Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[868904]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Part of the reason Sven wanted out was because of the way he was treated by management. Management created that whole mess and then had to act to minimize the damage. Say what you want about Sven, maybe he needed to be coddled, but that's managements job to recognize the make up of the player and work with it, not against it, destroying his confidence and resolve along the way.
Of course thinking about it now, I wonder how much Hartley played in that. hmmm.

Burke answered a question and that was the only comment he ever had about Sven. Management never "worked against Sven". That was all on Hartley, who was with him everyday.

Everyone knows how Hartley treats his players and the mind games he plays. The weak minded hate him and let it be known.

Treliving had no choice but to trade Sven.

Sides, i'm not sure they missed out too much. I wouldn't be shocked if the Canucks dumped Sven this Summer. They have 3 top 6 forward prospects coming in next year (Petterson, Dahlin and Gaudette). Ol Svenny is gonna be pouting again because these youngsters are gonna upstage him, just like Johnny and Monny did.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Burke -"I'm not sure what we have in him, “flashes of brilliance”, sporadic focus on offence but nowhere near enough on the defensive game, “big holes” and “a lack of commitment”.

Burke's comments weren't really off base but considering Sven had about 25 games in the NHL it probably would have been better served in private.

FWIW, Burke's comments were about Sven's performance in camp, and were in response to a direct question about his relatively poor performance in preseason and the Young Stars that year. It was also in contrast to Monahan who had a great camp in his rookie year.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I’m certainly not making a claim that the Flames have made good use of any particular stats on the ice. That is obvious. Also, fyi, the conversation I had on this topic was in the second half of last season.

My only point was that people who actually do this for a living (meaning on or on behalf of NHL teams) aren’t relying entirely on simple counting stats.

Many people on CP and the Fan keep talking about them but the people who do are far behind. Take a guy like steinberg - he is paid to talk for hours so he will do his best to bring whatever data is available to the table. He works hard, and relies on public domain info. Good on him, but his analysis is often skewed.

I am pretty sure a guy like Chris Snow isn’t plunking down a folder on the desk of Gulutzan and Treliving showing which teams have out scored their opponents and how they rank in the standings.

As for what it has to do with your argument, I am not sure what you are looking for.

We both agree that simple counting stats like Corsi fall short.

You seem to think that goal differential is a better predictor I believe.
I, like many, believe that goals for and against are more of an outcome based statistic.

Maybe another way to say it is this. The use of goal differential as a stat as predictor of team success is about as useful as a coach telling his team that their strategy is to outscore the other team.

I think you guys are arguing about two different things.

One is big picture prediction - if you ask me today to predict what will happen in the playoffs then of the publicly available stats I would pick goal differential all day long. Corsi is a poorer predictor of future outcomes.

The other is analysis - how is the team playing, what parts are working and not, how well are individuals contributing....goal differential tells you nothing. Counting stats on a team and individual basis help here, though as discussed are incomplete.

Bottom line - you’re both right!

[Red]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nope, you are just wrong, they often didn't even have him on unit 2 when they took him off - they left unit 2 intact until injuries hit. And when they took Brouwer off starting in the second quarter, guess how their PP was? Just as terrible as when he was on. I know there's a desire for a narrative, but Brouwer wasn't the PP issue. He had less ATOI on the power play than, say, Sam Bennett, but with more points.

He's not an ideal guy for the PP, which is why he went from being on a quarter of the time in the first quarter, to a 10th of the time, in the second quarter. Who would you put on instead, when the injuries hit?

Harvey the Hound scored as many on the PP from the stands. So anybody deserved a try.

Just stop the nonsense already. Brouwer was a HUGE part of the PP. And he was quite possibly the biggest reason why the PP sucked this year. And I am talking about the whole season, not just the last quarter when injuries were a factor.

Defending Brouwer's usage on the PP is a gutsy thing to do. I will give you that Mrs. Gulutzan.

[868904]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Damn Sven was such a dynamic player when he first came up. Not saying the Flames ruined him but hopes were high for a while.

He was never that dynamic. People always get enamoured with junior stats. His linemate Ty Rattie put up a ton of points too, look what he's doing. I watched him a lot that year in Portland and was never that impressed. He lacked footspeed. At development camp, Gaudreau and Granlund were always more impressive than Sven. The only time you noticed Sven was when he cross checked Tim Harrison in the face in retaliation for a hit or when he was pouting about having to attend development camp at all cause he thought he was too good for it.

During his brief emergency call up, he scored a couple of garbage goals, caught a break on a bad giveaway.

I don't think the Flames ruined him at all; his mental make up and character was questionable from the start.

[Zulu29]

He turned into Rasmus so I’m not even mad.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Red

Harvey the Hound scored as many on the PP from the stands. So anybody deserved a try.

Just stop the nonsense already. Brouwer was a HUGE part of the PP. And he was quite possibly the biggest reason why the PP sucked this year. And I am talking about the whole season, not just the last quarter when injuries were a factor.

Defending Brouwer's usage on the PP is a gutsy thing to do. I will give you that Mrs. Gulutzan.

