2021 Off season: You're in charge, what would you do?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Well Dubas got it done but that was a bad deal for the Leafs. Kerfoot is a mediocre player with a 3.5M cap hit and Barrie walked for nothing and the Leafs missed the playoffs last year. They were able to get their guy in Brodie at the end of the day.

Would you have been happier if Treliving pivoted from that deal and made a bad trade?

Well standing pat that offseason and losing two assets for nothing turned out bad. Did that make any of us happy?

I don't ever really buy the argument that all other unknown options were worse for justifying something.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

A small part of me thinks we are not going to get the massive overhaul that we all think is going to happen.

I would not be surprised if this team is the exact same come October.

Of course we won't. Our entire organization, all the way to London, is incapable of making decisions that should be made in a timely manner, or even moderately late. They will always wait too long. We're going to go into next year with "Well now we have Sutter" as an excuse to not make the moves that this team requires. And the best result would be squeaking in and getting dumped in the first round again.

So goes the carousel.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sure, but that is a very low bar wouldn't you agree? I believe, Treliving is a smart guy and he doesn't do things without some reason. But you could look at every single pro sports transaction and in the vast majority of cases. argue the reason for why it was done by both sides.

The successful teams do it better.

For example I understand why he traded a 3rd for Bollig. IMO it doesn't make it a smart deal. I also understand why Boston moved on from Dougie Hamilton, which doesn't mean it wasn't a great deal for the Flames.

Do they though? Every team has mistakes in player evaluation, including successful ones. Every team has moves that work. And luck and happenstance play a way bigger part than people think.

People love Lombardi here, but forget why he’s been fired twice.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Can you imagine the vultures that would circle if you made it clear you were trading everyone. The stink bids you’d get?

I never understand this theory. Why would there be stink bids. All teams are bidding against other teams. The league will set the value of the players.

Unless all teams collude as decide to let 3 lucky teams have cheap players trade wise

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well standing pat that offseason and losing two assets for nothing turned out bad. Did that make any of us happy?

I don't ever really buy the argument that all other unknown options were worse for justifying something.

I don’t really buy the argument that because one option was available that there were a long list of other trades that could have been made.


Treliving was on the cusp of fleecing Dubas (especially if the rumored Connor Brown piece was also in the deal) and when it fell through (because Calgary is a typical team listed on no trade lists) he certainly was not forced to pivot to a bad deal.

[Igottago]

There is a lot I like about Treliving but I also don't know if I'm convinced he should be the guy to now clean up his own mess so to speak. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes is needed to figure out some new paths forward. I'm concerned with how the Flames get from what they are now (a total disappointment), to a legitimate contender. Can Treliving be the guy that figures that out? He's had 7 years and a promising rebuild opportunity to work with..and it crashed and burned.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I never understand this theory. Why would there be stink bids. All teams are bidding against other teams. The league will set the value of the players.

Unless all teams collude as decide to let 3 lucky teams have cheap players trade wise

Because Calgary would be seen as desperate to move players. People are saying “sell for whatever we can get”. That’s not really a sound attitude.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I don’t really buy the argument that because one option was available that there were a long list of other trades that could have been made.


Treliving was on the cusp of fleecing Dubas (especially if the rumored Connor Brown piece was also in the deal) and when it fell through (because Calgary is a typical team listed on no trade lists) he certainly was not forced to pivot to a bad deal.

People forget that (a) Toronto was willing to rent at a significant price because they were confident of a re-signing and (b) Brodie had a (fairly weak) NTC. Also, contenders who need a 2-3D are pretty rare. They typically have bog minute guys. He’s not really a powerplay specialist, nor is he cheap D depth.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because Calgary would be seen as desperate to move players. People are saying “sell for whatever we can get”. That’s not really a sound attitude.

While that is true, as long as the players being moved are sought after commodities, there will always be a good market.

Which is the big problem here. How many of Calgary's players are really sought after commodities?

None of them are particularly cheap. None have much term left. All are coming off of poor years for them.

