Fire Gulutzan/Give him Coach of the year All Purpose Thread - Page 26 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Robbob · 11-07-2016, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Plus, there was a lengthy period of time between Harltey being fired and Boudreau signing with Minny - like weeks.

That, plus his claims that the Flames never contacted him, make the 'he was their guy' argument pretty silly.

Boudreau fired by Anaheim on April 29th and the Wild hired Boudreau on May 7th. The Flames fired Hartley on May 3rd. A week from hiring to firing for Boudreau which was pretty quick. I does make you wonder if there was some intention but thinks didn't line up.

It is curious that GG only has a one year contract, that I did not know. As much as the Flames say he was the target, the one year screams plan B.

Northendzone · 11-07-2016, 12:54 PM

wow, I completely missed that GG has a one year deal - that seems stunning.

calgarygeologist · 11-07-2016, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northendzone

wow, I completely missed that GG has a one year deal - that seems stunning.

I don't think the one year contract rumour has actually been officially confirmed.

Calgary4LIfe · 11-07-2016, 01:12 PM

Gulutzan only having a one-year deal may be due to him not being plan A, B, or even C, or it is simply Treliving being careful. It isn't like Gulutzan has a long and proven track record where he could come in and demand what other guys got.

Also, even if he really wasn't the guy that Treliving was wanting, maybe Gulutzan is the same 'type' of coach. If Treliving felt that Hartley was no longer the guy to lead the team, then you make that change regardless of who is or isn't available.

Judging by how everything went, I am guessing that Treliving really didn't have a particular candidate in mind, and just interviewed coaches that shared the same philosophy as he did. I don't think that Gulutzan was necessarily on Treliving's mind when Hartley was let go, but I am not convinced anyone else was either.

JohnnyT · 11-07-2016, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Gulutzan only having a one-year deal may be due to him not being plan A, B, or even C, or it is simply Treliving being careful. It isn't like Gulutzan has a long and proven track record where he could come in and demand what other guys got.

Also, even if he really wasn't the guy that Treliving was wanting, maybe Gulutzan is the same 'type' of coach. If Treliving felt that Hartley was no longer the guy to lead the team, then you make that change regardless of who is or isn't available.

Judging by how everything went, I am guessing that Treliving really didn't have a particular candidate in mind, and just interviewed coaches that shared the same philosophy as he did. I don't think that Gulutzan was necessarily on Treliving's mind when Hartley was let go, but I am not convinced anyone else was either.

If the one year contract is true it would probably lay to rest the "They won't fire GG because they don't want to pay two coaches not to coach for them" argument as well

GreenLantern2814 · 11-07-2016, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

IF Gulutzan gets canned (and I personally think it is a big if), then I would bet Treliving or Burke take over on the interim. That alone should be enough to scare the players straight.

I really don't see a lack of trying though. What I see are players that look confused and aren't having fun. I know it's been mentioned before, but it is totally like the Brent Sutter days. The most skilled guys have more reigns on them and can't perform the way they know how to.

I get the need for a more regimented system when it comes to the lunch bucket crew, but guys like Monahan and Gaudreau should just do their thing. Not every player is equal and they shouldn't be treated that way.

Have Burke or Treliving ever coached hockey at any significant level? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

PaperBagger'14 · 11-07-2016, 04:24 PM

I hope Gulutzan is Tim Erixons coach next year

Bourque's Twin · 11-07-2016, 05:13 PM

I actually thought the Flames came out looking really good against Anaheim. One bad turnover by 1 player led to the first goal, and the Flames fought hard to tie it up. I think that's a sign that GG got through to the players after getting blown up the night before.

However, once ANA scored on the PP, it was game over.

JurassicTunga12 · 11-07-2016, 05:32 PM

I hope this 3 day break allows the Flames to get their heads out of their butts, learn the system, and start playing some NHL hockey with some consistency again. I haven't quite yet, but if not, I'll lose faith.

