Brad Treliving needs to go

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Should you change the captain of a leaking ship in the midst of a storm?

The proprietors of the ship encouraged him to sail a ship that looked a little shoddy. Most of the passengers (fans) thought the ship looked fine, and the captain seems to have thought so, too. Nobody expected a storm of this nature (COVID/flat cap).

Even if we can get a brilliant and experienced captain aboard, will he know enough about this particular ship to prioritize the right repairs? Or perhaps should we let Treliving steer the ship through the off-season and re-assess how it's looking after another half season in less turbulent water?

We are not in the mid of the storm phase
We are in the clean up and rebuild phase

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Should you change the captain of a leaking ship in the midst of a storm?

The proprietors of the ship encouraged him to sail a ship that looked a little shoddy. Most of the passengers (fans) thought the ship looked fine, and the captain seems to have thought so, too. Nobody expected a storm of this nature (COVID/flat cap).

Even if we can get a brilliant and experienced captain aboard, will he know enough about this particular ship to prioritize the right repairs? Or perhaps should we let Treliving steer the ship through the off-season and re-assess how it's looking after another half season in less turbulent water?

After seven years you should have a good idea of whether you have the right captain. IMO it’s not just about saving the next season.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

LOL. So you are just ignoring the question. And you don’t even know what was being discussed. The fact you think I’m defending Treliving is funny, too. I voted that he should be fired.

One more time: Did the Flames under Treliving refuse to trade important players? Yes or No.

I think the answer to this is no, however I think some are concerned because we lost Brodie for nothing. Did we wait too long, or should have tried to get something for him? The fact that it went down the way it did still bothers some people. That is understandable. The reality is we don't have all the information to say what the reasons were. We do know that Treliving intended to sign him, but had some strong priorities. His decision not to trade Brodie sooner may have been due to the need for Brodie to be on the roster. I am one of those who wondered at the time (in the end), why we didn't get something for Brodie especially when we need assists. I think a lot of it has to do with the way it played out, very fortunate that Treliving signed Tanev. Could this have been a back up plan, still hard to say without more information.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Should you change the captain of a leaking ship in the midst of a storm?

The proprietors of the ship encouraged him to sail a ship that looked a little shoddy. Most of the passengers (fans) thought the ship looked fine, and the captain seems to have thought so, too. Nobody expected a storm of this nature (COVID/flat cap).

Even if we can get a brilliant and experienced captain aboard, will he know enough about this particular ship to prioritize the right repairs? Or perhaps should we let Treliving steer the ship through the off-season and re-assess how it's looking after another half season in less turbulent water?

The ship is heading for an iceberg and it's too late to change course. Doesn't matter who the captain is. We need to sink this ship and build an entire new one. Might be able to re-use some parts if we change direction now and minimize the impact of the collision.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

I think the answer to this is no, however I think some are concerned because we lost Brodie for nothing. Did we wait too long, or should have tried to get something for him? The fact that it went down the way it did still bothers some people. That is understandable. The reality is we don't have all the information to say what the reasons were. We do know that Treliving intended to sign him, but had some strong priorities. His decision not to trade Brodie sooner may have been due to the need for Brodie to be on the roster. I am one of those who wondered at the time (in the end), why we didn't get something for Brodie especially when we need assists. I think a lot of it has to do with the way it played out, very fortunate that Treliving signed Tanev. Could this have been a back up plan, still hard to say without more information.

I said in the other thread that, in hindsight, Treliving should have traded Gio to Toronto, which I think was doable, used the savings for Brodie and he still could have signed Tanev.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’m not talking about whether Treliving is a good GM or not. I’m simply arguing about a false narrative about the team being unwilling to make such trades in general. That’s why willingness matters. I wish people would follow the discussion before chiming in with irrelevant points.

I don’t defend Treliving. I argue against things that I believe are incorrect or unfair criticisms. I agree with correct or fair criticisms. Treliving has made enough mistakes, and the team has not progressed enough under him where I think he gets to keep his job. It’s a results business.

I think I am able to follow the discussion. Willingness matters very little in a results oriented business.

I’m not criticizing you, just pointing out that you have defended Treliving ad nauseum against perceived slights. For someone who wants him gone, you argue 99 times out of 100 against other’s criticisms of his performance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

I think the answer to this is no, however I think some are concerned because we lost Brodie for nothing. Did we wait too long, or should have tried to get something for him? The fact that it went down the way it did still bothers some people. That is understandable. The reality is we don't have all the information to say what the reasons were. We do know that Treliving intended to sign him, but had some strong priorities. His decision not to trade Brodie sooner may have been due to the need for Brodie to be on the roster. I am one of those who wondered at the time (in the end), why we didn't get something for Brodie especially when we need assists. I think a lot of it has to do with the way it played out, very fortunate that Treliving signed Tanev. Could this have been a back up plan, still hard to say without more information.

With the D out at the deadline the team wasn't going to trade Brodie. I think I share the view that this team should be more brutal about asset management but they clearly still wanted to get in the playoffs - and with Gio/Hamonic already out - they weren't going to trade Brodie.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

With the D out at the deadline the team wasn't going to trade Brodie. I think I share the view that this team should be more brutal about asset management but they clearly still wanted to get in the playoffs - and with Gio/Hamonic already out - they weren't going to trade Brodie.

Mistakenly thought he built a contender. Team was nowhere ready.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think I am able to follow the discussion. Willingness matters very little in a results oriented business.

I’m not criticizing you, just pointing out that you have defended Treliving ad nauseum against perceived slights. For someone who wants him gone, you argue 99 times out of 100 against other’s criticisms of his performance.

Perceived slights? Nah. What I argue about are things that I think are wrong. And I agree with things I think are right. In other words, because it’s about Treliving is irrelevant. In fact, in this case, it wasn’t even about Treliving, it was a statement about the team which was just a false narrative. “Afraid to make big bold moves”.

I think the truth is the opposite. Treliving gets focussed on a result and makes moves that are incorrect in pursuit of them. That’s how you get Brouwer and then Neal, how you get Hamonic, partly how you lose Brodie in the offseason, etc.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Mistakenly thought he built a contender. Team was nowhere ready.

To be fair I think the injuries played a part in the way things played out. I think in Treliving's mind he would prefer to have kept Brodie; Brodie himself, said that the initial interest from Toronto and the fact they "wanted" him played into the decision. We also know that it also meant he was closer to home. Who knows but maybe some of it was an understanding between Brodie and Treliving and they let it play out the way they did. Safe bet that if Toronto was not the picture Brodie might still be a Flame.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Perceived slights? Nah. What I argue about are things that I think are wrong. And I agree with things I think are right. In other words, because it’s about Treliving is irrelevant. In fact, in this case, it wasn’t even about Treliving, it was a statement about the team which was just a false narrative. “Afraid to make big bold moves”.

I think the truth is the opposite. Treliving gets focussed on a result and makes moves that are incorrect in pursuit of them. That’s how you get Brouwer and then Neal, how you get Hamonic, partly how you lose Brodie in the offseason, etc.

The old someone on the internet is wrong about something and it’s my sworn duty to argue them into submission. I’ve fallen into that trap too.

I personally don’t know if Treliving gets too focused on a result. He was willing to trade Brodie and then didn’t do it. He was willing to trade a high pick for a winger (Zucker) and didn’t do it.

IMO it’s all about what happened and didn’t happen. The trying, wanting and even motivations are interesting but since we don’t have a clear view into all of that, there are always going to be different takes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The old someone on the internet is wrong about something and it’s my sworn duty to argue them into submission. I’ve fallen into that trap too.

I personally don’t know if Treliving gets too focused on a result. He was willing to trade Brodie and then didn’t do it. He was willing to trade a high pick for a winger (Zucker) and didn’t do it.

IMO it’s all about what happened and didn’t happen. The trying, wanting and even motivations are interesting but since we don’t have a clear view into all of that, there are always going to be different takes.

I think with Brodie, the landscape changed after defencemen started going down. That wasn’t a great trade anyway. Kadri isn’t the centre the Flames needed.

But Treliving wanted a big top 6 RW. Even after Brouwer didn’t work out, he figured he just got the wrong guy, doubled down, and made the Neal signing. He wanted a RHS D on every pairing, and he wanted Brodie on the left so he got Hamilton and Hamonic and paid a premium.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

We are not in the mid of the storm phase
We are in the clean up and rebuild phase

Flat cap with impending expansion draft, and our captain and highest scorer both 1 year from expiring deals. That’s the environment we’re in. Time is critical.

The ship isn’t much different than 2 years ago (aside from contract terms ticking down). The guy who built it at least has a better idea of what each part is worth and who might want to buy them than some other guy who’s never seen this particular ship before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Flat cap with impending expansion draft, and our captain and highest scorer both 1 year from expiring deals. That’s the environment we’re in. Time is critical.

The ship isn’t much different than 2 years ago (aside from contract terms ticking down). The guy who built it at least has a better idea of what each part is worth and who might want to buy them than some other guy who’s never seen this particular ship before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not trust the guy doing the evaluation

He has overestimated a lot of players, UFAs and in house, and missed the boat on others

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Flat cap with impending expansion draft, and our captain and highest scorer both 1 year from expiring deals. That’s the environment we’re in. Time is critical.

The ship isn’t much different than 2 years ago (aside from contract terms ticking down). The guy who built it at least has a better idea of what each part is worth and who might want to buy them than some other guy who’s never seen this particular ship before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take the guy who is laying fresh eyes upon this ship over the cross-eyed ones that have commanded it for the past seven years.

This ship is barely seaworthy.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I do not trust the guy doing the evaluation

He has overestimated a lot of players, UFAs and in house, and missed the boat on others

You could say this about every GM in the league.

Not too sure what people expect would happen if a new GM came on board right now, to be honest.

[Britflamesfan]

You can boil this situation down quite simply. The GM has had 7 years to produce a team to contend for the cup, he had some good assets when he arrived and he has been able to spend to the Cap. Has he won the cup, nope, has he got close, nope. Is the team in a better position now than when he arrived, nope. He has failed and should be moved, unless you want more of the same.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TOfan

You could say this about every GM in the league.

Not too sure what people expect would happen if a new GM came on board right now, to be honest.

That’s the exact depth of analysis I expect from a drive by

Could a well framed series of coin tosses outperform Tre?

I think it’s plausible

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

That’s the exact depth of analysis I expect from a drive by

Could a well framed series of coin tosses outperform Tre?

I think it’s plausible

You might as well just come out and say 'Treliving should be fired because I don't like him'.

A coin toss? how many decisions do you think he has had to make over the past 7 years? how many do you think we, as fans, actually hear about? Friedman himself said on a recent podcast he thinks he hears about 10% of what is discussed between GM's.

Frankly, we don't know what we don't know. How many hundreds of decisions do you think he has had to make and why would you suggest he is only 50/50 on those? Based on what, exactly? It seems like you, and some others, don't like the guy and your ability to think critically about it is clearly secondary.

Talk about a drive by.

[nik-]

It's weird how voraciously some people will defend this mediocrity.