We know that Johnny's and Monny's names were floated about last off season and Calgary wasn't happy with the return offered. Those offers won't be any better this year with one less year of term and poor performances. I'm not convinced that Calgary could actually move Monny without taking back a poor contract of some sort. He's currently playing less than his cap. He'll need to prove himself productive (which I think means healthy) to get any type of return.

I can'r see Calgary being able to change up its core by trading its exiting players for a new core that is productive today. A guy like Johnny is more likely traded for a top prospect IMO.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I don’t really buy the argument that because one option was available that there were a long list of other trades that could have been made.


Treliving was on the cusp of fleecing Dubas (especially if the rumored Connor Brown piece was also in the deal) and when it fell through (because Calgary is a typical team listed on no trade lists) he certainly was not forced to pivot to a bad deal.

Fleecing? There is an argument to be made Brodie was our most important defenseman. But, neither here nor there - don't mean to de-rail.
I am really curious about this summer. You have Sutter and you have the time pressure of the new building opening being able to justify a 50% price hike for STH's...
It is also tough to judge these guys. For instance, Monahan seems like a pretty earnest, committed guy, who is limited. Maybe that's wrong. Is Tkachuk the reincarnation of his dad that we should sell high on? Is Gaudreau a guy who gets by on talent alone and lacks the off-ice commitment to become MSL? I really don't know and those are key points in making these decisions...

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well standing pat that offseason and losing two assets for nothing turned out bad. Did that make any of us happy?

I don't ever really buy the argument that all other unknown options were worse for justifying something.

context.

2020 TDL, Hamonic was hurt and so was Gio. The Flames, clearly, had expectations to make the playoffs. Treliving shored up the blueline with Forbort and Gustavson. So to think he was going to trade one of his top 2-3 D in Brodie is a bit erroneous and who was going to take an injured Hamonic off your hands and at what cost?

Pretty sure Treliving did the calculated risk and determined that keeping the two assets was going to outwiegh the alternative.

Also assets aren't lost for 'nothing'. It costs cap dollars to resign Brodie, which I am sure the Flames evaluated and in a perfect scenario would have liked to do. Those lost cap dollars are then allocated elsewhere.

Effectively the Flames prioritized making the playoffs over the selling assets when they were very much in the playoff picture. If you were expecting otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to how this organization operates. If you think some other GM would have acted differently, I think you are mistaken.

[DeluxeMoustache]

See, I don’t know how you undo all that has been done.

Last off season, “standing pat” would have been something a lot of fans wouldn’t like to see, but for me, there were some pieces that I would have preferred to see back.

This team, IMO, would be better if, for example, Talbot and Brodie had returned.

Tre chased a #1 goalie and made a big commitment and the cost, which he accepted, was extra dollars and both players.

There are cases to be made both ways on Markstrom.

It is kind of like the Peters decision, in the sense that he wasn’t necessarily proven as a top goalie year in and out, he was a positive contributor on an otherwise unsuccessful team. We do know he for sure was Tre’s guy.

We also do know that
- Talbot signed for 3 yrs at 3.67 M, Markstrom 6x6
- Talbot career stats 341 GP, 167-128-28 2.58, .916
- Markstrom 307 GP 127-135-34, 2.80, .910

How do we know Markstrom is worth an extra 2.3 million a year?

You can make the case that stats aren’t everything and Markstrom is a “top goalie”.

You can also propose the case that statistically, Markstrom is, well, … an average goalie, his career year was .918 last year in Vancouver (while Talbot put up .919 in Calgary), and Tre bought high, paying a guy starting the back 9, for a career year

It was reported that Tre was focusing on Markstrom and when he got around to lower priority Brodie, TJ had decided to accept the Leafs offer (although Tre had already soured that by trying to trade Brodie)

Meantime, this year
Talbot - 17-6-3 , 2.33, .926
Markstrom - 17-17-2, 2.73, .903

That’s a pretty stark difference. I know there are 2 sides of the street. The chances the team allows, and then what the goalie does to keep his own side of the street clean. On Markstrom’s 983 shots against, a .926 would be 23 fewer goals allowed. Even a modest .920 (which you probably want to see for 6 million bucks) would be 16 fewer goals

