Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

If the flames traded puck was a top5-10 probability to win the lottery, then there would have to be serious thought around removing the management team.

They will be just outside the playoffs, we can be pissed about it, but I don't see how one can be more upset at the gm if the pick ends up winning a lottery top pick. That's just pure extreme luck given the low probability

Not enough risk mitigation would be the reason. 3 of the previous 4 years drafting in the top 6 there was ample risk in trading an unprotected first.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

He needs to hire a new coach and make the playoffs with ease next year and the heat should be off. If the team misses again then he is likely done

Honest question - in this scenario, does the new coach have a 1 year window?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Not enough risk mitigation would be the reason. 3 of the previous 4 years drafting in the top 6 there was ample risk in trading an unprotected first.

What I'm saying is the gm being fired should be based on the fact that this is a lottery pick itself. Not where the luck of the draw puts them.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by rooster

If I sit and have lunch and talk with Brad Treliving for 2 1/2 hours can I play for the Flames too? That is how Lazar got to the team according to John Shannon because Treliving was so impressed with him. Maybe that is why there are too many nice guys on this team.

Well, that and all the hockey Lazar played in his career before that... where scouts had watched him in juniors. You know, the coaching and playing at the highest level over the years.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

What I'm saying is the gm being fired should be based on the fact that this is a lottery pick itself. Not where the luck of the draw puts them.

Its not about luck, its about putting the team in a position to fail. If the pick does end up being Guy Lafleur/Scott Neidemayer bad(two other disastrous draft pick trades) then its even worse, it becomes a historically bad trade that is very hard to live down and will impact a franchise and a management career.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Its not about luck, its about putting the team in a position to fail. If the pick does end up being Guy Lafleur/Scott Neidemayer bad(two other disastrous draft pick trades) then its even worse, it becomes a historically bad trade that is very hard to live down and will impact a franchise and a management career.

So in your opinion the gm should be fired at the end of the season, period?

Im just saying that it shouldn't matter if the lower probability lottery pick ends up as the 15th or 1st pick when making the decision.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If the pick ends up in the top 3 it because of a lottery ball.
That would be an idiotic reason to fire someone. If the ball spits out 12 he keeps his job but if it is 3 he gets fired?
Sorry that's dumb.

That's how life works.

If I drink and drive, a chance that I kill someone is even less than Islanders winning a lottery. If that happens though, I am going to jail. If I don't run anyone over, I will only get fine, if I get caught, or nothing. Is it idiotic? No.

There are actually scores of examples in all walks of life when a person tries his luck and his fate, let alone job, depends on the result of the draw, rather than on probabilities of bad outcome.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by Pointman

That's how life works.

If I drink and drive, a chance that I kill someone is even less than Islanders winning a lottery. If that happens though, I am going to jail. If I don't run anyone over, I will only get fine, if I get caught, or nothing. Is it idiotic? No.

There are actually scores of examples in all walks of life when a person tries his luck and his fate, let alone job, depends on the result of the draw, rather than on probabilities of bad outcome.

Not sure we should be comparing drinking and driving to winning a draft lottery.

One of these is certainly not like the other.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Not sure we should be comparing drinking and driving to winning a draft lottery.

One of these is certainly not like the other.

Not sure where did I compare drinking and driving to winning a lottery. One of these is certainly not like the other.

Drinking and driving was not brought up because it somehow resembles a draft lottery, but rather to illustrate that in many aspects of life person's fate depends on the outcome of the draw rather than on the initial odds. And it is not considered "dumb", as implied by Jiri.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Not sure where did I compare drinking and driving to winning a lottery. One of these is certainly not like the other.

"If I drink and drive, a chance that I kill someone is even less than Islanders winning a lottery."

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Not sure where did I compare drinking and driving to winning a lottery. One of these is certainly not like the other.

Drinking and driving was not brought up because it somehow resembles a draft lottery, but rather to illustrate that in many aspects of life person's fate depends on the outcome of the draw rather than on the initial odds. And it is not considered "dumb", as implied by Jiri.

Still, very poor way to try and make a point.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Toonage

"If I drink and drive, a chance that I kill someone is even less than Islanders winning a lottery."

