Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by edslunch

NSFW!

Wasn't the injury caused by that stupid Oilers coach, MacTavish?

[Britflamesfan]

Living in UK where football team coaches are fired far more regularly than in the NHL I must admit I have been surprised that GG has lasted as long as he has. It is such a key position in an organisation that once it becomes obvious that a coach s not working then they should be removed ASP. In the end winning and keeping bums on seats is very important, having a coach that not only cannot get enough wins but also plays a style of hockey that is verging on the unwatchable then he should have been fired before Xmas. As an owner I would be asking the GM why he did not fire GG long ago as without a doubt this club will be struggling financially in the very near future. If the GM even hints he may keep GG you fire them both instantly. Bottom line you need the bums on the seats to pay the bills.

Ps It is so short sighted to not pay up for a top quality coach and you would have thought by now the flames would have learnt that lesson, but apparently not!

[DeluxeMoustache]

Above and beyond that, I would assume that Treliving’s job should include asking himself “Is GG the best available person to coach this team?”

If the answer he has for this is yes, then he is behaving more like a diehard fan, not like a GM, and should be relieved of the burden of answering the question correctly and having to act on it.

[Itse]

If I had to guess why is it that the Flames seem to have trouble hiring good coaches, I would say it's because we've been hiring coaches to play a certain style instead of just hiring who we think is the best available coach, and let him decide what is the best way to use his players. Kind of like drafting for character instead of just picking BPA.

I also suspect a big reason why Hartley got relatively good results was because his job description was (as far as we know) rather vague: develop players, establish work ethic, be entertaining. This gave a lot of room to do what he felt was best.

Treliving is not a coach, but based on his interviews it seems like he thinks he knows how the team should be playing. He fired the coach with a track record of success because he didn't play how the GM wanted, and brought in a coach who would. This to me is not the path to success and I hope Trelivongs learns from his mistake.

I believe the coach should be the one deciding what style to establish, and the GM should support that with the right player acquisitions.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Britflamesfan

Living in UK where football team coaches are fired far more regularly than in the NHL I must admit I have been surprised that GG has lasted as long as he has. It is such a key position in an organisation that once it becomes obvious that a coach s not working then they should be removed ASP. In the end winning and keeping bums on seats is very important, having a coach that not only cannot get enough wins but also plays a style of hockey that is verging on the unwatchable then he should have been fired before Xmas. As an owner I would be asking the GM why he did not fire GG long ago as without a doubt this club will be struggling financially in the very near future. If the GM even hints he may keep GG you fire them both instantly. Bottom line you need the bums on the seats to pay the bills.

Ps It is so short sighted to not pay up for a top quality coach and you would have thought by now the flames would have learnt that lesson, but apparently not!

This approach would worry me as a fan, since it is the very definition of meddling from ownership. I would hope that the owners trust that their hockey operations officers know the game fundamentally better, and that their decisions specifically about coaching or player changes are clearly more informed. The owners should evaluate management on the basis of their vision and its results, and absolutely not with an eye to their own layman's opinion of personnel.

[Joborule]

For each day Gulutzan remains employed, the temperature should increase.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Joborule

For each day Gulutzan remains employed, the temperature should increase.

Global warming or Brad's office?

[sa226]

To me, much of the evidence points to Treliving being a pretty patient GM. My own opinion of course. "The process" and other tired terms have been kicked around ad nauseum.

If I were to guess, much of the itchy trigger finger stuff, comes from pressure from the owners. This franchise among others has a track record of over involved owners, when things aren't going so well.

The history of the league can support both sides of the argument of keeping or firing the coach. I think the history of the league presents a pretty overwhelming argument that continually recycling upper management is the recipe for forever being aweful. Unless upper management is a tire fire.

Removing Treliving would be an aweful move.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[Johnhitbox]

I don't know if getting rid of him is the best option.

But maybe watch his choices this season for sure then we will be able to see where he stands.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This approach would worry me as a fan, since it is the very definition of meddling from ownership. I would hope that the owners trust that their hockey operations officers know the game fundamentally better, and that their decisions specifically about coaching or player changes are clearly more informed. The owners should evaluate management on the basis of their vision and its results, and absolutely not with an eye to their own layman's opinion of personnel.

Coaches and players come and go here, yet results are the same. Why is that?

Maybe the low hanging fruit here is changing up the front office. Maybe it's less about meddling and more about familiarity - the initiated conversations start in the Flames front office and invite ideas. Maybe some new people would be more arms length from ownership.

If you are constantly telling your boss about everything you do, it's an invitation for coaching. Weak people might take that as marching orders.

I'm just spitballing.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Global warming or Brad's office?

Both

[Badgers Nose]

I am reminded of the old debate; 'should we trust Feaster with the rebuild trades?' In 2018, history says no.

Based on the last three years should we trust BT with major roster changes to the Flames? Other than Hamilton, the trades have been inconsequential.

