Brad Treliving needs to go

[neo45]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Treliving has a plan, but it has largely not succeeded because of personnel. He had a plan for goalies prior to Markstrom. It was to use vets as stopgaps until Parsons or Gillies were established. He had a centre plan - Bennett/Monahan. Then Lindholm in the mix. He had a RW plan, but his choices for that slot were bad. His notion of a RHS D to play top 4 with Brodie, Gio and Hamilton was sound - he targeted the wrong guy.

If Gillies/Parsons, Bennett, Neal and Hamonic panned out like the plan assumed, you’d have a strong team at goal, D and down the middle. And you’d have a big goal scorer on the RW. Treliving’s flaw isn’t his plan. It’s mainly his pro scouting, plus just bad luck with goalies.

Sorry to circle back but I have to disagree hard with this point as well. The logic behind the Hamonic acquisition was completely flawed as Brodie plays the right side

Brad inherited one of the best pairings in the entire league in Gio and Brodie and decided to break them up (or at least Gulutzan did) and play Brodie on the left where he was less comfortable. It negatively impacted both their games

The logic was based on this completely idiotic and binary belief that you need to play a left shot with a right shot. The Flames never at any point needed Hamonic when they not only were set on the right side, they had arguably the best right side in the entire league with Brodie/Hamilton/Stone/Rasmus developing

So no the logic behind it was actually the complete opposite of sound. Break up a dominant top pairing because they both shoot the same way and pay a first and two seconds to bring in a guy because he shoots right

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by neo45

That’s not a plan, those are just individual pieces. Doesn’t take a genius to look at a depth chart and say “hey we need a goalie”

What kind of team is he trying to build? Obviously not a fast team with Tkachuk, Neal, and Monahan in his top 6

I think he lacks a big picture vision of what he actually wants the Calgary Flames to be and play and nothing proves that better than his absolute gong show of a coaching carousel

It’s no wonder his team lacks identity when most of the good players have gone from Hartley hockey to whatever Gulutzan was thinking to Peters to Ward to Sutter in 5 years

Franchise has seemed completely rudderless under his leadership ever since he hired Gulutzan IMO

Name one team that has a complete collection of players you could categorize as an identity. You won’t be able to. That’s because it’s the coach that gives its team the identity. Did the islanders change their entire roster? Or, did Trotz come in and give them identity?
The Flames haven’t had an “identity” because the coaching was clearly lacking. Which is absolutely Treliving’s fault. With Sutter behind the bench, we’re going to see an identity return.

[Saqe]

Treliving chose to hang on to this core for years, hang on to Bennett, thinking their good enough. That's on him.


And if the buck doesn't stop with Treliving, it doesn't stop anywhere. I'm sure there is some bad luck that every GM faces but there are also some serious blunders with talent evaluation, signings and coaching hires during his tenure in Calgary.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

However, I do disagree with the statement that: "The Flames are a better drafting team outside the 1st round than they have ever been in the last 20 years". I think they have been 'just as good' - I am glad that Treliving didn't have a negative impact on that, but I can't say he has had a positive impact given the overall results, though some of that is 'yet to be determined'.

Ok fair.

I'd have to dig in and see for that statement.

Honestly I just have never felt the Flames have found much under Coates/Sutter/Button in later rounds.

Part of the problem is I have to wait a few years to see how the recent 3-5 years turn out get a good analysis.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

Name one team that has a complete collection of players you could categorize as an identity. You won’t be able to. That’s because it’s the coach that gives its team the identity. Did the islanders change their entire roster? Or, did Trotz come in and give them identity?
The Flames haven’t had an “identity” because the coaching was clearly lacking. Which is absolutely Treliving’s fault. With Sutter behind the bench, we’re going to see an identity return.

Brad chooses the coach so I’m not sure your point

Maybe the teams lack of identity can be partially attributed to the fact that all the good players have had 5 different coaches in 5 years and with vastly different coaching styles?

Plus a lot of his player acquisitions seem to tug in the opposite direction of his coaching hires. You hire Peters to coach (which was fine at the time) but then give James Neal $29 million when he is the exact opposite of a Peters player...

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hanifin is not mediocre. He isn't great yet, but the potential to be great is there, and he is certainly 'good'.

And you conveniently ignored Tanev.

But yes, Hamonic was a failure.

I think we’ll be drafting for Wright and Bedard if the plan is to wait for Hanifin to be great. Dude was carried by Tanev. A great dman carries Tanev, not the other way around.

Again I don’t think he is bad but I don’t think he is even good, let alone great. He is still young so may be he can be really good still but I wouldn’t hold my breath for greatness

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Treliving chose to hang on to this core for years, hang on to Bennett, thinking their good enough. That's on him.


And if the buck doesn't stop with Treliving, it doesn't stop anywhere. I'm sure there is some bad luck that every GM faces but there are also some serious blunders with talent evaluation, signings and coaching hires during his tenure in Calgary.

