Flames Management Confidence - Free Agency

[Macindoc]

Are we talking about UFAs specifically?

I voted 2, mostly for Brouwer and Raymond. And a side order of Glass.

The Bouma deal was bad but was probably for a lower cap hit than the arbitrator would have awarded, albeit with a longer term. Once the Flames had qualified Bouma, they were hooped. I'm glad to see that Treliving learned from this mistake, and has let most replacement-level players go to free agency instead of qualifying them. The only problem with this is that the farm is going to be very thin at some positions unless the Flames bring in more players.

[Robbob]

I gave it a 3 for now, but depending on how this last batch turn out it could go up. His bad haven't been bad enough that they cripple the team. For each of the bad you can understand the reasoning.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

This is the one area Treliving deserves criticism for.

Good free agent signings: Frolik, Engelland, Versteeg (following PTO), Neal (TBD)

Mid-range: Hiller (1 good year, 1 bad), Diaz, C. Johnson

Bad signings: Raymond (buyout), Brouwer (buyout), Grossmann (following PTO-and released),

The bad and mediocre far outweigh the good.

add Ryan as doubtful, and Czarnik as hopeful

add the internal UFA's Gio great, Stajan awful, Stone bad and Backlund off to a bad start.

There are not a lot of teams that do well signing UFA's . The huge amount of money to guys that are for the most part past their prime seems to be a big hurdle for the player to overcome.

The Flames are even in success to the rest of the league but they participate too much (poor development) so the get a 2.

[CaptainCrunch]

It would be interesting to look at the results of free agency league wide and then comparing it to the Flames. I think that the hit and miss nature is going to be make the concept of signing free agents a overall net negative. It should be better as the age of free agents drop, but overall out of everything, drafting and trading, free agency is the most unsure activity.

[GioforPM]

I don’t think Treliving has done well with UFAs. However I’m not sure that’s below league average.

[Bingo]

Love having these specific topics split out and a discussion around each from hockey fans in the market.

I honestly don't look at roster filling, or cap invites on league min in my assessment as they just don't matter. Grossman and Glass were either flyers or signed specifically to generate cap space.

So to me it's looking at a group that includes;

Frolik - he was always going to fade and you could feel it with 5 years and $4+M it was a risk. First three would be good, last two a concern which is part of the business facing all 31 GMs. The good news was he was way better in the first three years than I expected making the last two less expensive. He was a big part of the accountability that this franchise needed to get back to a modern way of playing hockey.
Brouwer - Went worse than I expected to be honest. Expected decline, didn't expect it off the hop.
Raymond - Was always a get to the cap with a quality guy in a rebuild to me so I don't judge it as harshly.

and then later the list will include

Ryan - Worry about three years, but like what he brings.
Neal - Gets some props for getting a name without NMC or NTC tacked on.

Ricardo gets some credit for bringing up your own UFAs, but to me that's sort of a different topic and the Athletic didn't really describe it specifically.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don’t think Treliving has done well with UFAs. However I’m not sure that’s below league average.

This is my thought too ...

My assumption across the league would be 6 GMs get a 1, 6 get a 2, 6 get a 3 etc

In that world I can't put Treliving at 1 and because of that I moved him from a 2 to a 3.

[GGG]

I went with a 1.

I go into July first afraid that Trevling will screw it up.

I think he has 1 good signing — Engelland

The rest have been mediocre to bad. The big thing has been misjudging the current place the team is in. Frolik was done to early, same with Brouwer. Engelland was good becuase they overpaid for years where there was no cap issues.

Neal and Ryan look better as the window is set now to when Johnny’s contract expires but we don’t know how those will play out yet.

In general every July 1st my hope is we don’t screw up rather than a i hope our team gets better so he gets a 1

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This is my thought too ...

My assumption across the league would be 6 GMs get a 1, 6 get a 2, 6 get a 3 etc

In that world I can't put Treliving at 1 and because of that I moved him from a 2 to a 3.

I’ve noticed you using this criteria across the other threads. I don’t think it’s correct the way you’ve framed the question. It’s a question of confidence in the GM rather than a ranking of GMs.

More than an average number of GMs screw up the trade deadline and free agency so fans shouldn’t be confident in the average GMs ability in these two areas. So I thinking grading on a curve would be more correct here. A big spike around 2 and then a bell curve around it

[cral12]

4

The recency effect for me. Brouwer, again, brings this score down, but this year's free agency was a grand slam, landing 3 highly coveted FAs.

[browna]

With some market factors working against the Flames (and always have)the Flame have been able to convince very good players, who have multiple options, over the years to sign here. Neal being the new top of that class.
It’s the honesty (well, at least with this GM, and the one that was fired in 2010) and integrity of the management and owners, as well as them willing to spend to the cap.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’ve noticed you using this criteria across the other threads. I don’t think it’s correct the way you’ve framed the question. It’s a question of confidence in the GM rather than a ranking of GMs.

More than an average number of GMs screw up the trade deadline and free agency so fans shouldn’t be confident in the average GMs ability in these two areas. So I thinking grading on a curve would be more correct here. A big spike around 2 and then a bell curve around it

Ok ... can you help me frame things going forward? I'm lost and need help.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’ve noticed you using this criteria across the other threads. I don’t think it’s correct the way you’ve framed the question. It’s a question of confidence in the GM rather than a ranking of GMs.

More than an average number of GMs screw up the trade deadline and free agency so fans shouldn’t be confident in the average GMs ability in these two areas. So I thinking grading on a curve would be more correct here. A big spike around 2 and then a bell curve around it

Isn't grading on a bell curve exactly comparing the GMs across the league? just grading without regard to a ranking (and assuming most GMs screw up free agency) results in a lopsided curve.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Ok ... can you help me frame things going forward? I'm lost and need help.

Is this a serious request for help or a passive aggressive response? If it is serious I would be interested in helping

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Isn't grading on a bell curve exactly comparing the GMs across the league? just grading without regard to a ranking (and assuming most GMs screw up free agency) results in a lopsided curve.

My main point and I wasn’t very clear rereading my post is that the distribution of GMs isnt 6 1s 6 2s 6 3s. It’s alot of GMs around what ever the middle is then a few at the extremities. So say 20 threes, 4 fours and 1 five

The second argument is separate that given that GMs routinely screw up free agency the average fan shouldn’t have moderate confidence in their ability to navigate free agency so 3 isn’t the correct mean for the bell curve.

(I also assumed this was UFA and not RFA but if it was both them my argument that most teams screw it up is not correct)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is this a serious request for help or a passive aggressive response? If it is serious I would be interested in helping

passive aggressive as hell

I go out of my way not to tell people how to think through their own priorities and ratings, so yeah I'll be sarcastic when someone tells me the way I think it is a mistake.

Setting the table and making a decision are two different things in my mind. If you have 6 in each group as a rule of numbers then you go from there.

I honestly think it's a better starting point in things that have as much emotion as fans rating their GMs to be honest. You have a gut, but how do they compare to other teams in similar situations with similar tenures.

Otherwise you let a Lazar deal take a point off when you shouldn't.

oh and apologies ... Chemo Bingo is a lot grumpier than Regular Bingo.

[taxbuster]

3

Stupid decisions in the past, with aging veterans, redeemed very slightly recently. Still not confident though.

[activeStick]

UFAs are to me, Treliving's weakest aspect as GM but he did get it right with Neal. For RFAs, he does a really good job oddly enough. I think he comes in at below average here.

[N-E-B]

I very badly wanted to give a 3 but my head was saying 2. I like Treliving overall but his UFA signings are his weak point in my opinion. I liked the Neal signing but I’m skeptical about Ryan.