Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Macho0978]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but if the Islanders win the lottery with The Flames pick making this trade a bad trade. If Treliving did not make the trade who says the Flames would have finished with the exact same draft position? Not making the trade could result in a different draft position therefore we would not have necessarily won the draft lottery

Treliving not protecting the pick and the Flames missing the playoffs should add a little extra heat on him but overall Hamonic is a decent dman on a good contract and what he does this summer is going to make or break him. I have confidence that he will be getting praised for the moves he makes this summer and his cap flexibility is a good as any team right now so hopefully he fill some of the holes on this team

[dino7c]

It's a good point... without Hamonic the Flames would be in a different lottery spot

[Gaskal]

Treliving has historically been good about addressing concerns heading into the offseason each year he's been GM. He's likely been laying the groundwork to acquire a scoring winger since probably the start of this season.

There hasn't been an offseason under Brad that this fanbase hasn't felt mostly hopeful and excited to start the upcoming year after all the dust has settled and the issues attended to.

2014-15 offseason: Need a high end D... trades for Dougie
2015-16 offseason: Need a goalie and wingers.. gets Elliott/Johnson, Brouwer
2016-17 offseason: Need to shore up RD and an actual proven #1 goalie... gets Hamonic, Stone, Smith
2017-18 offseason: Need a goal-scoring winger (and a proven coach)... balls in his court now.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Treliving has historically been good about addressing concerns heading into the offseason each year he's been GM. He's likely been laying the groundwork to acquire a scoring winger since probably the start of this season.

There hasn't been an offseason under Brad that this fanbase hasn't felt mostly hopeful and excited to start the upcoming year after all the dust has settled and the issues attended to.

2014-15 offseason: Need a high end D... trades for Dougie
2015-16 offseason: Need a goalie and wingers.. gets Elliott/Johnson, Brouwer
2016-17 offseason: Need to shore up RD and an actual proven #1 goalie... gets Hamonic, Stone, Smith
2017-18 offseason: Need a goal-scoring winger (and a proven coach)... balls in his court now.

Treliving has historically been good about ATTEMPTING TO address concerns heading into the offseason each year he's been GM.

He hasn't been very successful, as the team has won zero playoff games the last 3 seasons

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Treliving has historically been good about ATTEMPTING TO address concerns heading into the offseason each year he's been GM.

He hasn't been very successful, as the team has won zero playoff games the last 3 seasons

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Did you, or did you not, feel hopeful for the upcoming season each year after those offseason moves were made?

[GullFoss]

Do you think the organization's focus on "good people" is a hindrance to its on-ice success? Two individuals who come to mind are AHLer Matt Stajan and Good guy, but mediocre defenseman Travis Hamonic.

I can't help but wonder if these guys' off-ice contributions are in large part why they are here, and it was a detriment to the team (stajan should have been demoted, Brouwer should have been bought out, and we overpaid to get Hamonic).

And then I think of Glengarry Glenross, when Baldwin says, "Oh?! You're a good dad? #### you, go home and play with your kids"

IE - being a good guy doesn't matter when you're trying to win. You should sign the ####### if he's going to make your team better.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Do you think the organization's focus on "good people" is a hindrance to its on-ice success? Two individuals who come to mind are AHLer Matt Stajan and Good guy, but mediocre defenseman Travis Hamonic.

I can't help but wonder if these guys' off-ice contributions are in large part why they are here, and it was a detriment to the team (stajan should have been demoted, Brouwer should have been bought out, and we overpaid to get Hamonic).

And then I think of Glengarry Glenross, when Baldwin says, "Oh?! You're a good dad? #### you, go home and play with your kids"

IE - being a good guy doesn't matter when you're trying to win. You should sign the ####### if he's going to make your team better.

I don't think so at all. They paid for Hamonic as if he was a top pairing guy, he isn't, but there was a bidding war and he is under a good contract so they paid a premium. Not because he was a good guy.