Sorry, that made me laugh.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Part of the reason Sven wanted out was because of the way he was treated by management. Management created that whole mess and then had to act to minimize the damage. Say what you want about Sven, maybe he needed to be coddled, but that's managements job to recognize the make up of the player and work with it, not against it, destroying his confidence and resolve along the way...

There is a lot of history revision when it comes to Sven Baertschi. First off, Burke and the Flames were absolutely right in their assessment of Baertschi, who also struggled mightily once traded to the Canucks. They did not "ruin" him or set him back—he did all that on his own, and it ultimately came down to his own decision to fix his game by doing what the coaches from BOTH organizations had been telling him all along. He gave an interview either last year or the year before in which he talks about turning around his game and becoming a harder player on the puck and without the puck—he credits precisely the change Flames coaches wanted to see for his moderate NHL success.

Originally Posted by 868904

He was never that dynamic. People always get enamoured with junior stats. His linemate Ty Rattie put up a ton of points too, look what he's doing. I watched him a lot that year in Portland and was never that impressed. He lacked footspeed. At development camp, Gaudreau and Granlund were always more impressive than Sven. The only time you noticed Sven was when he cross checked Tim Harrison in the face in retaliation for a hit or when he was pouting about having to attend development camp at all cause he thought he was too good for it.

During his brief emergency call up, he scored a couple of garbage goals, caught a break on a bad giveaway.

I don't think the Flames ruined him at all; his mental make up and character was questionable from the start.

Second, I also think this undersells Baertschi's early potential. He looked every bit a future top line forward in his draft +1/2 seasons. He had a real good stretch at the end of 2012–13; things looked very positive for him heading into the next year. I think when evaluating Beartschi we cannot underestimate the effect that multiple, serious concussions had on his development between 2012–14, and I believe these played a considerable role in hampering his offensive effectiveness while he was still trying to find his way as a young professional.

[Textcritic]

Nm

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What is this garbage?

I think it was a joke. Should we have a poll to determine whether it was funny?

[GioforPM]

Not fussed - the post completely ignored the points I was making, had no suggestions as to PP replacement players (just the usual "anyone would be better"), no comment on exactly what was inaccurate (since I can show the PP time stats, I know I'm right there), and just the "you must be related" type of comment that everyone knows is useless.

It's like posts from people who insist Brouwer was on the PP because GG insists on RH shots. Which (a) he doesn't for forwards; and (b) had nothing to do with Brouwer, who wasn't a PP shooter.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red

Harvey the Hound scored as many on the PP from the stands. So anybody deserved a try.

Just stop the nonsense already. Brouwer was a HUGE part of the PP. And he was quite possibly the biggest reason why the PP sucked this year. And I am talking about the whole season, not just the last quarter when injuries were a factor.

Defending Brouwer's usage on the PP is a gutsy thing to do. I will give you that Mrs. Gulutzan.

He went from 25% to roughly 10% usage. He got maybe 15-17% when Ferland went down and they needed a guy (on the second unit) to play in front of the net. Until the fourth quarter when Tkachuk goes down, of course, when his time goes up and the games are meaningless anyway.

You say anyone would be better. Who is going to be better at standing in front of the net, that wasn't already getting PP time? Stajan? Lazar?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I think it was a joke. Should we have a poll to determine whether it was funny?

These sorts of gender-denigration jokes have not been tolerated here for a long time.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Red

Harvey the Hound scored as many on the PP from the stands. So anybody deserved a try.

Just stop the nonsense already. Brouwer was a HUGE part of the PP. And he was quite possibly the biggest reason why the PP sucked this year. And I am talking about the whole season, not just the last quarter when injuries were a factor.

Defending Brouwer's usage on the PP is a gutsy thing to do. I will give you that Mrs. Gulutzan.

You don’t put a dog on the power play. But if any dog can do it, maybe Harvey can.

Gutsy to think that a dog that can play a drum just may be able to hold a hockey stick. I will give you that, Harvey’s dog walker .

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What is this garbage?

Just a joke....come on...Brouwer on the powerplay was objectively stupid.

Still makes me chuckle.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

These sorts of gender-denigration jokes have not been tolerated here for a long time.

So if it was Glen’s dad and not mom it would be ok?

I don’t think you understood the joke.

I read it as “family member with interest in defending, where facts take backseat to loyalty”, not like he said “skirt”, “dame”, or “sweetheart”

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

These sorts of gender-denigration jokes have not been tolerated here for a long time.

NM... already explained.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So if it was Glen’s dad and not mom it would be ok?

I don’t think you understood the joke.

Point was “family member with interest in defending, where facts take backseat to loyalty”, not like he said “skirt”, “dame”, or “sweetheart”

Yeah. Got it. I missed it the first time be reading too quickly.

My apologies.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So if it was Glen’s dad and not mom it would be ok?

I don’t think you understood the joke.

I read it as “family member with interest in defending, where facts take backseat to loyalty”, not like he said “skirt”, “dame”, or “sweetheart”

It was just a joke and as often as we disagree, Gio was cool enough to roll with it.

No malice on either side, just friendly ribbing.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

These sorts of gender-denigration jokes have not been tolerated here for a long time.

you have very sensitive skin.