Bandwagon In Flames · 11-07-2016, 05:35 PM

Another potential reason to put down your pitchforks for another couple of weeks:

https://twitter.com/DarrenWHaynes/st...44802427977728

Quote:

FWIW, #Flames have had 7 'legit' practices (excluding optionals/game-day skates) in 4 weeks since season began. They have 5 in next 7 days.

With our ridiculous schedule so far, there is a case to be made that the Flames haven't had enough on-ice practice with the new system yet (especially Monahan and Gaudreau).

In other words, I think it's still a little premature to judge how some of our young guys will do under this system. They've only known Hartley's structure-less breakaway or die system since entering the NHL so it takes a while to smack those bad habits out of them. The system has really helped our bottom-9 and even players like Engelland who just need to keep it simple.

Fire · 11-07-2016, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't think the one year contract rumour has actually been officially confirmed.

Yeah, I call BS on that rumour. No way he's signed to a one year deal.

ComixZone · 11-07-2016, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

Yeah, I call BS on that rumour. No way he's signed to a one year deal.

It's reported by CapFriendly - who really looks to be the only source that tracks coaching contracts, and their info does appear correct for other coaching contracts around the league, but I guess time will tell.

Fire · 11-07-2016, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

It's reported by CapFriendly - who really looks to be the only source that tracks coaching contracts, and their info does appear correct for other coaching contracts around the league, but I guess time will tell.

Thanks, didn't notice that before, but if Cap Friendly had zero idea what Gulutzan's contract was I would think they would default it to a 1 year deal on their site. If it is true then I don't know if Treliving is a genius or really putting his head coach in a tough spot to succeed. If the 1 year contract length is common knowledge by the players it doesn't exactly motivate the players to listen to the coach knowing he would most likely be gone after one season.

GreenLantern2814 · 11-07-2016, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

Thanks, didn't notice that before, but if Cap Friendly had zero idea what Gulutzan's contract was I would think they would default it to a 1 year deal on their site. If it is true then I don't know if Treliving is a genius or really putting his head coach in a tough spot to succeed. If the 1 year contract length is common knowledge by the players it doesn't exactly motivate the players to listen to the coach knowing he would most likely be gone after one season.

In the Cap Friendly coach salary chart, there are several coaches whose salaries are listed as unknown.

If they didn't know how long Gulutzan was signed for, I would presume they would disclose that.

Reign of Fire · 11-08-2016, 08:50 AM

I am so glad its only a one year deal, unless he takes us to the Cup final, hopefully a better coach is available in the offseason.

FlamesAddiction · 11-08-2016, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

In the Cap Friendly coach salary chart, there are several coaches whose salaries are listed as unknown.

If they didn't know how long Gulutzan was signed for, I would presume they would disclose that.

Yeah, there is no reason for them to assume "1 year" if they didn't know. I think most coaches sign 3-year deals when signing with a new team, so it would usually be the safe assumption. It's not like they have to put a term though. A one-year deal is rare and it would be an odd shot in the dark.

I don't think there is any chance the team confirms this though. It would just add to the circus if they did.

polak · 11-08-2016, 09:15 AM

1 year is a stupid number.

PepsiFree · 11-08-2016, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

1 year is a stupid number.

It's already the loneliest number, try not to pile on.

polak · 11-08-2016, 09:19 AM

I need to finish my coffee cause that made me laugh a lot more than it should have....

nik- · 11-08-2016, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Another potential reason to put down your pitchforks for another couple of weeks:

https://twitter.com/DarrenWHaynes/st...44802427977728

With our ridiculous schedule so far, there is a case to be made that the Flames haven't had enough on-ice practice with the new system yet (especially Monahan and Gaudreau).

In other words, I think it's still a little premature to judge how some of our young guys will do under this system. They've only known Hartley's structure-less breakaway or die system since entering the NHL so it takes a while to smack those bad habits out of them. The system has really helped our bottom-9 and even players like Engelland who just need to keep it simple.

Honestly, if the result is another lost season in what should have been an upward year, it really doesn't matter what the reasons are. Other than satisfying curiousity.