Do we want BT moving any core roster players without being able to articulate what he is building? He says we lack identity. Whose fault is that?

For a while I have been questioning this 'process.' It makes me think of engineering processes. And that makes me question.

What is it? How long does it take? When was it last proven successful? My conclusion is that BT is full of ####. He has no process. He has a theory that he can't fully articulate. What he is saying is that if he does stuff (what stuff and why?) things will get better if he waits long enough (how long?). He fixes one area, and breaks another. He finds cheap low risk fixes to secondary problems that don't work out. He loses assets without fully fixing things.

BB at least knew what he wanted this team to be.

BT made the mistake of using the term 'process' in a town whose industries are obsessed with process and process improvement.

[Textcritic]

^
I think answers to most of your questions are not likely to be offered by the GM in public, but I would be very surprised if these things are not regularly discussed with ownership.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
I think answers to most of your questions are not likely to be offered by the GM in public, but I would be very surprised if these things are not regularly discussed with ownership.

Probably, and that’s a drag. There should be a public facing version of his vision.

Most companies tell you what they want to be, their vision and mission.

Would it be that hard to express a concept/vision of what they re trying to build? Mission is obvious; contend for the Cup.

Are they a heavy agreesive forecheck team? The fastest team?

That would help us patiently watch this take shape.

Right now, I’m getting impatient.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Probably, and that’s a drag. There should be a public facing version of his vision.

Most companies tell you what they want to be, their vision and mission.

Would it be that hard to express a concept/vision of what they re trying to build? Mission is obvious; contend for the Cup.

Are they a heavy agreesive forecheck team? The fastest team?

That would help us patiently watch this take shape.

Right now, I’m getting impatient.

Are there any NHL teams which have done this so publicly?

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are there any NHL teams which have done this so publicly?

We don’t need the step by step process, but the vision is shareable.

Sutter, when he was here; we are a puck pursuit team. Aggressive forecheck. Hard working.

It was pretty clear what he was building when he was here. And it worked.

There are probably more examples in the NHL and other leagues (smash mouth Raiders, Madrid Galacticos), but that example springs to mind.

[Britflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This approach would worry me as a fan, since it is the very definition of meddling from ownership. I would hope that the owners trust that their hockey operations officers know the game fundamentally better, and that their decisions specifically about coaching or player changes are clearly more informed. The owners should evaluate management on the basis of their vision and its results, and absolutely not with an eye to their own layman's opinion of personnel.

Normally I would agree with you but having watched the Chelsea owner fire multiples of coaches in the last 10 years and yet still have considerable success there is an argument that if things are not going the way you want them, you move onto somebody else. Let’s face it the franchise has been god awful for many years now, Ken King should be gone in fact I would say almost all of upper management should go. Pay the money required to get good people in and then reevaluate where the team is at. Right now it’s in a really bad place but has some key pieces. At least one of our key pieces needs to go to get a couple of key positions filled. Defence is where we are strong and we have people waiting in the wings. Time in my opinion for a complete overhaul of top management in the club, big broom required.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by Itse

If I had to guess why is it that the Flames seem to have trouble hiring good coaches, I would say it's because we've been hiring coaches to play a certain style instead of just hiring who we think is the best available coach, and let him decide what is the best way to use his players. Kind of like drafting for character instead of just picking BPA.

I also suspect a big reason why Hartley got relatively good results was because his job description was (as far as we know) rather vague: develop players, establish work ethic, be entertaining. This gave a lot of room to do what he felt was best.

Treliving is not a coach, but based on his interviews it seems like he thinks he knows how the team should be playing. He fired the coach with a track record of success because he didn't play how the GM wanted, and brought in a coach who would. This to me is not the path to success and I hope Trelivongs learns from his mistake.

I believe the coach should be the one deciding what style to establish, and the GM should support that with the right player acquisitions.

That's not the case. Bob was fired because he lost the room. A coach that is a slave driver on their players can only succeed until the room stops listening. It was bound to be catastrophic the season after.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by smiggy77

That's not the case. Bob was fired because he lost the room. A coach that is a slave driver on their players can only succeed until the room stops listening. It was bound to be catastrophic the season after.

It's possible you're right, but based on what (little) I've heard, he at worst lost the support of some of the veterans, while others really liked him.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by Itse

It's possible you're right, but based on what (little) I've heard, he at worst lost the support of some of the veterans, while others really liked him.

Yeah, problem is you need the whole team to buy into a system, not half of it.

That was the definite problem with Bob (and if we was so good, he would have gotten a job by now).

I think with GG, we have the opposite problem. GG is known for being a smart hockey mind and is a players coach but he might not have the tools to motivate through adversity or be hard enough on players to push them to their potential. I think you need that good balance of the two.

Here is a couple links on Bob if you missed them before: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tley-1.3564964

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=166506