Thoughts on Treliving so far?

[djsFlames]

Made some solid, savvy moves last year outside of bringing in Raymond.

This year was not decisive enough in dealing with the goaltending situation, and one could argue has been a little too patient in general. Hiller should have been moved at the first opportunity. Whether that was at the draft or early this season, at 34 he simply was not in the plans.

Moving a goaltender out would have allowed the team to pick up Bernier when he was sent down, which would have been another savvy move given his rebound. Clearly the Leafs weren't willing to take any of our tenders the other way.

Also feel he could have dealt Hudler for a sizeable return after last season (maybe to address needs in net), and now he will return very little, and likely just walks after the season just like Cammalleri did. So there could've been better asset management.

C+

[Jason14h]

For those giving a C or lower, I have no idea what the heck you guys expected from him.

C was average historically speaking. However, now some people see a C as a failure.

I think he has been average. He has had great, good, bad, and terrible moves.

We don't know how the Hamilton deal turns out, but I think it was a good gamble to take.
We don't know how the Gio contract will play out.

However, we DO know how Bollig and Raymond signing's worked out. I don't care if they don't hurt us in 2017. They were bad moves/failures.

The goalie situation is a failure. We are one of the weakest teams in net.

The team still can't win faceoffs or kill penalties. This area's were not addressed in the offseason (Partially because of dead weight cap players I'm sure)

Since I think he has been overall average, I will score a C+. I understand grades up to a B, but how he can be graded an A for a team that is 26th overall and still spending to the cap is beyond me.

An argument could be made he hasn't even made better moves then Feaster......

[Phanuthier]

RE : Raymond, I actually didn't think it was that bad of a deal at the time. Our forward ranks were completely depleted with Cammalleri leaving and Stempniak gone, we had pretty much 2 legit top 6 forwards (Hudler and Glencross; maybe David Jones too) and were hoping that Backlund and Stajan would be able to fill the minutes and Sven would solidify himself as a top 6 forward. He was the cheaper option to Cammalleri. Gaudreau was a unknown, and if anyone remembers really struggled the first 2 months and was almost demoted to the AHL.

To me, I kind of see Bollig and Engelland as there for leadership and gives our team toughness since they were a bunch of a young midgets trying to cut their teeth in the NHL. And both played very well in the playoffs.

All 3 were probably brought in for 1 year too long (2 years is better) as pointed out above.... circumstance. We barely looked like a NHL team, and despite them not working out, we made the playoffs with some good competitive mojo in what I was sure was a guaranteed lottery pick team.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree with you on b). But I am not on board with a) if that was truly their thinking. If you are trying to get to the cap floor, you should be focused on 1 and 2 year deals. A 3 year deal takes away too much flexibility.

As for the young guys surprising everyone by earning roster spots, who exactly are we referring to? Gaudreau? Was him making the team that big a surprise? Monahan? He already had a year under his belt when Raymond was signed. Jooris? Is he really the one making the veterans expendable?

IMO it is less about the young players being such a surprise but the fact that some of these fringe veterans just haven't been very good.

Treliving underestimated the roster HUGE (which in fairness was horrid on paper) and thought it would take 3 years to "fix it". He took an conservative approach which looks bad in hindsight. It took 3 months to reach maturity of prospects that he expected in 2-3. I'm not going to defend management, but idea wise at the time he wasn't off his rocker either.

ALSO, off topic, but LOL for those saying that Treliving loses points for not getting rid of Bollig, Raymond etc. earlier. Sign guys to 3 years, didn't get rid of them after 1 year therefore is slow to get rid of them. I hold Treliving at fault for those signings, but fault him for not getting rid of them fast enough is too funny. How would he get rid of them? What type of message to future free agents would that send?

Gaudreau was a surprise. Nearly everyone thought Baertschi would take a spot hands down. Even if JG was a lock for the roster, 1st in line LW in his rookie year? Don't tell me that's not a surprise. How many top picks let alone a dark horse pick in JG take 1st line right off the bat? It's rare and not something you expect to happen, just gravy if it does.

Jooris literally came out of no where. Again a surprise for someone who had been to 2 other camps before ours and was undrafted.

(Jooris)He attended camp for the Boston Bruins in 2011, and in 2012 for the Vancouver Canucks. In his third attempt, in 2013, he successfully earned a contract with the Calgary Flames and turned professional.