That would most likely put Calgary in at least reasonable contention for a playoff spot, even despite their scoring woes

Maybe it was Elliott’s stinkers that made Tre convinced that all star bulletproof top shelf goaltending was absolutely required, but at the sand time, teams with goalies like Osgood and Crawford won Cups. A weak goal can kill you, but you don’t need to find the greatest goalie on earth to win. Or more to the point, yeah, Elliott cost the team, but that’s just one of many things that needed upgrading to make the team a contender of any sort

The team in front has a lot to do with it. On that front, we have also seen that Rasmus was paid early for the next step he has not yet taken. His 4.55 cap hit is just a hair over Tanev’s 4.5. And he is absolutely nowhere near the player that either Tanev or Brodie are.

Can you imagine having Brodie and Tanev as the dependable guys in your top 4? Removing Hamonic and adding Tanev would have been a huge upgrade


If it’s me in charge, the GM change has to happen immediately

- Shop Tkachuk. All talk off the ice, and has quit on the team. Find someone who still believes he is a leader who drags his team in to battle and values him as such. Certainly someone who can work with his contract, because I suspect it does not end well here
- If it’s 1 for 1, target a top line RW
- Build a roster with people who play their position. No more of this 5 x middle 6 centres and 1 x RW nonsense
- Target a 1C, and make other Cs available (try to keep Lindholm)
- Ex. explore some kind of package for Buffalo targeting Eichel. (Really depends what Buffalo values, but little is off the table. It would be great to be able to offer Tkachuk plus another piece)
- See if Gio wants to go to a contender, out of respect for him
- Shop Markstrom, target a top pairing D. I’m not convinced that many goalies are worth 6 million, or that he is one of them. I believe he can put up a .920 under a full season of Sutter D but also I think a lot of goalies could

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Do they though? Every team has mistakes in player evaluation, including successful ones. Every team has moves that work. And luck and happenstance play a way bigger part than people think.

People love Lombardi here, but forget why he’s been fired twice.

I guess I look at it this way, and sure its probably a flawed perspective. But if Treliving were to get fired at the end of the year I can look back on his 7 years as GM and ask what he accomplished.

After 8 years I can look back on Lombardi as GM and see he has 2 Stanley Cups.

So if I'm comparing the 2 and a body of work over a similar period of time I'd see one as wearing out his welcome but having a franchise defining amount of success. The other did not.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

S

Tre chased a #1 goalie and made a big commitment and the cost, which he accepted, was extra dollars and both players.

There are cases to be made both ways on Markstrom.

It is kind of like the Peters decision, in the sense that he wasn’t necessarily proven as a top goalie year in and out, he was a positive contributor on an otherwise unsuccessful team. We do know he for sure was Tre’s guy.

We also do know that
- Talbot signed for 3 yrs at 3.67 M, Markstrom 6x6
- Talbot career stats 341 GP, 167-128-28 2.58, .916
- Markstrom 307 GP 127-135-34, 2.80, .910

How do we know Markstrom is worth an extra 2.3 million a year?

You can make the case that stats aren’t everything and Markstrom is a “top goalie”.

I ultimately have no problem with Markstrom, but the whole Talbot tenure just bothers me. Treliving clearly coveted Talbot from the time he was a Ranger, Tried to get him but didn't have the assets and Edmonton signed him.

Finally gets him and the guy is given a shorter than expected leash until he finally clicks and goes on a run. Then, after a wonky final game against Dallas where the coach yanked him in a questionable call they don't bother re-signing Talbot and double down on the coach that messed up the relationship and then fire that coach anyway.

I just don't get the long term vision or planning there.

[1qqaaz]

Also assets aren't lost for 'nothing'. It costs cap dollars to resign Brodie, which I am sure the Flames evaluated and in a perfect scenario would have liked to do. Those lost cap dollars are then allocated elsewhere.

Yes, it costs cap dollars to re-sign Brodie. But he was indeed lost for nothing if you compare to the alternatives.
Again, they could have traded him at the deadline for assets. In that scenario, he would have been lost for something.
And the cap dollars would still be available on top of it all.

