The team Treliving built

[GranteedEV]

For three of the last four seasons the Flames have been top half in goals. While Elliott/Johnson should improve our GA, if we are bottom half offensively I think that will speak to some extent that Treliving made some weak gambles against skilled top line veteran players like Cammalleri/Hudler in favour of 3rd liners like Raymond and Brouwer.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

For three of the last four seasons the Flames have been top half in goals. While Elliott/Johnson should improve our GA, if we are bottom half offensively I think that will speak to some extent that Treliving made some weak gambles against skilled top line veteran players like Cammalleri/Hudler in favour of 3rd liners like Raymond and Brouwer.

I don't understand this.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't understand this.

I am saying that I hope "Treliving's team" does not take the team from one extreme (All Offense No Defense) to the other. We have lost four productive "Sutter/Feaster" forwards in Glencross, Hudler, Colborne, Cammalleri, now it remains to be seen if allowing youth (Johnny/Monny/Sammy) and middle/third liners (Frolik, Raymond, Brouwer) to fill for them was a balanced approach or too far in the other direction. Similar situation with Gulutzan - does he successfully balance this team's offense/defense or does he take it too far the other way into Tippett-ville.

The results are a mystery.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what does that have to do with this discussion? Is it that only "hard decisions" count toward team building? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Well, yea kinda. The decision to resign Monahan and Gaudreau is pretty much a no brainer.

To the point of the thread, yea Treliving has touched almost every player contract now, but I don't think that necessarily means it's Treliving's team.

Maybe I'm in the minority. . .

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't see anything wrong with saying this is Treliving's team now - has been since he was hired as the GM. It is his responsibility to build a team - and that includes standing pat. A former or different GM might have made more moves. Making or not making moves is in large measure what Treliving is paid for.

There is nothing wrong with saying that Treliving's team includes big pieces from Sutter's and Feaster's teams either - they both deserve their fair share of credit.

I look at Sutter taking over the GM duties on April 11, 2003. There was a tonne of pieces left from Craig Button's team (obviously, as Sutter didn't conduct a firesale and jettison every player). Would Button have made those moves that Sutter made and turned the Flames into a Stanley Cup Winner*? Maybe he would have made some, maybe he would have made different moves - point is it was Darryl that took the team over, identified who he wanted to retain, identified who he deemed expendable, and identified who he wished to acquire. Does Button (and Coates, btw) deserve any accolades from the '04 run? Of course they do - but it was Sutter's team.

I guess I am being a bit literal with my interpretations as to whose' team this is.

The one area that I find it difficult to judge for a GM is in regards to drafting. Rarely does a GM get hired and feels he should fire the entire scouting staff and replace them all with guys he knows and trusts already. Takes a few years I imagine for that to work out, and by that time the GM may no longer be employed.

This is without question the team that Treliving built, regardless of how many pieces he inherited.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what does that have to do with this discussion? Is it that only "hard decisions" count toward team building? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Credit for owning a (re)built team can't give undue credit for the easy decisions. Accept them as no brainers and move on

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't understand this.

Perhaps he should have used block caps :-)

Hudler put up over 70 points here, Brouwer never has. Higher offensive numbers in history place a burden on the judgment of the arguably perceived replacement, all things equal.

Whether or not you agree, claiming not to understand appears perhaps lazy (admittedly not knowing why you don't claim to understand)

[FeyWest]

Cammy didn't seem like he would have signed here no matter what the deal was, if we did it *Could* have been even harder to re-sign Monahan and Gaudreau, and Hudler put up one 70 point season and then stumbled harshly the following season. It could easily be a "Weak Gamble" on either of these guys too, there's no way to be certain of their production here and we will never know as they are gone.

I think it's a pointless argument to say we would be better off with Hudler, Cammy, Colborne, and Glencross Versus what we have now. Glencross and Hudler had their opportunities to prove they were worth retaining but both looked to be crashing hard (And have), I said before Cammy wanted a change and Colborne, we'll see, but I'd rather not another Bouma situation.