Vets not being very good is true. But we knew that going into the season. RW wise, we had Hudler as a plug (for necessity), Jones as a natural, McGrattan (love the guy, but he wasn't going to cut it on RW) and literally nobody. The 3 fighting over the spot were Jooris (came from no where), Setoguchi (warm body if nothing else came up) and Engelland.

Monahan was a surprise. 1st line and doing ok at his age? We'd be ecstatic he wasn't a -2 every night against top opposition when he was first tried on 1C (went from 3C to 1C due to injuries). We got more than expected and the points came too. The rest is history. He is our current 1C even if he wasn't penciled in for that role starting last season.

[Phanuthier]

Without a doubt, Treliving is a better GM then Feaster. I am more bitter than most, but I would say he goes down as the worst GM in Flames history and one of the worst GM's in the NHL for the last 2 decades. If you think Raymond over $9M over 3 years is bad, how about Wideman at $25M over 5 years.

[djsFlames]

Wideman would've gotten the same if not a higher price tag than that if he made it to the market that summer. Probably around the same term.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

C was average historically speaking. However, now some people see a C as a failure.

I think he has been average. He has had great, good, bad, and terrible moves.

We don't know how the Hamilton deal turns out, but I think it was a good gamble to take.
We don't know how the Gio contract will play out.

However, we DO know how Bollig and Raymond signing's worked out. I don't care if they don't hurt us in 2017. They were bad moves/failures.

The goalie situation is a failure. We are one of the weakest teams in net.

The team still can't win faceoffs or kill penalties. This area's were not addressed in the offseason (Partially because of dead weight cap players I'm sure)

Since I think he has been overall average, I will score a C+. I understand grades up to a B, but how he can be graded an A for a team that is 26th overall and still spending to the cap is beyond me.

An argument could be made he hasn't even made better moves then Feaster......

C+ is reasonable though based on your explanation. I'm not irked by C+, but C and below, I shake my head. I honestly think we're pretty much on the same page, but perhaps differ in the weighting on the score/how to score him. So I'm cool with that.

If we rate him based on what he has done, sure, you could probably say average, but IMO, the job he inherited was beyond the hopelessness and scope of an average GM's situation IMO. But I think a HUGE point most fans forget, he was a rookie GM in year 1.

He's fixed many things and still has a ways to go. But IMO I give him a higher mark because he's been on the job 1.5 years and year 1 was his first year.

Now if it were some established GM, yeah, I probably wouldn't question people saying he gets a C.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

The fact that he got a 22 year-old Dougie Hamilton for three draft picks, and then signed him to a five-year deal with a 5.75 cap hit, gives him a solid A in my books.

Anyone remember Jay Bouwmeester?

Yeah. We'd be better off today with him in the lineup. Unless you really covet Poirier and Smith. Engelland, Smid and Russell are likely never acquired.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Without a doubt, Treliving is a better GM then Feaster. I am more bitter than most, but I would say he goes down as the worst GM in Flames history and one of the worst GM's in the NHL for the last 2 decades. If you think Raymond over $9M over 3 years is bad, how about Wideman at $25M over 5 years.

I think that is completely ridiculous. He was no great GM, but to me he looked like a vast improvement over Sutter's last four or five years of silly.

Off topic, but no credit whatsoever for Feaster?

I prefer Treliving, but yikes.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

C+ is reasonable though based on your explanation. I'm not irked by C+, but C and below, I shake my head.

C+ = 77-79
C = 73-76

A possible difference of a percentage point with a maximum variance of 6 points. The travesty I tell you! I mean, someone should shake their head right off!



I appreciate we want our guy to be considered great, but C is an average grade and the team is below average. There are some good components, most of which were a result of work from the previous regimes, but the promise is there. To earn a higher grade that promise has to be proven, and the very and that are not performing need to be cut loose. A good trade deadline that sees some of those vets traded and he can earn that B, possibly an A, and set the team up for the future. But if we head into next season with Raymond, Bolig, Wideman, Smid and Engelland still on the team, that is a fail and a possible $10M+ in cap space eating popcorn on any night. That is a challenge he needs to address and he is year two into having this same problem.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I think that is completely ridiculous. He was no great GM, but to me he looked like a vast improvement over Sutter's last four or five years of silly.

Off topic, but no credit whatsoever for Feaster?

I prefer Treliving, but yikes.

