Brad "Frickin" Treliving - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

JohnnyB · 07-01-2017, 09:55 PM

I didn't like Treliving too much over the first couple of years. He messed up the goalie situation two years ago that screwed the season and I didn't think much of the Gulutzan signing until the latter part of this past season.

The Gulutzan move is looking pretty decent now though and he has definitely made some good looking moves on players as well. The defense is looking great. Smith and Lack look like a good combo to me.

Of course Elliott also looked like a great move when signed too, which turned into a terrible end to a season, so no counting chickens before they're hatched. Nonetheless, at least he seems to be picking promising eggs.

dammage79 · 07-01-2017, 10:07 PM

I don't know how you can fault a guy for trying. At the end of the day the trades to solve goaltending ate solved on the ice by the players. How you can fault Treliving for the faltering of the Elliott or Hiller or any of them is confusing. He paid lower than market value for all of the players and the onus was on them to meet expectations.

In my humble opinion Treliving hit the right notes at the table. The players let him down. As for Smith and Lack, I'm going to say you doubters are in for a nice serving of crow. Smith is straight up legit and a battler, I never thought that about Elliott. And Lack is young enough as a goaltender to still right the ship. I actually think Treliving has solved the D and goaltending. Only thing remains is that one linchpin vet to anchor Monny and Gaudreau. Because this team is not going to go deep into the cup quest with Ferland on the RW of that line.

MarkGio · 07-01-2017, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

"Oh get a top RW, just get a top RW. Why doesn't he strap on his top RW helmet, squeeze down into the top RW cannon and fire off into top RW-land where top RW's grow on RWees."

Seriously though, I don't think Treliving could've done any better this offseason. Hit it out of the park on every move.

I'm not speaking about this off season? I immediately criticized the Brouwer signing right away. IMO, it's on Treliving to sign him, whereas I would argue he was never needed in the first place. We made the playoffs while Brouwer basically did nothing this year. That 4.5 million could go towards a Radulov or Vanek or whomever this year.

That's more what I meant.

ben voyonsdonc · 07-01-2017, 10:34 PM

Every analysis in the media that I heard/read of the Flames' signing of Brouwer on free agent day last year was very positive. It seemed like a good fit. Sadly it didn't work out that way but Treliving was roundly congratulated for the signing at the time. I can't fault him for it.

Roof-Daddy · 07-01-2017, 10:41 PM

It ain't over for Brouwer yet. Guy could very easily bounce back.

FireGilbert · 07-01-2017, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I'm not speaking about this off season? I immediately criticized the Brouwer signing right away. IMO, it's on Treliving to sign him, whereas I would argue he was never needed in the first place. We made the playoffs while Brouwer basically did nothing this year. That 4.5 million could go towards a Radulov or Vanek or whomever this year.

That's more what I meant.

The Flames couldn't afford Radulov even without Brouwer and Vanek can produce a bit of offense but is a floater with attitude problems who would barely be an upgrade to Brouwer.

Sure last season makes the signing look like a mistake but I'm willing to give Brouwer one more year to prove that was a fluke.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I'm not speaking about this off season? I immediately criticized the Brouwer signing right away. IMO, it's on Treliving to sign him, whereas I would argue he was never needed in the first place. We made the playoffs while Brouwer basically did nothing this year. That 4.5 million could go towards a Radulov or Vanek or whomever this year.

That's more what I meant.

Knocks Brouwer and clamours for Vanek.

Sounds about right.

MarkGio · 07-02-2017, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Knocks Brouwer and clamours for Vanek.

Sounds about right.

Are you kidding me right now? Which player is 3 points shy of 700pts? Which one has a career 0.78ppg over the course of nearly 900 games.

Even though the players are two years apart in age, Brouwer will never be inthe same category as Vanek. Brouwer barely mustered up his 25pts last year. Vanek was scoring at a 0.79ppg clip by the trade deadline.

Do us a solid and give your head a shake. Hopefully a neuron sparks.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Are you kidding me right now? Which player is 3 points shy of 700pts? Which one has a career 0.78ppg over the course of nearly 900 games.

Who cares? This isn't 2007.

Vanek has lost a step, lacks consistency and is injury prone. He would be an awful fit at this point. Red Wing fans don't want him back and their team is lacking all kinds of depth at this point.

It's like the time you advocated bringing in Bobby Ryan with no thought to his boat anchor of a contract.

Then you turn around and crap all over the Stone signing.