Dispute me if you like, fair, but I'm willing to give the New Corps a chance to show me their first year as a Flame before comparing them to past Flames that were let go for a reason (Plus we got assets back for All of the Above save for Colborne).

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Well, yea kinda. The decision to resign Monahan and Gaudreau is pretty much a no brainer.

To the point of the thread, yea Treliving has touched almost every player contract now, but I don't think that necessarily means it's Treliving's team.

Maybe I'm in the minority. . .

What does not take for this to be his team? 12 of the 22 players I listed were brought in by him in the past 2 years. He has signed all but 4 (soon to be 3) of the rest of the players. This was never Sutters team, and never Feaster's team either. Sutter didn't acquire Iginla or Regehr who were 2 pillars of the organization when he was GM (though he did sign both to long term deals). Feaster didn't bring in Iginla, Kiprusoff, Bouwmeester, Gio etc so this was never his team either?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Treliving has been GM for two full seasons. I would hope to christ this is his team. If it isn't, something is broken somewhere. Having said that, Sutter and Feaster both contributed greatly to this team. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality.

[FlamesAddiction]

I've stopped looking at teams on paper and trying to judge like that. Until I see the results, the jury is out IMO.

I also don't think he deserves a hero cookie for signing RFAs. Most teams sign their RFAs before the season starts. If they don't, it's a huge failure, but that doesn't make is a success by default if they do re-sign them.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I've stopped looking at teams on paper and trying to judge like that. Until I see the results, the jury is out IMO.

I also don't think he deserves a hero cookie for signing RFAs. Most teams sign their RFAs before the season starts. If they don't, it's a huge failure, but that doesn't make is a success by default if they do re-sign them.

So no hero cookie for the Brodie contract or the Backlund contract? They were RFA's (in Brodie's case would become RFA) so we should just assume every GM gets the same contract done?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by New Era

Treliving has been GM for two full seasons. I would hope to christ this is his team. If it isn't, something is broken somewhere. Having said that, Sutter and Feaster both contributed greatly to this team. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality.

No one is ignoring the fact that Sutter and Feaster both were at the helm when key players were drafted or signed by the organization. 2 years into his job every player outside of 3 fringe guys were either brought in by Treliving or playing on a contract signed by Treliving.

Last year for instance the start of the season had guys like Monahan, Gaudreau, Hudler, Russell, Jones, Stajan, Wideman, Smid that were guys playing on deals that Treliving inherited. He got rid of 3 of those guys and is signing 2 of them with another likely to be on the LTIR all season leaving 2 of those 8 players guys that he completely inherited

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What does not take for this to be his team? 12 of the 22 players I listed were brought in by him in the past 2 years. He has signed all but 4 (soon to be 3) of the rest of the players. This was never Sutters team, and never Feaster's team either. Sutter didn't acquire Iginla or Regehr who were 2 pillars of the organization when he was GM (though he did sign both to long term deals). Feaster didn't bring in Iginla, Kiprusoff, Bouwmeester, Gio etc so this was never his team either?

I think the issue is you're taking a somewhat mixed high-level, low-level approach to assess Treliving. To properly evaluate Treliving, I think there's two different approaches that work:

1) Do as you say and assess "his team". Given it's been a couple years, it's entirely fair to look at the entire roster and see where Treliving has brought it. All players that survived the first couple years are clearly "Treliving type" players. This is a high-level view assessing the team though, so there's no need to assign credit to specific players like Gaudreau, Brodie, or Monahan.

2) Take a detailed look at all his transactions and grade him on that. This way, you can take into account trades, resigning RFAs, letting players walk, etc. Treliving doesn't get credit for drafting Brodie but he should be evaluated on the contract he signed him to.

Both are good approaches. It gets messy when you blend them together though, and I think that's why some people take issue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Perhaps he should have used block caps :-)

Hudler put up over 70 points here, Brouwer never has. Higher offensive numbers in history place a burden on the judgment of the arguably perceived replacement, all things equal.