Brouwer was a consistent 30-40 point guy and brought in to contribute like that as a 2nd or 3rd line winger. Has not lived up to that but they haven't been cap space restricted and a buy-out is really prohibitive in the future so it's better to play him.

Stajan has had a rough year offensively but I haven't seen a single call-up that played consistent enough to push him out of that spot defensively. On that side of the puck Stajan is actually one of the better fourth line guys out there, just paid too much, but sending him to the AHL doesn't solve that issue.

Flames have some supposed good locker-room guys in these three so they do have more than just the score sheet stats but I don't think any organizational focus on getting "good guys" had any bearing on them playing this year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Do you think the organization's focus on "good people" is a hindrance to its on-ice success? Two individuals who come to mind are AHLer Matt Stajan and Good guy, but mediocre defenseman Travis Hamonic.

I can't help but wonder if these guys' off-ice contributions are in large part why they are here, and it was a detriment to the team (stajan should have been demoted, Brouwer should have been bought out, and we overpaid to get Hamonic).

And then I think of Glengarry Glenross, when Baldwin says, "Oh?! You're a good dad? #### you, go home and play with your kids"

IE - being a good guy doesn't matter when you're trying to win. You should sign the ####### if he's going to make your team better.

Hamonic is not a mediocre defenceman. He's top 4 on almost any team in the league other than a couple that are really stacked defensively. He's better defensively than any other D on the team not named Gio. I'd say his first pass is as good as Hamilton's and better than anyone else not named Gio. He skates well, he hits, he protects the puck and wins it. You pick a Hamonic in the middle of the first round, it's a good pick.

Stajan should have been demoted? For what replacement fourth line centre? Lazar is playing well, but not at C. Anyone on the farm coming in at C?

[nfotiu]

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?

What would the deal even look like with a protected pick? Surely, they'd want something in return if the pick got kicked down the road a year? We already gave them a couple seconds, so what would the compensation be if the lottery hit? And what happens if they kicked it down a year and the lottery hit twice in a row?

[dino7c]

People are calling Hamonic bad/mediocre because the forwards didn't score enough. Average secondary scoring and they have 5+ more wins IMO. He did his job as a shut down top four. These guys aren't cheap...cost the Oilers hall to get Larrson

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

What would the deal even look like with a protected pick? Surely, they'd want something in return if the pick got kicked down the road a year? We already gave them a couple seconds, so what would the compensation be if the lottery hit? And what happens if they kicked it down a year and the lottery hit twice in a row?

That's a good point....you can't lottery protect a pick forever. Had it been protected this season it just moves to next seasons first. Who knows if that is better or worse.

[TheScorpion]

Hamonic has been a great addition and is not the reason that the team sucks.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Did you, or did you not, feel hopeful for the upcoming season each year after those offseason moves were made?

Yes (Althought I hated the Hamonic move)

But I'm a fan. He's paid to be smarter then me. He's paid to build a winning team, not give fans (false) hope in the offseason.

If you are to judge his last 3 seasons, how could anyone say "Success"?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hamonic is not a mediocre defenceman. He's top 4 on almost any team in the league other than a couple that are really stacked defensively. He's better defensively than any other D on the team not named Gio. I'd say his first pass is as good as Hamilton's and better than anyone else not named Gio. He skates well, he hits, he protects the puck and wins it. You pick a Hamonic in the middle of the first round, it's a good pick.

Stajan should have been demoted? For what replacement fourth line centre? Lazar is playing well, but not at C. Anyone on the farm coming in at C?

Hamonic is not top 4. He is no where close to a # 1 or #2 D.