This is correct statement. Where does it say, that killing while drinking and driving is similar to Islanders winning a lottery, beyond that both are random events that depend largely on bad luck?

[Ryan Coke]

Oh geez, does nobody understand an analogy anymore? He was talking about odds of outcomes and consequences. The analogy was legitimate, whether you agree or not.

It wasn’t comparing drinking and driving directly to drafting, and trying to be bothered by it is completely missing the point and trying to avoid actually debating what he was saying.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Oh geez, does nobody understand an analogy anymore? He was talking about odds of outcomes and consequences. The analogy was legitimate, whether you agree or not.

It wasn’t comparing drinking and driving directly to drafting, and trying to be bothered by it is completely missing the point and trying to avoid actually debating what he was saying.

Except that the analogy fails. If I knew you were drinking and driving, my kids would never get in a car with you. Ever. So if I know the GM is bad, I don’t want him leading my team. Not basing it on a lottery.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Not sure where did I compare drinking and driving to winning a lottery. One of these is certainly not like the other.

Drinking and driving was not brought up because it somehow resembles a draft lottery, but rather to illustrate that in many aspects of life person's fate depends on the outcome of the draw rather than on the initial odds. And it is not considered "dumb", as implied by Jiri.

It's a point about odds but not a good one, since there's no counter-negotiations with drinking and driving. Treliving made a calculated decision based on the odds of (a) missing the POs and (b) the lottery position if the Flames miss, but all in the context of getting a valuable player in return. Whereas drinking and driving the negative results, no matter how remote, are both worse than losing a draft pick and are not balanced in any way by a positive consequence (getting the player).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Not enough risk mitigation would be the reason. 3 of the previous 4 years drafting in the top 6 there was ample risk in trading an unprotected first.

Tell me that you believed that there was any chance of the Flames being in the top 6 in the draft at the beginning of the year. It was pretty much a certainty that they would be either in the POs or just outside.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If the pick ends up in the top 3 it because of a lottery ball.
That would be an idiotic reason to fire someone. If the ball spits out 12 he keeps his job but if it is 3 he gets fired?
Sorry that's dumb.

I agree to an extent but as a fan I would love to know why Treliving didn't lottery protect the pick. Would the Islanders not accept that or was he so confident this was a playoff team that he didn't make it a big enough sticking point in negotiations?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I agree to an extent but as a fan I would love to know why Treliving didn't lottery protect the pick. Would the Islanders not accept that or was he so confident this was a playoff team that he didn't make it a big enough sticking point in negotiations?

Does either make you feel better though? Treliving made the trade knowing the risks. Whether he misjudged the quality of the team, got out negotiated or neither. Maybe he would make the exact same deal now knowing what he knows. There are many posters taking that view because we still have two more years of Hamonic.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

So in your opinion the gm should be fired at the end of the season, period?

Im just saying that it shouldn't matter if the lower probability lottery pick ends up as the 15th or 1st pick when making the decision.

In the other two cases I mentioned, one was made by Floyd Smith who was fired and in the other Sam Pollock persuaded the California Seals owner Charley Finlay to give up the Lafleur pick. The Seals folded a few years later so that was truly a franchise altering deal.

You fire a person or let someone go for a body of work and that is judged by results. That body of work is much worse if the Flames miss out on a top class player or superstar. You seem to be saying that it should not matter who that pick is, I am saying that it does matter because results matter regardless of the cause.

Its like if a player makes a mistake and the goalie saves it, or he makes a mistake and it results in a playoff losing goal or a Stanley Cup loss. I remember in 2011 when one of the Hawks defensemen passed the puck to Burrows who immediately scored the overtime goal that knocked the Hawks out of the playoffs. That player never played another NHL game again. Sometimes , one mistake can really screw you up, its hard concept to grasp but its true.

[Bingo]

Certainly an interpretation thing but I've always seen it as an asset moved for a fourth defenseman that they have at a great contract for three years.

I'd rather the Islander win the lottery twice (their pick / our pick) and keep Vancouver and Edmonton away from it.

An odd sideways step this season doesn't change the deal much for me.