Whether or not you agree, claiming not to understand appears perhaps lazy (admittedly not knowing why you don't claim to understand)

The comparison made no sense because the implication was that Treliving moved out Hudler and replaced him with Brouwer (like it was some sort of one-to-one replacement).

And that is not how it works. Since signing Hudler, the Flames have added Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett, Tkachuk and Hamilton - all highly offensive players. The needs of the team have changed. The addition of Brouwer was an attempt to fill a current need, not an attempt to replace Hudler.

[Enoch Root]

I think the idea of saying this player or that player is Treliving's or Feaster's or whatever, doesn't really make sense.

To suggest that Backlund, for instance, isn't Treliving's responsibility because he was here before, or is Treliving's responsibility because he re-signed him, both miss the mark.

What matters is what the team looks like. His job isn't to decide if each player, individually, is his guy or not his guy. His job is to assess the team and try to improve it.

Again, using Backlund as an example: would Treliving try to acquire Backlund if he weren't already here? Maybe, maybe not. But the issue isn't Bcklund, per se, it's what does the team look like now, and how do we improve it?

And in that regard, I look at where the Flames are now, compared to where they were two years ago, and I see that team that has more skill, and more speed. It was too small and he is addressing that. It was weak in defensive depth and he has substantially improved that. It was thin in goal and he has improved that. It is still thin at RW and while he has made a couple moves this summer, we shall see if he has made any progress in that regard.

Overall, I look at the direction the Flames are going and I believe they are moving towards being a competitive team. So I have to say he's doing a great job.

Now we watch this year and beyond, and see if he continues to guide things in the right direction.

Who drafted Backlund, or Brodie, or anyone else, is irrelevant IMO.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

So no hero cookie for the Brodie contract or the Backlund contract? They were RFA's (in Brodie's case would become RFA) so we should just assume every GM gets the same contract done?

The Brodie contract is great, no doubt. The Backlund one is fine, but not incredible.

It's a results oriented business (just ask Bob Hartley). Being good on paper is meaningless until we see the results, which so far have been mixed.

If goaltending is only average this year, I personally doubt we have the forward group to make the playoffs. Given that this can still be a rebuilding year, I am fine with that actually, as long as we see an upward trajectory at least.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The Brodie contract is great, no doubt. The Backlund one is fine, but not incredible.

It's a results oriented business (just ask Bob Hartley). Being good on paper is meaningless until we see the results, which so far have been mixed.

If goaltending is only average this year, I personally doubt we have the forward group to make the playoffs. Given that this can still be a rebuilding year, I am fine with that actually, as long as we see an upward trajectory at least.

If goaltending is only average this year the Flames will still find themselves in the mix for a wild card spot. This team has been among the league leaders in scoring for three of the past four years, and the past two straight seasons.

[LiquidX]

This is an interesting list/way to break down the team. I like it.

It really highlights how ineffective a GM Feaster really was in his time here - not that we don't already know this. But when the team still has more roster spots dedicated to Sutter drafted/signed players, it would seem to be a little damning. Granted, Feaster only enjoyed 3 years at the helm, compared to Sutter's 7 - and some of Feaster's picks are still working their way to the big club - This looks even worse when you consider Sutter's drafting record. But really, neither Sutter nor Feaster really built through the draft - which seems to be the opposite methodology of Treliving.

Treliving on the other hand has not wasted time in making this his team - and so far looks like he's on the right path to building competitive club in his 2 years here so far.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think the idea of saying this player or that player is Treliving's or Feaster's or whatever, doesn't really make sense.

To suggest that Backlund, for instance, isn't Treliving's responsibility because he was here before, or is Treliving's responsibility because he re-signed him, both miss the mark.

Who drafted Backlund, or Brodie, or anyone else, is irrelevant IMO.

It is entirely relevant if someone, mainly the poster, is asking the question specifically.