Should Treliving Be Fired?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Nope, once again you're completely missing the fact that this is a business and a personnel change can be made without there being any kind of "fault" at play.

If they felt Hartely wasn't the guy going to advance the rebuild all along, this could have been a foregone conclusion.

You're suffering from Ricardow tunnel-vision, stuck on the train of thought that this is a direct consequence of something Hartely did or didn't do.

There's a bigger picture here. The fact you seem to think you're ingenious for having an unpopular opinion doesn't change the fact it's rooted in ignorance.

Critique the idea but don't get personal.

smarten up.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Critique the idea but don't get personal.

smarten up.

The idea is being critiquied, and your response has been smug like you're the only one who sees through it.

Once again:

"I have gone through over the course of the last couple weeks, I just felt that at this particular time for us to move forward Bob has taken this team as far as he can take it."

"Each coach has their own style and their own way of doing things. Bob is able to get a lot out of players, but when we sat back and reviewed the season, I felt for us to move forward as an organization it was time, it was important and critical that we made this decision. I wish him nothing but the best."


This has nothing to do with "deserves".

It's a business, and the GM is in charge of personnel changes. You keep suggesting there's an injustice that Hartley doesn't get more time.

The fact they don't feel he's the person to take the team forward makes things like "fault" and "deserves" irrelevant.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So what is your take on Burke?

Doesn't BT's performance fall at his feet?

I think that Burke has already spoken to Treliving and said that things need to get better, that the team stalled last year notwithstanding some great performances from young players.


I think Treliving should have done the same to Hartley, without taking the accountability all the way to termination.

And I think that there is a lot of spin that Treliving is putting on the termination for PR reasons.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

The idea is being critiquied, and your response has been smug like you're the only one who sees through it.

Once again:

"I have gone through over the course of the last couple weeks, I just felt that at this particular time for us to move forward Bob has taken this team as far as he can take it."

"Each coach has their own style and their own way of doing things. Bob is able to get a lot out of players, but when we sat back and reviewed the season, I felt for us to move forward as an organization it was time, it was important and critical that we made this decision. I wish him nothing but the best."


This has nothing to do with "deserves".

It's a business, and the GM is in charge of personnel changes. You keep suggesting there's an injustice that Hartley doesn't get more time.

The fact they don't feel he's the person to take the team forward makes things like "fault" and "deserves" irrelevant.

Whether it's talking about player ice time, call ups from the minors, who makes the roster, or a coaching change like this, your post brings up something for me. Time and time again, I'm amazed at the number of people who's opinions are passionately based around things like "fault" and "deserves" when it comes to decisions at the NHL level.

A lot of opinions that to me come off as very "equal opportunity" opinions, which make me wonder what type of work environments everyone else works in. The NHL is not a "just cause", find "precedence", "fair" for all environment. It's a cut throat business from the GM down to the players, who all get a chance to participate in game to earn their living, and for the most part are compensated very handsomely to do so. They all knowingly give up the security and "fairness" you might find in say a union based position (despite having a union as far as the players go) to get that chance, and it still amazes me how often people become besides themselves over a decision they view as being made without "just cause". Doesn't apply in this environment.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Whether it's talking about player ice time, call ups from the minors, who makes the roster, or a coaching change like this, your post brings up something for me. Time and time again, I'm amazed at the number of people who's opinions are passionately based around things like "fault" and "deserves" when it comes to decisions at the NHL level.

A lot of opinions that to me come off as very "equal opportunity" opinions, which make me wonder what type of work environments everyone else works in. The NHL is not a "just cause", find "precedence", "fair" for all environment. It's a cut throat business from the GM down to the players, who all get a chance to participate in game to earn their living, and for the most part are compensated very handsomely to do so. They all knowingly give up the security and "fairness" you might find in say a union based position (despite having a union as far as the players go) to get that chance, and it still amazes me how often people become besides themselves over a decision they view as being made without "just cause". Doesn't apply in this environment.

100% agreed.

KC's take here is like one of a guidance councillor at a high school fighting for the rights of a student who's being denied equal opportunity.

The notion that there needs to be fault in an NHL coaching change is beyond misguided.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Neither deserves to be fired. Both should get 1 more year.

So if Treliving doesn't deserve to be fired then why would you make a thread about it? Sounds like you made the wrong thread completely. Sounds like you should've made a thread saying Hartley shouldn't have been fired which would be a perfectly reasonable stance to take and defend.

