know. Just because we felt on this site there was no pressure for an accelerated re-build doesn't mean that's the case.
Some talented players: Yup agreed here but lacking elite talent as it turns out.

But he also had
- A weak prospect base (if I'm looking at the right year it boasted the likes of Emile Poirier, Sven kicking around, Markus Granlund, Bill Arnold, Morgan Klimchuk, Corban Knight...they then added Sam, Mason McDonald, Hunter Smith, Brandon Hickey - in the 2014 draft.) Hardly a stellar group
- No #1 goalie. The previous year had Ramo, Ortio, MacDonald and Berra. Yuck.
- A leading scorer the previous year that had 54 points in 75 games.
- A top goal scorer the previous year with 26 goals in 63 games, who walked as a UFA.

Again he had some young talent coming for sure. But the most important thing is the assets to work with. A proper evaluation would be to look at the overall depth and quality of organizational assets that the GM had coming in. Would be a lot of work.

But to say that someone's opposing view is just "wrong" is just so binary.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No one is saying he should disclose his plan. The point is that maybe he shouldn’t be evaluated on his next plan because if he is surprised by what he is seeing this year then that’s rather damning, don’t you think?

The premise of the argument is that ownership should be asking Treliving for his “plan” and going from there. He has been GM for 7 years so I hope we’re past that. It would be a good interview question though for the new person.

Seems like a reasonable assumption that Treliving shares his plan with ownership, no?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No one is saying he should disclose his plan. The point is that maybe he shouldn’t be evaluated on his next plan because if he is surprised by what he is seeing this year then that’s rather damning, don’t you think?

The premise of the argument is that ownership should be asking Treliving for his “plan” and going from there. He has been GM for 7 years so I hope we’re past that. It would be a good interview question though for the new person.

Sometimes a new plan is required. A new direction and strategy. This club has been trying to win with this current roster. The premise is that there is admission that won't happen, until from whoever is BT's boss, and that whatever guardrails are in place (if any) regarding expectations for timeline to compete are tossed aside, and a new plan is surfaced on what it will take to build a sustainable contender.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Depends on which basis you evaluate.
Cap space: Sure.
No pressure: Maybe. Based on what? What was the pressure from ownership. We don't know. Just because we felt on this site there was no pressure for an accelerated re-build doesn't mean that's the case.
Some talented players: Yup agreed here but lacking elite talent as it turns out.

But he also had
- A weak prospect base (if I'm looking at the right year it boasted the likes of Emile Poirier, Sven kicking around, Markus Granlund, Bill Arnold, Morgan Klimchuk, Corban Knight...they then added Sam, Mason McDonald, Hunter Smith, Brandon Hickey - in the 2014 draft.) Hardly a stellar group
- No #1 goalie. The previous year had Ramo, Ortio, MacDonald and Berra. Yuck.
- A leading scorer the previous year that had 54 points in 75 games.
- A top goal scorer the previous year with 26 goals in 63 games, who walked as a UFA.

Again he had some young talent coming for sure. But the most important thing is the assets to work with. A proper evaluation would be to look at the overall depth and quality of organizational assets that the GM had coming in. Would be a lot of work.

But to say that someone's opposing view is just "wrong" is just so binary.

You didn't mention an elite top pairing defence in their primes.
Monahan and Gaudreau had also just graduated from prospects.

However, if the point is that the team needed more high end talent then it seems logical to stick with the rebuild instead of rushing it by trading away high draft picks for depth players.

[nik-]

That Hunter Smith pick still bothers me.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by fleury

Except Freddie was an AHL quality player. Having a guy on the lineup not fit to be there must've really pissed off the players fighting for that spot. Executives and their decisions...

Freddie did play for three other NHL teams...its not like the Flames just put some rando in the NHL because his brother was on the team

Guy was a tweener and honestly played okay in that role, I've seen worse

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You didn't mention an elite top pairing defence in their primes.
Monahan and Gaudreau had also just graduated from prospects.

However, if the point is that the team needed more high end talent then it seems logical to stick with the rebuild instead of rushing it by trading away high draft picks for depth players.

The two top dmen were pretty attractive pieces. The Flames do not have two dmen right now that look like they will have a 4 year run like Brodie and Giordano did from 14/15 through 17/18.

Also agree on the rushing the rebuild. It is hard to both not have the top end talent to have an elite team and trade a bunch of picks two to fours years into the rebuild.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Calgary '89

Honestly I can’t believe this thread is still going. GM’s and senior management need to be steady no matter what organization you’re talking about.

It’s crystal clear that the players on this team don’t give a flying puck about winning and don’t really mind losing either. The issue is in the dressing room not the GM’s office.

To all of those who will say “this GM put this team together” I have 2 questions: do you think Treliving expected this talented group to have zero heart or drive when he put them together? And let’s say you get to replace the GM, who’s the next dream GM out there that could turn this team around?

I agree the coach is no good, he has ‘assistant’ written all over them and it’s rare when those types shed their coat and become fearless leaders. I think this coach should be placed back as an assistant handling the PP and they should bring a big voice into the room to put these players in place and get them going again. Problem is it’ll have to be a big voice who’s willing to come here for minimum $$$ cuz Flames ownership doesn’t spend big on coaches.

Instead of bashing our heads against a wall in this chat, here’s an idea: work the players so hard that the weak ones either step up or get flushed out. The entire league is already plugged up with no cap space so forget about asking for a trade there’s none to be had so just give the players the option of working twice as hard or taking turns as healthy scratches.

The Flames have a very solvable problem, a sh*tty attitude. The easiest way to fix that is to sweat it out, it’ll feel like punishment but they’ll realize the attitude is very easy to drop.

I was looking for another post to respond to, but Calgary '89 nails it here.

Most of the criticism's directed at Treliving seem to be brought forward by a loud group of rabble rousers who don't really take any context into consideration.

[Vinny01]

When I think of what I like and don’t like about Treliving it balances out. I think he made some solid draft picks, and did a great job signing RFA’s to extensions. He had some big misses on UFA and made a few bad pick trades.

One of the reasons I was a fan of his is it seemed like the Flames were always in the mix to acquire a big name player but that has turned into an annoyance as the flames are always left as a runner up in these deals.

Honestly when I really think about why I like Treliving it all has to do with Dougie Hamilton. I was such a massive fan of both the move to bring him in here and the move that sent him packing. I thought both moves were perfect for the organization at the time they were made. Getting Dougie proved that Treliving could make the big deal and then when he shipped him out it was another gutsy move that was critical in the Flames winning the west.

Had neither Hamilton move happened I think I would be full on the new GM bandwagon

[8sPOT]

It seems to me that Treliving does pretty well in in the more 'difficult' areas of being a GM. Namely contract extensions, trades, drafting. But he does very poorly in the 'easier' areas of being a GM, hiring a coach, veteran signings (Brouwer, Neal, Simon, Leivo, etc.).

That is enough for me to keep him on. I really think Ward was a horrible choice and I dont understand it. But why cant we accept that as a mistake, fire Ward and start the new path forward? Why play out the season as is?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

It seems to me that Treliving does pretty well in in the more 'difficult' areas of being a GM. Namely contract extensions, trades, drafting. But he does very poorly in the 'easier' areas of being a GM, hiring a coach, veteran signings (Brouwer, Neal, Simon, Leivo, etc.).

That is enough for me to keep him on. I really think Ward was a horrible choice and I dont understand it. But why cant we accept that as a mistake, fire Ward and start the new path forward? Why play out the season as is?

I would argue that the areas you are saying that are easier is not really the case when you are trying to convince players and coaches to come to a bottom tier market like Calgary is.