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

[Igottago]

I don't blame people for being lukewarm about the possibility of a coach that apparently deploys the same style of hockey that people didn't really enjoy for 2 seasons, and also has a less than stellar record in the NHL. Yes, it could work out, but it just doesn't inspire confidence right off the bat.

It seems Treliving is very tied to his philosophy however, so that's probably the way the team will go, for better or for worse.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

IMO, Glen Gulutzan may have been the worst bench boss in the league. You can praise him for his system theory (aside from how god damn slow it could be) if you like, but he just could not hack the bench itself. If Peters is better at that, then he is definitely an upgrade, even if the system is almost the same.



That is an incredibly self-serving and frankly terrible false dichotomy you've built there.

There's nothing about choosing Peters over someone like Sutter that automatically makes us "lucky" or implies that he made a decision for our betterment ahead of "saving face".

I know false dichotomy is your favorite phrase, but how is this a false dichotomy?

You mention that Brad thinking he's the smartest guy in the room and select what you believe is a lame duck coach will do more damage to his career than anything. I agree. It would be easy to select AV or Darryl and if anything bad happens, at least you can say that you hired the guy with the proven record of success.

We know that there are many metrics when it comes to evaluating a coach: some objective and subject subjective. Absolutely Treliving will look bad if he chooses the less proven guy and he doesn't work out. If Treliving cared about looking good in the eyes of the media or fans, his choice would already be made.

I think we are lucky he doesn't think like that.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

I don't understand the rush. Leaves you less likely to make good decisions.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Could your analysis get any more overly simplistic and emotional?

You can't possibly know that Peters = GG with a rougher edge.

Seems like a very simplistic analysis of two men who are going to have very different styles and methods because they aren't the same person. Trying to equate them to be the same person is silly.

Step away from the keyboard perhaps. Your reaction just reeks of emotional lashing out without any logic or analysis behind it.

So what if it is simplistic.

There are definitely similarities in the sense that the two coaches play possession based games, often outshoot the opposition and lose, ‘advanced stats’ look good and actual results are poor.

You have a guy with poor results, and people throwing out excuses for poor results.

Sure the two coaches are not the same people. But those are similarities in the overarching story

Peters is reportedly crusty. Gulutzan is nice.

I think some level of skepticism, even a healthy level, is reasonable. There are known coaches out there who have succeeded.

That’s why this is a ‘smartest guy in the room’ move.

There are different kinds of smartest guys in the room. Those who are and those who think they are.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I don't understand the rush. Leaves you less likely to make good decisions.

If Peters is Treliving's guy, then they need to get this wrapped up before tomorrow afternoon. I think that's the timeline for Peters' out clause.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Mindlessly sticking to one process and one plan without the capability to adapt was one of the things that resulted in Gulutzan's demise.

If Treliving is as smart as we all hope, his original vision isn't set in stone but is adaptable.

That being said, maybe Peters is the best man for the job and will lead us forward. But after the Gulutzan disaster, Treliving certainly does not merit automatic benefit of the doubt if this is the direction he chooses to go.

People are going to be skeptical. Of both the coach and the GM. Treliving has only himself to blame for that, and only time and success can restore faith.

Is he mindlessly sticking to his plan? Is one or two or three obstacles or poor results that get in the way proof that the vision or the process has failed and its time to change course and start doing things a different way?

If you truly believe in a patient, analytical, thoughtful approach to hockey decisions, how can you just stop? How can you stop doing the things that have brought you success in your career and not follow through with your vision?

[Fischy13]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If he gets fired and then hired by another team, Carolina needs to pay the difference in salary if his new salary was less than what the Canes were paying him for however long he still has on his contract.

At least that is the standard in the NHL. Not sure if they have added additional clauses to his contract or if they withhold permission to talk to other teams unless he waives.

This is for the other two posters as well questioning how this works. As sureloss mentions, this is normally the case.

However, my source was very specific, Peter’s controls this option 3rd year. He’s currently negotiating his cash settlement for this final year. It’s complicated and taking time. The options are to stay and collect 1.6million which he absolutely wants no part of and the new owner doesn’t want to pay him all the money either. If he stays and gets fired he’d get his money but would forfeit that when a team hires him. Because Peter’s doesn’t want to coach but could stay and collect 1.6 mil, combined with the owner not wanting to pay 1.6 mill, they are settling on a lesser number. This payout will be in Peter’s pocket, regardless of getting a new job with another team. The option is all his.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I don't understand the rush. Leaves you less likely to make good decisions.

But at the end of the day, you don't want to be the GM that misses out on the best candidates.

[the2bears]

When has Treliving ever let hints of his plans out? I have no idea if it's going to be Peters. Seems rushed given Treliving's attention to detail and process.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Split98

I could have phrased it "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving trying to prove he's the 'smartest man in the room' with risky decisions" but you knew exactly what I meant in context, so the phrase works just fine.

But in case you didn't and you weren't purposely being obtuse, I'll reiterate. Through the use of that phrase I was trying to say that I hope Treliving makes the best choice here. I hope he doesn't pull another Gulutzan out of his hat in Peters. The idea behind 'smartest man in the room' is that the smart man might want to put his intelligence on display. To do so, he would pick someone counter to the common vote to show he was able to perceive things they weren't. To demonstrate that he was, in fact, the smartest man in the room.