So if Bennett picks up where he left off after being traded to the Panthers are you then going to tell us he should have hung onto Bennett longer?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Honestly I think the fact that it took you 700 words to respond is evidence he has a plan.

Actually, that was in response to your belief that he has a plan, not to any plan that Treliving has. Having a plan means you have clearly defined objectives, strategies to achieve those objectives, and then actions you execute to achieve those strategies. Treliving has shown none of the above let alone trying execute with any strategic means.

May not have worked, and that's fair, but I don't see a guy without a plan at all.

Well, I guess if speaking in generalities is plan to you, then sure, you can say he had a plan. For a $100M enterprise, a plan you can draw up on a bar napkin just doesn't cut it. Especially when the successes to date can be documented on the same bar napkin.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But again "change" on it's own is not what the team needs at all. They need specific changes, and unless the opportunity is there, and unless the price is palatable then these changes will further damage the team. I didn't see anything happen this past weekend that I thought would improve the Flames as needed, and in this situation it may just be better to be more patient.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I disagree. Change on its own is healthy and would be good for this group. IMO that has been clear for a sufficiently long period of time to have accomplished something.

But that’s just an opinion. If the group stays largely intact and turns it around, then I’m wrong.

We have seen teams improve themselves over the last three off seasons so I think it can be done. One of the problems with this team is the fear of taking a step back before taking two forward. Trading a player under contract for futures hasn’t been done since Jaybo?

[Bingo]

For the record ...

2015-2017 drafts the Flames are the 4th ranked team in terms of the amount of draft capital needed to acquire games played in the 3rd round and on.

Comes down to Mangiapane and Fox, but that's two impact players which most teams don't have.

Detroit is a mess ... in that time frame and those rounds not a single game played from any picks despite expending 6th highest draft capital.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It doesn't show anything.

Your opinion on Hanifin is way off the mark in my opinion, but then my opinion doesn't show anything either.

He was 38th in five on five ice time for defensemen last year, and was part of the 12th best defense pairing of the season.

That's not below average at all.

Yes Hanifin Tanev was a good middle pairing

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

However, I do disagree with the statement that: "The Flames are a better drafting team outside the 1st round than they have ever been in the last 20 years". I think they have been 'just as good' - I am glad that Treliving didn't have a negative impact on that, but I can't say he has had a positive impact given the overall results, though some of that is 'yet to be determined'.

I think you’re wrong here. Flames found nearly as much quality in two drafts (15 and 16) as they did in the entire decade before that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Yes Hanifin Tanev was a good middle pairing

Below average players aren't part of dominant defense pairings. If that was the case you'd put a ####ty defenseman with a guy like Tanev every year and fill out the rest of your pairings with better players.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you’re wrong here. Flames found nearly as much quality in two drafts (15 and 16) as they did in the entire decade before that.

Which is an improvement and not an achievement of supremacy. What may have been construed as a trend has kind of been stopped dead in its tracks and now the team has a bunch of very long shot prospects. Those two drafts are more likely to be outliers with Ruzicka being the only hope left in 2017 and 2018 looking to be a goose egg. Still time, but neither are looking like we're adding anything significant or long-term.

[Flamesfan05]

They had a hell of a draft in 2015 and 2016. Outside of that, they have been well below average and the standings showed.

You could argue it’s still early for some of the later draft but you can’t say Treliving is good after 2016 since there is no data to prove that

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Below average players aren't part of dominant defense pairings. If that was the case you'd put a ####ty defenseman with a guy like Tanev every year and fill out the rest of your pairings with better players.

Ok…you convinced me

He is better than average

You need to do better to convince me he is great

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Treliving has a plan, but it has largely not succeeded because of personnel. He had a plan for goalies prior to Markstrom. It was to use vets as stopgaps until Parsons or Gillies were established. He had a centre plan - Bennett/Monahan. Then Lindholm in the mix. He had a RW plan, but his choices for that slot were bad. His notion of a RHS D to play top 4 with Brodie, Gio and Hamilton was sound - he targeted the wrong guy.

If Gillies/Parsons, Bennett, Neal and Hamonic panned out like the plan assumed, you’d have a strong team at goal, D and down the middle. And you’d have a big goal scorer on the RW. Treliving’s flaw isn’t his plan. It’s mainly his pro scouting, plus just bad luck with goalies.