Honestly, the things you come up with some times are outright baffling.

dying4acup · 07-02-2017, 03:15 AM

I just noticed:

Sharp 699
Vanek 697

Still rather have Jagr

DAN0383 · 07-02-2017, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dying4acup

I just noticed:

Sharp 699
Vanek 697

Still rather have Jagr

MarkGio · 07-02-2017, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Who cares? This isn't 2007.

Vanek has lost a step, lacks consistency and is injury prone. He would be an awful fit at this point. Red Wing fans don't want him back and their team is lacking all kinds of depth at this point.

It's like the time you advocated bringing in Bobby Ryan with no thought to his boat anchor of a contract.

Then you turn around and crap all over the Stone signing.

Honestly, the things you come up with some times are outright baffling.

Yo, what do you think Brouwer is? You either need to watch the Calgary Flames play ice hockey, or you need to get off their lap and use the organ between your ears. Troy Brouwer is TERRIBLE at everything. He was one of the worst players in the league last year.

EDIT: Not 2007? Vanek was a better player last year? I specifically pointed that out. Maybe you should, like you know, read and think and stuff. Im pretty sure I asked you to do us a solid

Yeah, it's real baffling that I would rather have someone better...

And I'm not going to speak on the other things except that you need seriously need a cat or something in life if you're following me around memorizing my posts. Unfortunately for you I can't reciprocate the fandom. I can't remember a single one of your thoughts. Probably for the best though

JohnnyB · 07-02-2017, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

I don't know how you can fault a guy for trying. At the end of the day the trades to solve goaltending ate solved on the ice by the players. How you can fault Treliving for the faltering of the Elliott or Hiller or any of them is confusing. He paid lower than market value for all of the players and the onus was on them to meet expectations.

In my humble opinion Treliving hit the right notes at the table. The players let him down. As for Smith and Lack, I'm going to say you doubters are in for a nice serving of crow. Smith is straight up legit and a battler, I never thought that about Elliott. And Lack is young enough as a goaltender to still right the ship. I actually think Treliving has solved the D and goaltending. Only thing remains is that one linchpin vet to anchor Monny and Gaudreau. Because this team is not going to go deep into the cup quest with Ferland on the RW of that line.

Not sure if that's directed at me or not, but I don't really fault Treliving for the Elliott signing. I do fault him for the three-headed goalie monster from the year before, but not for this past season. I like the moves he has recently made.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Yo, what do you think Brouwer is?

I think Brouwer is already signed an on our roster. And while I'd rather he wasn't, in no sense of reality would I want to replace him (were that possible) with Vanek.

Like your Ryan suggestion, it was awful and perplexing.

No one follows you around. You go from thread to thread whining about things and making terrible suggestions that make no sense. I'm sure you'll keep it up. At the very least it provides some comic relief.

calgaryblood · 07-02-2017, 11:06 AM

At least he tries to contribute positively to the site. He was spot on with his analysis of you. It's become sad.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

At least he tries to contribute positively to the site. He was spot on with his analysis of you. It's become sad.

Kind of like this positive contribution? At least the two of us were discussing a topic. Not sure I need to hear posting critiques from one of the worst posters on this site. You need to stick to proclaiming everything as the worst thing ever.

calgaryblood · 07-02-2017, 11:18 AM

Notice how you're always in arguments with people? It's because of you. Every. Single. Time.

You really need to relax and stop being so angry all the time. You've been called out before on it and it hasn't changed. You really must have an anger problem. It's the Internet, no need to be so worked up.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Notice how you're always in arguments with people? It's because of you. Every. Single. Time.

You really need to relax and stop being so angry all the time. You've been called out before on it and it hasn't changed. You really must have an anger problem. It's the Internet, no need to be so worked up.

Yea, my weighing on Brower and Vanek was really over the top and required your stepping in trying to act like a hall monitor.

I thought you were banned? Between that and you telling me I was on your ignore list, this tirade makes a whole lot of sense. Kudos.

Kipper_3434 · 07-02-2017, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Not sure if that's directed at me or not, but I don't really fault Treliving for the Elliott signing. I do fault him for the three-headed goalie monster from the year before, but not for this past season. I like the moves he has recently made.

Elliott trade. We traded for him guys. Trade. Gave up assets. It drives me nuts how many people on here say that he was signed. I can't be the only one either.

GoJetsGo · 07-02-2017, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Elliott trade. We traded for him guys. Trade. Gave up assets. It drives me nuts how many people on here say that he was signed. I can't be the only one either.

At the very least it was a positive not to give up the 3rd to re-sign him.