[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Question, and I'm seriously asking. But does our ownership group actually have a reputation for meddling anywhere else around the league or just on this board? While I certainly can't say I see and hear close to everything said about this team, I can say that Calgaries meddling ownership is not a narrative I pick up on anywhere else but on here, and I certainly haven't heard it from any national sources, but maybe I'm missing it or selectively not hearing it.

Honestly, if there's even the slightest hint that anyone associated with management above the GM or ownership likes anything, CliffFletcher will argue meddling. It's one of those things that he's completely obsessed about.

Doesn't even matter if Brad Treliving were to come out and say that he believed Darryl Sutter is the best candidate, Cliff will use that single tweet to rant, rave and whine about meddling until the end of time.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

He doesn't. If the next coach fails in the short term then Treliving will probably lose his job.

[/I]
So, why has Peters not experienced much success in his NHL coaching career? Do you know?

According to Canes fans, his teams can't score goals. And over his tenure there his teams has averaged 27th in the league in Goals per game. (dropping Vegas from the rankings for this season)

[Otto29]

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, in your opinion the General Manager should simply look at these numbers and make his decision on those to the exclusion of everything else?

I think the records and accomplishments are a key part of the decision, but I also expect there will be a lot of other things to take into consideration.

No I didn’t say that.

Oh I imagine there will be a process.

Again, if Tre hires an unproven guy, he is again being the smartest guy in the room. That would take cojones.

I really don’t see how he could sell that to ownership, but you never now.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Barca

any news if Sutter even wants to coach again?

Let's hope not. Sutter's good for two years and then you have to fire him before the team goes to craps. Look at the history with the Sharks and Kings. He lasted on the Flames longer only because he became the GM. But if he remained coaching for longer, he would've been fired as well after four years. You can argue that he won with the Kings, but he came in with a very talented team already and everyone bought in for 3 years before the wheels came off. Flames are not big enough to play Sutter style hockey and the team will not buy into his dump, grind, chase style. If you get Sutter for the Flames, you might as well trade most of the players and rebuild with big players who are willing to play playoff hockey 82 games every year. Not gonna happen.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The last thing I would want is a GM who is making his next coaching hire out of a sense of fear for his own job-security. I would much rather he trust his own instincts and analysis, and select the man he believes is the best choice to take the team forward. This is what he is paid for, is it not?

I look at all this from a gambler's perspective... Our GM wanted the team to play a certain style, so he found a guy that clearly "pushed the right buttons" for him and gave it a whirl. Utter failure - two wasted years. Now, whose fault it was - players, coaches, fans - I don't know, but typically in this situation it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. Feels to me like it's more on the coach, but what do I know. Now, he is apparently going to hire exactly the same sort of coach (in terms of philosophy/tactics), but "meaner", and with exactly the same resume devoid of accomplishments. It could turn out spectacularly of course, but to me it seems like the scenario of the poker player who buys in for $1,000 and proceeds to get outplayed for several hours, loses his buy-in, and reaches into his pocket for another $1,000 because "it was just bad luck and I'll get those guys now". It's called chasing losses, and, sure, things might go differently, but the probability is you will likely lose again. The smart thing to do if you want to keep playing is to move to another table or a lower limit game where your skills might be further ahead.
I admire BT for his commitment to his vision, but I think that in gambling terms, it's a bad bet...

[Fire]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

All I need to see is he hasn't done anything the past 4 years with the hurricanes.

So no good reason as I expected. AV was a terrible coach after his 4 years in Montreal. Gallant was a loser before he got to Las Vegas. A lot of fans wanted Caryle instead of GG but he will most likely be fired when Ducks bow out in the first round. I guess he sucks too.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

Oh it'll definitely be greener.