Let's say, not "pro scouting", but "asset valuation"?
I would take it further, based on what Conroy said about the manner of his work... he is a poor manager, not in a hockey sense, but in a leadership sense. He should read the OT thread started by the new upper management fellow or read "About Face" by Col. Hackworth... Big picture - "the Flames are in" on every available player, yet Treliving is secretive and does all that by himself. Aside from not benefiting from hearing different opinions, you simply run out of time in a day if you are centrilizing all decision making and all the actual work. Presumably, you have AGMs because you trust those people (regardless of what we fans think of Maloney, Conroy, Snow and Pascal), so why aren't they negotiating deals? Maloney, especially, has done it before. Even if you want to reserve the final call for yourself, why not have these guys running down leads? Worried about leaks? It all seems to leak out anyhow. I would rather risk leaks than trade more than a 2nd rounder for Hamonic, or maybe you realize he is not who you thought he was. I mean, if they all agreed that Hamonic was the guy we needed, then they all suck (which is possible). Having run a company (admittedly at much lesser scale), I appreciate the benefits of "other" opinions and also the immense help of delegation...

Also, why are we in on every single available player, as the media suggests? They can't all possibly fit what we are trying to do. That to me suggests there is no real coherent vision, but just a reactionary mentality. "Building through the middle", Bingo, I would suggest is a strategy and a pretty standard one at that, but what is the actual vision? What are we trying to create? Like I said, if you have a coherent idea, there is no reason to be "in on everything". I hate the NBA, but, to take an example, the Raptors clearly had a plan, based on creating a strong "team", as opposed to relying on "stars" - the same sort of thing San Antonio did and I think Phoenix is doing now - I actively stopped paying any attention to the NBA, due to the China issue, so I may be wrong. Anyhow, what is the vision for the Flames? I just don't see a philosophy or theme here, just parts - even if there is emphasis on "up the middle".
Vegas clearly had/has a theme, Boston has a theme, some others too - they could be unproductive, but that is a separate issue. Given Calgary's status as a market, I think there is a theme that suggests itself, and Sutter the GM, to give him credit, had a pretty good grasp on it - he just exectued poorly, and perhaps also suffered from the "over-centralization" bugbear. What we should be doing is emphasizing "team" over "stars" (because "stars" are tough to attract here or you need to get lucky like the Oilers), you should emphasize "Western/WHL" boys, when possible, because they are more likely to want to be here, and, of course, you have to emphasize the draft, both in terms of quality (duh), but also QUANTITY (because you need a constant pipeline of talent to allow you to avoid the UFA market and because the more tickets you have the more chance you have of getting "lucky"). I would also suggest, and this is just my personal opinion - we would be better off emphasizing "heavy" hockey (because those players tend to be cheaper, and because the nature of playoff refereeing favours it). Sutter really had it pretty well nailed as a GM - where he failed was the draft. He drafted atrociously, so had to spend picks or money to fill holes, so had even fewer picks, and therefore drafted more atrociously, etc, etc. Treliving has fallen into the same deficit spiral, even though his drafting is good. He spent a bunch of picks too early, so does not have a pipeline, so must now spend picks and cash to fill holes, so has less picks going forward, etc, etc. Sutter's plan was actually great I think - he just needed to draft Zajac, Benn and Weber. I am joking, but really - I think that's what we need to do - find the "local" kids who will want to be here - there is a much better chance that Point, or a Saskie like Warrener, will commit to the Flames, than a kid from NY or Toronto (obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but we are talking general theme).

Really, where I wound up here with my essay, I think Sutter vision is what we want - we just need an able executor of same vision, in terms of trading, drafting and contract negotiation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Ok…you convinced me

He is better than average

You need to do better to convince me he is great

No one needs to convince anyone of anything.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Ok…you convinced me

He is better than average

You need to do better to convince me he is great

I never said great.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

If Bennett had graduated, gotten better instead of worse, and become the 1C everyone thought he could be on draft day, this team looks totally different.



Totally. Different.





And I can't see how that's on Brad. Flames have gone "off the board" and it didn't work at all. They picked the obvious agreed upon player, and that player didn't pan out strong enough.



If the team got a 1C, a true strong 1C, everything else would work. But they didn't, so they linger as a middling team, exchanging middle pieces for other middling pieces.



Yeah Neal was a bum. That sucked, and again hurt the team, but I don't think anyone expected his total drop-off to uselessness - he'd looked okay with Vegas.



The team slotting is all screwed up, and it's because Monahan has to play 1C and not 2C, which he'd absolutely dominate at.

This is a good post that I mostly agree with, but I thanked it because of your correct usage of the verb "dominate." Well done.

I don't think Treliving should get a mulligan on the Neal contract. It was bad, and while a lot of posters did not recognise its badness, there were several who did, and the GM probably should have known better.

But I also don't believe that the Neal contract or even the Hamonic trade (also bad) are the primary contributing factors to the Flames's most glaring problems. In large part I think the issues have been things falling outside of the GM's control, nearly impossible to predict, and very difficult to correct. (Some of these, you have yourself highlighted.) But what I do appreciate about Treliving is that the most glaring clear errors like Hamonic and Neal are a part of the past which is growing in distance, and his more recent collection of player personnel decisions have been MUCH improved. I think that is positively meaningful.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk