Brad Treliving needs to go

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Puljujärvi was the overwhelming consensus #3 pick, but Kekäläinen recognized the huge flaws in his game and made a smarter pick. It's not impossible to do that.

But even after picking Bennett, Treliving could have listened to his Stanley Cup winning coach who told him that Bennett wasn't smart enough to play centre in the NHL and moved him after his rookie year while his value was still incredibly high. But nope, he chose to fire that coach and bring in GG to pamper his 'stars' and not upset them.

Another gem of revisionist history.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I understand that people are angry, and they are looking for simple solutions to what they perceive to be a massive, foreseeable problem. But the revisionist history about Treliving like this is utter garbage.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I agree, Brad is terrible in so many other aspects of the job one does not need to focus on Bennett. Even a Sam that turned into a point per game player does not turn the Flames into an elite team. The jump from 5th worst to elite is more substantive than that one unfortunate bust.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have posted pretty extensively about this above, but the strawman that you have constructed of my thoughts are not that the NHL Draft is "all luck." Rather, a good deal of luck very frequently plays into success. If it was as straightforward as you seem to imagine, with the millions of dollars invested into scouting there would never be any surprises, and every pick would be entirely predictable.

Like I said: it is naive to imagine that even the best scouts will always pick a winner.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I never said they always pick a winner

I am arguing that Bennett was a bad pick. They were wrong and it’s not just bad luck

[Jiri Hrdina]

I don’t think it’s unreasonabe to say Sam was the right pick at the time. A lot of key development happens in the draft plus 1 and 2 years which is why every draft would look different just a year later.
Saying Sam was a bad pick is a heap of hindsight management

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don’t think it’s unreasonabe to say Sam was the right pick at the time. A lot of key development happens in the draft plus 1 and 2 years which is why every draft would look different just a year later.
Saying Sam was a bad pick is a heap of hindsight management

I have often wondered about how much a nearly-full missed season in his Draft+1 year impacted Bennett's long-term development.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I understand that people are angry, and they are looking for simple solutions to what they perceive to be a massive, foreseeable problem. But the revisionist history about Treliving like this is utter garbage.

There's no revisionist history here. I literally linked his draft profile articles. This is why all the agile teams are doing retros. Now that we know that he failed, it helps to revisit his profile and look for signs. Try to figure out what happened. He peaked at 20 basically. If you just turn the page, you never learn.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Another gem of revisionist history.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I don't think you know what revisionist history is.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don’t think it’s unreasonabe to say Sam was the right pick at the time. A lot of key development happens in the draft plus 1 and 2 years which is why every draft would look different just a year later.
Saying Sam was a bad pick is a heap of hindsight management

Yup, you leverage hindsights to learn how to draft better. There's nothing wrong with using hindsights.Unless you believe that NHL GM is doing a passable job as long, as he outsmarts a random dude on a message board.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I don't think you know what revisionist history is.

I am aware, thanks. It's this:

Originally Posted by mikephoen

...Treliving could have listened to his Stanley Cup winning coach who told him that Bennett wasn't smart enough to play centre in the NHL and moved him after his rookie year while his value was still incredibly high...

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Yup, you leverage hindsights to learn how to draft better. There's nothing wrong with using hindsights.Unless you believe that NHL GM is doing a passable job as long, as he outsmarts a random dude on a message board.

I agree with this. Looking to the past with a mind to learn is something they should be doing for sure

[Itse]

I don't really see anything here that would amount to an actual defense of Treliving.

The bottom line is, He inherited a 97-point team with plenty of cap space, and has only gotten one season out of the team that was better than that, while spending to the cap. And we have a pretty bad prospect pool.

Management should be about results, and Treliving is just not delivering.

Also, here's the list of GMs that have been on the job as long or longer than Treliving:

Stan Bowman, Chicago: 3 Stanley cup wins
Doug Armstrong, St.Louis: Stanley Cup
Brian MacLellan, Washington: Stanley Cup
Doug Wilson, San Jose: Stanley cup final and 3 conference finals
Jim Nill, Dallas: Stanley cup final
David Poile, Nashville: Stanley cup final
Bob Murray, Anaheim: 2 Conference finals
Keving Cheveldayoff, Winnipeg: Conference finals
Marc Bergevin, Montreal: Conference finals

Plus these two:

Jarmo Kekäläinen, Columbus: 2nd round, once
Jim Benning, Vancouver: 2nd round, once

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ in fairness, the people who think he should keep his job are a minority, the poll shows

Generally it amounts to rationalizing the mediocrity

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ in fairness, the people who think he should keep his job are a minority, the poll shows

Generally it amounts to rationalizing the mediocrity

It’s ok to disagree with someone else’s view but miss representing those views or minimizing them down to “rationalizing the mediocrity” isn’t necessary.