Can't get much worse than Gulutzan-hockey.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Let's hope not. Sutter's good for two years and then you have to fire him before the team goes to craps. Look at the history with the Sharks and Kings. He lasted on the Flames longer only because he became the GM. But if he remained coaching for longer, he would've been fired as well after four years. You can argue that he won with the Kings, but he came in with a very talented team already and everyone bought in for 3 years before the wheels came off. Flames are not big enough to play Sutter style hockey and the team will not buy into his dump, grind, chase style. If you get Sutter for the Flames, you might as well trade most of the players and rebuild with big players who are willing to play playoff hockey 82 games every year. Not gonna happen.

Fake news.
6 years in SJ
6 years in LA

[GullFoss]

fact: grass is greener than dog ####

[icecube]

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, in your opinion the General Manager should simply look at these numbers and make his decision on those to the exclusion of everything else?

I think the records and accomplishments are a key part of the decision, but I also expect there will be a lot of other things to take into consideration.

If you are going to hire a coach with middling or poor NHL success there better be some compelling reasons for doing so versus a winning and experience coach.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

You are misreading the spirit of the thing - it's not "hooray, the bastard is done!"; it's "hooray, the team has a chance to be better!"

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

How's the air up there?

He's paid full salary for the next season, to not coach the Flames. Treliving has done this with two coaches now.

This firing needed to happen. Gulutzan will be fine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Best=best track record. I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

Here are two coaching records for you to compare:

96-65-25 and 2-4 in the playoffs with 0 series won.
141-106-30 and 13-14 in the playoffs with 6 series won.

So, which coach do you hire?

If the team can't make any progress with a proven commodity, you have to start making significant trades.

I would hope that the General Manager knows a hell of a lot more about the makeup of his own team that he wouldn't need to resort to a coaching change in order to make such a decision.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

No I didn’t say that.

Oh I imagine there will be a process.

Again, if Tre hires an unproven guy, he is again being the smartest guy in the room. That would take cojones.

I really don’t see how he could sell that to ownership, but you never now.

I agree completely, but I suspect that if he is good at his job he will be able to sell his decision to ownership.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

Seriously? It comes with the job description in this line of work; it’s a results driven league/profession and Gulutzan presented pretty underwhelming results with a roster many in the hockey world deemed to be flirting with the contender crowd of teams going into the seasons - especially this year. He’d be the first to tell you that he understands why he got let go and would understand why fans would welcome a change with what he’s delivered the past two seasons.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

Boy are you gonna hate me when the Kinder Morgan pipeline is finally killed and I throw a party.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I look at all this from a gambler's perspective... Our GM wanted the team to play a certain style, so he found a guy that clearly "pushed the right buttons" for him and gave it a whirl. Utter failure - two wasted years. Now, whose fault it was - players, coaches, fans - I don't know, but typically in this situation it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. Feels to me like it's more on the coach, but what do I know. Now, he is apparently going to hire exactly the same sort of coach (in terms of philosophy/tactics), but "meaner", and with exactly the same resume devoid of accomplishments. It could turn out spectacularly of course, but to me it seems like the scenario of the poker player who buys in for $1,000 and proceeds to get outplayed for several hours, loses his buy-in, and reaches into his pocket for another $1,000 because "it was just bad luck and I'll get those guys now". It's called chasing losses, and, sure, things might go differently, but the probability is you will likely lose again. The smart thing to do if you want to keep playing is to move to another table or a lower limit game where your skills might be further ahead.
I admire BT for his commitment to his vision, but I think that in gambling terms, it's a bad bet...

The only thing wrong with your scenario is that building a hockey team is in no practical way comparable to gambling in poker.

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ill be honest....im disgusted by those of you who are celebrating people losing thier jobs. Have some empathy.

I agree a change needed to happen but its not the time to celebrate because we all assume the grass will be greener.

No empathy from me.

The guy consistently didn’t have his troops ready for battle. That’s why he is where he is today. Yes, he seemed like a great guy and I’m upset that he lost his million dollar dream job, but he had to go. Period.

Quite frankly, I’m disgusted that more people aren’t celebrating his dismissal.