I would disagree. For every bad trade Darryl made (Phaneuf nightmare), Feaster upped him (Traded our top pairing defenseman, and added a 2nd round pick, for a guy we lost on waivers in Byron and the other who sucked and is now in the AHL in Butler). Darryl might have put us in "cap hell" with guys like Sarich (who Feaster re-signed), but Feaster left behind Wideman at $5M and Jones and $4M (to Hagman's... $3M I think it was); the only reason we weren't at the cap limit is because we sucked too much. I don't give Feaster credit for drafting because he openly admitted he didn't watch any junior games, and I think he said he didn't even watch the WJC; Gaudreau was drafted during the Feaster regime, but Brodie was drafted during Darryl's. The difference is Darryl made trades for good NHLers, Feaster traded good NHLers for magic beans. Good thing he was left with Tod Button to bring in prospects so that Feaster looked like he was "good at scouting" even though he did not scout any junior games.

And that wasn't even the worst to me; in the media, he was just a nightmare. It was embarrassing, almost (with enough time, just as bad) as the Oilers. He actually went media silent for months after the ROR fiasco, and its my own speculation that he was gag-ordered by Flames ownership, and Brian Burke brought on shortly after to provide some leadership to this front office circus. I think the Flames realized we were on the brink of being as embarrassing as the Oilers, thus Burke was brought on to evaluate the organization and point it in a respectable direction.

The best thing about Feaster was that he was so bad he accelerated the rebuild... if he didn't swing and miss so many times, we might have forever been stuck in a "win now mode" ... he did not want to rebuild, he openly mocked Edmonton and said "if they want to rebuild, they can find another GM for it" ... but was so bad at his job we ended up rebuilding anyways ... thankfully we got 2 great draft picks in Monahan and Bennett, thank god he failed at the ROR attempt.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by saillias

Yeah. We'd be better off today with him in the lineup. Unless you really covet Poirier and Smith. Engelland, Smid and Russell are likely never acquired.

this is a good point but maybe if we had boumeester we wouldnt have gotten bennet and probably taken dall colle or virtanen because we wouldve finished higher. I guess it worked out in the end. Regarding treliving id give him a c, to much dead weight on the roster.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by New Era

C+ = 77-79
C = 73-76

A possible difference of a percentage point with a maximum variance of 6 points. The travesty I tell you! I mean, someone should shake their head right off!



I appreciate we want our guy to be considered great, but C is an average grade and the team is below average. There are some good components, most of which were a result of work from the previous regimes, but the promise is there. To earn a higher grade that promise has to be proven, and the very and that are not performing need to be cut loose. A good trade deadline that sees some of those vets traded and he can earn that B, possibly an A, and set the team up for the future. But if we head into next season with Raymond, Bolig, Wideman, Smid and Engelland still on the team, that is a fail and a possible $10M+ in cap space eating popcorn on any night. That is a challenge he needs to address and he is year two into having this same problem.

TL;DR version - I'm just going to hope we can agree to disagree on scores and just ignore scores and conclusions. IMO, Treliving has done many great things, a few things we can shake our head at, but IMO, I am confident our teams are in good hands.

I said it was a reasonable explanation and grade, I never said I agreed with it. But hey, yeah, let's argue over 5% and the letter grade that goes with it.

But if we head into next season with Raymond, Bolig, Wideman, Smid and Engelland still on the team, that is a fail and a possible $10M+ in cap space eating popcorn on any night.

Fail = F then? I can't imagine what letter you would have given McTavish then. At least those players are NHL roster players undesired on the roster due to depth. His were straight up AHL players IN the AHL. The guy hasn't been an NHL GM for long, I think his performance so far is indicative of that.

TBH, I am very interested to see if Treliving can do the hard thing, admit mistake and buy out Raymond. Smid at least for sure is NHL calibre, just over paid. Raymond is same situation Glencross with more term. Probably NHL calibre, but you'd prefer trying kids due to upside and hella no at 3mil.

He has also done impressive underrated things that we may not even give him credit at such as his work at the AHL level. Shore for Knight? Whoa that was left field, but it did check many boxes for things we needed. Size, right handed shot etc. Underrated move IMO, because Shore is still in the AHL. But hey, I love that idea of move for a potential future solution (Knight would have just been an excess, Shore has potential of being shifted to RW which is a team need).

Yes, we should give previous regimes credit, but to imply his performance is average due to him coasting and lucking out on the previous regime's "luck" and pieces is both true and completely false at the same time. His extension work was excellent. His processes prudent. His signings prudent though perhaps misguided. He isn't dicking around and making mistakes on purpose. He doesn't have a huge stamp on his team yet, but he has impressively continued to cultivate and grow that previous regime's roster rather than chop things apart and build it completely different in his way.