People have stated their reasons
Doesn’t mean you have to agree with them
But it isn’t about rationalizing the mediocrity

I can understand there are valid reasons why he should be fired. I respect thosw that feel that way even though I don’t hold the same view. We should be able to disagree and still have that respect


Also just because the majority think he should be fired doesn’t mean he actually should be

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Still waiting on explanation on why the NHL draft is all luck

It's not ALL luck and no one has even come close to claiming that.

Teams compile data on players, they interview them, they watch tape on them, they di backgrounds on them.

Then they compile lists of those players based on all those parameters from top to bottom. Then when it is their turn to select a player if someone is clearly ahead of those left to choose, they take him.

From there it is a variance of factors that determine whether or not it was the right choice. Did the player do all he could as far as fitness and accepting coaching, did he avoid injury, is he playing at the proper level for development, did he get guidance from mentors and family both on and off the ice...etc etc.

So many things come into play and luck is most certainly part of things. To suggest it isnt is just plain wrong.

Bennett is a terrific example.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It’s ok to disagree with someone else’s view but miss representing those views or minimizing them down to “rationalizing the mediocrity” isn’t necessary.

People have stated their reasons
Doesn’t mean you have to agree with them
But it isn’t about rationalizing the mediocrity

I can understand there are valid reasons why he should be fired. I respect thosw that feel that way even though I don’t hold the same view. We should be able to disagree and still have that respect


Also just because the majority think he should be fired doesn’t mean he actually should be

So consider the chosen words

Has Brad’s tenure on the whole been successful, unsuccessful, or mediocre?
Are people rationalizing it?

I don’t know why you take offence

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So consider the chosen words

Has Brad’s tenure on the whole been successful, unsuccessful, or mediocre?
Are people rationalizing it?

I don’t know why you take offence

Mediocre
But that doesn’t mean those saying he shouldn’t be fire are rationalizing mediocre
They are evaluating why that’s the case and his role in that and assessing on that basis
For instance the biggest factor has been the vanishing of the former best players in a way that would be hard to predict.

There are reasons why some believe he should be retained
Those reasons have been stated
To say that it’s only about rationalizing mediocrity is choosing to not consider at all what others are saying.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Mediocre
But that doesn’t mean those saying he shouldn’t be fire are rationalizing mediocre
They are evaluating why that’s the case and his role in that and assessing on that basis
For instance the biggest factor has been the vanishing of the former best players in a way that would be hard to predict.

There are reasons why some believe he should be retained
Those reasons have been stated
To say that it’s only about rationalizing mediocrity is choosing to not consider at all what others are saying.

More words doesn’t make it more correct

Discussing reasons to justify keeping a GM with a mediocre body of work is rationalizing

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It’s ok to disagree with someone else’s view but miss representing those views or minimizing them down to “rationalizing the mediocrity” isn’t necessary.

People have stated their reasons
Doesn’t mean you have to agree with them
But it isn’t about rationalizing the mediocrity

Also just because the majority think he should be fired doesn’t mean he actually should be

How would you determine whether he "actually should be"? This is an opinion poll after all (at least one of the two questions).

There is some revisionist history going on for sure. But I'm also seeing a healthy amount of rationalizing his performance, which from an on ice perspective has been mediocre or worse. Not dissimilar from how some rationalize Gaudreau's performance based on linemates etc.

Like you said earlier, the ownership may not meddle but they certainly would be setting expectations. In thinking about that, I'd say my expectations from that point have not been met. If ownership was looking for a club that consistently made the playoffs they aren't getting that either.

[Poe969]

There were some fans on here who said this past off season would have been the best time to blow it up. If it would have already started when players had value, the team would be better sooner. This core hasn't been good enough for a while and that should have been recognized. Instead of starting a rebuild, Treliving built around a bad core.

He's like a contractor who sees a building that isn't salvageable but instead of rebuilding, he added a second floor. That's not a good contractor, he's not a good GM. If he couldn't see that this team wasn't good enough, I guess he's a bad judge of talent.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

More words doesn’t make it more correct

Discussing reasons to justify keeping a GM with a mediocre body of work is rationalizing

Of course it is. What's weird is why anyone would be offended by that. What the heck else is it if not to justify, excuse, explain, defend.