Hamonic is between a 3 to a 5 D on teams. Isn't this the definition of mediocre? Doesn't make him a bad D, but he isn't amazing either. He is a middle of the road D

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by dino7c

People are calling Hamonic bad/mediocre because the forwards didn't score enough. Average secondary scoring and they have 5+ more wins I'm. He did his job as a shut down top four. These guys aren't cheap...cost the Oilers hall to get Larrson

It’s because Treliving traded for Hamonic at the expense of trading for scoring, which was a much bigger issue. Treliving even admitted this going into the season. Hamonic has not been terrible, but he’s not worth what they payed. He has 11 pts on the year, and his defense is not good enough to make up for his lack of any offensive instinct. We got torched in the trade, not just because Tre overpaid for Hamonic but because that he used assets that would’ve gotten the Flames scoring help.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Beninho

It’s because Treliving traded for Hamonic at the expense of trading for scoring, which was a much bigger issue. Treliving even admitted this going into the season. Hamonic has not been terrible, but he’s not worth what they payed. He has 11 pts on the year, and his defense is not good enough to make up for his lack of any offensive instinct. We got torched in the trade, not just because Tre overpaid for Hamonic but because that he used assets that would’ve gotten the Flames scoring help.

He should be feeling heat for not adding more scoring...Just saying Hamonic is a good player.

Far too early to make conclusions on the trade. If the Flames don't win the lottery the pick is 50/50 to be an NHLer. Hamonic is still a controlled asset.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Hamonic is not top 4. He is no where close to a # 1 or #2 D.

Hamonic is between a 3 to a 5 D on teams. Isn't this the definition of mediocre? Doesn't make him a bad D, but he isn't amazing either. He is a middle of the road D

He is definitely a top 4. Larsson is an excellent comparison: has been a top pairing guy on bad teams, but should be a 2nd pairing guy. Solid defensively, but not enough offense to be a sexy fan favourite or top pairing guy.

Brodie struggled defensively this year, making Hamonic's assignment a tough one on many nights. And the team struggled offensively. Neither of those things make him a bad defenseman, just a guy in a really tough spot (after being traded for assets)

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He is definitely a top 4. Larsson is an excellent comparison: has been a top pairing guy on bad teams, but should be a 2nd pairing guy. Solid defensively, but not enough offense to be a sexy fan favourite or top pairing guy.

Brodie struggled defensively this year, making Hamonic's assignment a tough one on many nights. And the team struggled offensively. Neither of those things make him a bad defenseman, just a guy in a really tough spot (after being traded for assets)

What does this even mean.

"Larsson is an excellent comparison: has been a top pairing guy on bad teams, but should be a 2nd pairing guy. Solid defensively, but not enough offense to be a sexy fan favourite or top pairing guy."

I just said Hamonic is a 3-5D. Your argument is he is like Larsson, who should be on the 2nd pairing (3-4D)??? Isn't that what I just said above...That he isn't a 1-2D?

The Flames have not played him 1 game in the top 2 D spots.

He IS NOT a top 2 D, on any team, that isn't terrible. By this definition any D in the league could be top 4, because you could play anyone there if the rest of the D are bad enough.

Top 4 is such a weird statement anyways. That's 66% of your D.

Do we refer to forwards as top 8 forwards! Janko is a top 8 forward on this team.....

[Kipper_3434]

He should feel heat for crippling the bottom 6 at the start of the season. Tanner Glass, Jags (too slow), keeping Jankowski in the minors. Corrected his mistakes but too late. Gulutzan deserves more blame IMO. His line combos and in game personal decisions are brutal by any standard. I think this team has the horses to improve on depth scoring with proper coaching, adding a top six RW like Hoffman may be useful but it's not the end of the world if we don't make a big signing or trade. A better power play that uses Hamilton's one-timer could go a long way.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Hamonic is not top 4. He is no where close to a # 1 or #2 D.

Hamonic is between a 3 to a 5 D on teams. Isn't this the definition of mediocre? Doesn't make him a bad D, but he isn't amazing either. He is a middle of the road D

Between a 3 to a 5... hmmm... that's a 4. Which is top 4. By your own definition.