IMO Treliving is top 15 GM for sure. Amazing for being a GM for so short of a time. If that's a "C", cool. Perhaps most of the loud noises is purely due to people being on the same page, different paragraph. Someone's C = someone else's B.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Some people have crazy expectations for a guy who was hired 1.5 seasons ago at the beginning of a re-build. Honestly, I don't think you can evaluate a GM for about 3-5 years after he's taken the job, unless it's a Rutherford-type situation where the guy is gifted 3/4 of Stanley Cup contender on day one.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Wideman would've gotten the same if not a higher price tag than that if he made it to the market that summer. Probably around the same term.

I suspect you're right but that doesn't make it a good signing. About 25+ smarter GM's in the league likely had zero interest at that price tag.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I suspect you're right but that doesn't make it a good signing. About 25+ smarter GM's in the league likely had zero interest at that price tag.

We actually got pretty good value for Wideman as an UFA until just this year. Again some people don't seem to understand that you have to overpay for almost every UFA and give them longer term than you want.

25 smarter GM's? Almost every GM is handing out regrettable contracts to defensemen. You have but to scan the list of defensemen to find many overpaid as UFA so don't pretend like Wideman is the only one.

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/cap-hit/defenseman/

Campbell - 7 million!!!
Green - 6
Wizniewski - 5.5
Petry - 5.5
Enstrom 5.75
Carle - 5.5
Streit - 5.25
Bieksa - 4.6
Boyle - 4.5
Andrew McDonald - what, like 5+ million rotting in the minors?

Overpaying in both term and dollars for UFA defensemen is the norm. Like I said we actually got good value for Wideman until this year. Only 1.5 years more of him left. A lot of the UFA defensemen are terrible deals in the final couple years of their contracts.

There is a risk with signing older UFAs. At the time we signed Wideman I believe we had no right shooting defensemen. The contract was solid for the majority of it and I think we can be thankful for that. Yes, it looks like a bit of an albatross now but hopefully Treliving can work some magic.

But it isn't fair or just to call it a horrible, horrible signing because he's declining at the very tail end of it. That was to be expected when we signed him.

[Badgers Nose]

Nvm

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

We actually got pretty good value for Wideman as an UFA until just this year. Again some people don't seem to understand that you have to overpay for almost every UFA and give them longer term than you want.

25 smarter GM's? Almost every GM is handing out regrettable contracts to defensemen. You have but to scan the list of defensemen to find many overpaid as UFA so don't pretend like Wideman is the only one.

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/cap-hit/defenseman/

Campbell - 7 million!!!
Green - 6
Wizniewski - 5.5
Petry - 5.5
Enstrom 5.75
Carle - 5.5
Streit - 5.25
Bieksa - 4.6
Boyle - 4.5
Andrew McDonald - what, like 5+ million rotting in the minors?

Overpaying in both term and dollars for UFA defensemen is the norm. Like I said we actually got good value for Wideman until this year. Only 1.5 years more of him left. A lot of the UFA defensemen are terrible deals in the final couple years of their contracts.

There is a risk with signing older UFAs. At the time we signed Wideman I believe we had no right shooting defensemen. The contract was solid for the majority of it and I think we can be thankful for that. Yes, it looks like a bit of an albatross now but hopefully Treliving can work some magic.

But it isn't fair or just to call it a horrible, horrible signing because he's declining at the very tail end of it. That was to be expected when we signed him.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether the Flames have gotten good value for Wideman. When Gio went down last year, Wideman earned his contract. But IMO he has not done so consistently over the 3.5 years of the deal thus far, even though he has put up points.

Friedman has suggested Flames have been trying to move Wideman since the summer. Who knows if he's right but if he is, there can be little doubt his contract is the hold up.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

We will have to agree to disagree on whether the Flames have gotten good value for Wideman. When Gio went down last year, Wideman earned his contract. But IMO he has not done so consistently over the 3.5 years of the deal thus far, even though he has put up points.

How much do you think guys who have the capability of scoring 10+ goals and 50 points go for in the UFA market? 5+ million. That's the going rate, take it or leave it. Obviously some of you wouldn't take it, that much is clear. But to call him overpaid? He's paid market value. I know some of you don't like that power play specialist 2nd pairing d-men make that much as UFAs but that's the reality of the NHL.

Yes, he's declined, that was to be expected. His deal was market value for UFAs.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I would disagree. For every bad trade Darryl made (Phaneuf nightmare), Feaster upped him. The difference is Darryl made trades for good NHLers, Feaster traded good NHLers for magic beans.

Like Steve Staios and Ales Kotalik?