Effectively the Flames prioritized making the playoffs over the selling assets when they were very much in the playoff picture. If you were expecting otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to how this organization operates. If you think some other GM would have acted differently, I think you are mistaken.

This is all true. The organization was never going to trade Brodie as a rental while they were in a playoff spot.
That's why we can justifiably blame Treliving/Ownership. It has been obvious that the team can't contend, so why manage the assets so poorly?
At the end of the day, the core of the team's direction and strategy is the problem, and I don't see that changing unless the team is sold or if Edwards miraculously comes to his senses.

The team appears to be run like a business. It's at least somewhat marketable if its mediocre, yet competitive.
Winning, on the other hand, requires present-day sacrifices that ownership just doesn't want to make.
Even from a business standpoint, I don't think this is sustainable. Flames fans will lose more and more interest as this drags on.

The Flames have fallen a long way from the 1980s, when winning was the clear priority.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I ultimately have no problem with Markstrom, but the whole Talbot tenure just bothers me. Treliving clearly coveted Talbot from the time he was a Ranger, Tried to get him but didn't have the assets and Edmonton signed him.

Finally gets him and the guy is given a shorter than expected leash until he finally clicks and goes on a run. Then, after a wonky final game against Dallas where the coach yanked him in a questionable call they don't bother re-signing Talbot and double down on the coach that messed up the relationship and then fire that coach anyway.

I just don't get the long term vision or planning there.

It was reported that an offer was made to Talbot and he went to free agency as he didn’t like it. Flames set a price for Talbot and they did not exceed it as I believe there was the mutual interest between the Flames and Markstrom so it made it even easier to walk away.

[Flame On]

If you're going for a culture shift (which seems like the third option from re-tool and rebuild) then you do just that.

• Find out if Johnny is actually wanting to be here, if so re-sign, if not explore.

• See what you can get for mild mannered Sean Monahan. Whether you believe he's up to it or not game wise, it can't be argued that he is a hate-to-lose or gritty type of player. He's no better than Backlund or Ryan in terms of defensive abilities and many people are fine with letting them go.

• Again if you're making moves under the lens of Culture Shift, I think you expose Gio. I'm not down on him but I think that's the biggest impact there.

• Make Chucky captain. Hopefully that'll rededicate him and his buy-in will go up.

• Identify Sutter types with either size or grit that compete to bring in.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

It was reported that an offer was made to Talbot and he went to free agency as he didn’t like it. Flames set a price for Talbot and they did not exceed it as I believe there was the mutual interest between the Flames and Markstrom so it made it even easier to walk away.

I believe it was reported they told Talbot to hang tight, as Markstrom was their number one top target.

[Toonage]

^ This is kind of my point. Why do that to a guy, or try to grossly underpay a guy that not only performed well for you but you also pined for since 2014?

Because he and the coach might not get along? The coach you may have tried to replace in the off season and then canned anyway a few months into the actual season?

Shiny new toy syndrome with Markstrom?

Where is the planning? This all felt so "by the seat of your pants"

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Toonage

^ This is kind of my point. Why do that to a guy, or try to grossly underpay a guy that not only performed well for you but you also pined for since 2014?

Because he and the coach might not get along? The coach you may have tried to replace in the off season and then canned anyway a few months into the actual season?

Shiny new toy syndrome with Markstrom?

Where is the planning? This all felt so "by the seat of your pants"

Talbot had a rollercoaster ride between the 2015 trade and his time as a flame in 2020. He had one year as a top workhorse goalie and then 2 years of being a tire fire. He rebuilt himself with the Flames but was still a big risk. Markstrom had 3 years of being a work horse with a lot of positive fancy goalie stats. Taking him from the Canucks and keeping him from the Oilers was seen as a big win for Calgary.

Year 1 certainly was a let down but a bounce back in year 2 playing in front of the fans at the dome with a team playing Sutter style OT wouldn’t shock me if he was back in the Vezina race in 22