Suggesting Treliving should be fired? Unreasonable suggestion and that's why people think this thread is stupid. It looks even more stupid when you admit you don't think he should be fired either. So what is this crap then? Some sensationalistic point you don't even believe? That's why this thread is stupid.

[Dime_On_Flames]

This thread is an embarrassment to our board. Let's let it die and fade into the irrelevant state it should be

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So if Treliving doesn't deserve to be fired then why would you make a thread about it? Sounds like you made the wrong thread completely. Sounds like you should've made a thread saying Hartley shouldn't have been fired which would be a perfectly reasonable stance to take and defend.

Suggesting Treliving should be fired? Unreasonable suggestion and that's why people think this thread is stupid. It looks even more stupid when you admit you don't think he should be fired either. So what is this crap then? Some sensationalistic point you don't even believe? That's why this thread is stupid.

From my original post, i stated:

Do I think that we should fire him? Probably not, but if we're going to fire Hartley for last season, we should first fire the guy who hamstrung the roster.

For the same people who are saying, this is a cutthroat business and it's all about results. Not about what is fair.

I agree.

And I think that the person most responsible for the biggest failure last season is the GM. that's who needs to be held accountable.

[jlh2640]

Do not support brads decision one bit. So I voted yes because of it.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

100% agreed.

KC's take here is like one of a guidance councillor at a high school fighting for the rights of a student who's being denied equal opportunity.

The notion that there needs to be fault in an NHL coaching change is beyond misguided.

Dude, that's so out of line I don't know where to begin. i'll just ignore you.

[MrMastodonFarm]

If you start a thread and poll that is this lopsided it should be an automatic suspension.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by codynw

Being close to the cap means nothing when half of the contracts are about to expire and the players won't be back.

and without bringing in anyone else the Flames will still be close to the cap.


Will getting rid of Russell and Jones and Hudler and replacing them with prospects and/or journeymen league minimum players make the team better?

[The Professor]

I wonder if it has EVER happened that a new GM was brought in, with a coach in place, and the GM is fired while that same coach keeps his job. I'm imagining absolutely never.

Personally I think they fired the wrong guy, Harvey the Hounds days are numbered!

[Magnum PEI]

I voted 'No' but I don't think he's been the best GM. He's made some good moves but the Hamilton deal was a mistake.

[FlamesAddiction]

Pretty much in every business I have worked in, when some gets canned, it almost always starts at the top. Someone gets in crap because something was mismanaged, then the judgement goes down hill. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the "process" started after Treliving was graded by Burke and Treliving played the "Hartley wasn't my guy from the start" card. Every GM gets to play that once (and usually do).

So the question for me is, how much of a honeymoon does Treliving get? If he hires "his guy" and the team still fails to take a step forward in the next couple of season, should he then be fired? (I say next couple because the first season for a new coach is often a step back).

The Hamilton trade can only buy so much goodwill IMO. It was a decent trade, but hasn't had a huge effect on fortunes yet (still lots of time of course). Most GMs would have taken that deal if placed in front of them though. It's like saying Chia was shrewd by drafting McDavid.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Dude, that's so out of line I don't know where to begin. i'll just ignore you.

How so? That's exactly what you're doing to a tee. You're reacting emotionally and putting forth the notion Hartely doesn't "deserve" this.

Your entire line of thinking here is completely the opposite of how a sports team is run.

You also seem to be suggesting the GM isn't holding himself accountable when the first line of the presser was "This decision that I reached was not based solely on this season. Anytime you go through a situation that a coach is being relieved, there is blood on a lot of hands. It starts with myself, there is responsibility with the players and it goes through the organization. Make no mistake, there is responsibility to bear outside of Bob."

But even with that said, you seem devoid of the concept the tenure of a GM, especially in the position Treliving entered, is completely different from that of a coach.

There is no way with any of the context at present that Treliving should be fired. It's asinine, and why you're getting the reaction you are.

[locsofblu]

I don't think either should be fired, but yes of course the GM is partly to blame. The flames lack of preparation at the start of the season ultimately falls on the coaching staff IMO. I though Bob would have 20 games next season to turn it around but apperently I'm I was wrong.

[Point Blank]

Wow 10 pages on this thread, must be the offseason or something.

The dogpile is real though.

[This post is terrible]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Paging 'thispostisterrible'

You guys have got this covered

[Stay Golden]

Treliving created the 3 goalies mess. Personally I don't like the guy. Think he is slime you, but the Hamilton trade is his saving grace this year anyways. He has to make the RW much better and Goalie situation is a joke. Ortio is a bright spot but that has nothing to do with Treliving.