In no way does that phrase mean that I hope Treliving isn't the smartest man in the room. I'm not hoping that he is stupid, and I'm glad a smart person was hired to run the hockey team.

But for being so careful to criticize a phrase in my post, you decided to ignore the tense I chose to use. "[...]if Peters comes in and we stumble next year" is the future tense, as is "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving's 'smartest man in the room' decisions". I don't pretend to know if Peters will be a good coach, but I do know that there are 2 options available in Sutter and Vigneault that I think are pretty fine options. The phrase implies that a risk will be taken to show how much smarter they are, and I'm hoping he doesn't take that risk.

It sure was easier to say "I'll be pretty tired of Treliving's 'smartest man in the room' decisions", but I hope that clears up my perspective on the Peters hire if it comes to be.

Thanks for explaining it. I understand your usage and perspective a lot more.

Personally I highly doubt Treliving is looking to make a coaching move to prove his intelligence. It's a big hire for him. His last hire clearly bombed badly enough that he had to fire him which starts to point the crosshairs at Treliving himself. His motivation is going to be to hire the best coach for this group. He's not hiring a coach to look smart. IMO that's a silly suggestion. He's hiring a coach to contend and if he gets the choice right he will look smart. Just seems like a silly motivation suggestion. Like I'm a smart guy but super vain and narcissistic so I have to make decisions about how smart they will be perceived? It's very contrived. Overall I think the phrase is overused on this board and over applied.

I first heard it in regards to Jankowski and the draft. But this is exactly how the draft works. You have 30 groups of scouts who are all trying to outsmart each other in the quest to find impact NHLers. All of these scouts believe in themselves and their own abilities and are willing to put their opinions ahead of any "consensus" (which doesn't actually exist). So the phrase itself in regards to scouting seems silly. Every team and scout is trying to find players that other teams may have overlooked or underrated. They are all trying to be the smartest men in the draft building that day. That's their goal. And it aligns perfectly with their job. So accusing them of trying to outsmart the other scouts and GMs is to accuse them of doing their job. So the use of this phrase as a knock on Weisbrod and the scouting staff over the Jankowski pick was laughable to me. And of course Jankowski has turned into a fine NHLer for where we picked him so those who were motivated to use it as a derogatory phrase have failed.

And its the exact same thing with Treliving and being a GM. If he makes a smart hire it looks good on him whether it was a candidate the fans wanted or not. To suggest he makes a hire the fans didn't want only to look smart seems preposterous to me. His goal isn't to look smart, his goal is to contend. If he turns the Flames into a contender he will look smart. It's a byproduct of achieving his goal, not a primary motivation.

Overall I think the phrase is exceptionally stupid. But at least you've backed up why you use it very well.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Is he mindlessly sticking to his plan? Is one or two or three obstacles or poor results that get in the way proof that the vision or the process has failed and its time to change course and start doing things a different way?

If you truly believe in a patient, analytical, thoughtful approach to hockey decisions, how can you just stop? How can you stop doing the things that have brought you success in your career and not follow through with your vision?

Poor results absolutely matter. You need to understand them, identify root causes, incorporate them as data points, and to refine the strategy.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Poor results absolutely matter. You need to understand them, identify root causes, incorporate them as data points, and to refine the strategy.

And how do you know Treliving isn't? He fired his entire coaching staff and people expect Peters to be a carbon copy of GG?

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Is he mindlessly sticking to his plan? Is one or two or three obstacles or poor results that get in the way proof that the vision or the process has failed and its time to change course and start doing things a different way?

If you truly believe in a patient, analytical, thoughtful approach to hockey decisions, how can you just stop? How can you stop doing the things that have brought you success in your career and not follow through with your vision?

What success are you talking about here? Yes, Treliving obviously had to be clever to become GM of a major sports franchise, but as far as his success in the NHL is concerned, which is really what we're interested in at the end of the day, Phoenix and Calgary are hardly what I would hold up as models of success.

[colbym72]

Reply
Retweet
Like
More options
MatchsticksCGY's avatar
Matchsticks&Gasoline @MatchsticksCGY
now
In the 4 years Bill Peters coached Carolina, they had the lowest number of minor penalties league-wide in all FOUR seasons. Calgary meanwhile had the 1st and 4th most minor penalties in 16/17 and 17/18 respectively. #CofRed

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

GG = bad, therefore throw away your process and only hire guys with a proven track record that clash with your original vision?

Original vision? Treliving himself says the team lacks an identity. Someone should probably explain to him what his original vision was, he doesn't appear to know.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

And how do you know Treliving isn't? He fired his entire coaching staff and people expect Peters to be a carbon copy of GG?

Why would you ask me that question? I didn’t say he isn’t.
Second question, ask the people. I do see and did point out some similarities, and don’t know what people expect .

* you do know people are skeptical because the rumoured front runner is an unsuccessful NHL coach with excuses, right?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Thanks for explaining it. I understand your usage and perspective a lot more.

Personally I highly doubt Treliving is looking to make a coaching move to prove his intelligence. It's a big hire for him. His last hire clearly bombed badly enough that he had to fire him which starts to point the crosshairs at Treliving himself. His motivation is going to be to hire the best coach for this group. He's not hiring a coach to look smart. IMO that's a silly suggestion. He's hiring a coach to contend and if he gets the choice right he will look smart. Just seems like a silly motivation suggestion. Like I'm a smart guy but super vain and narcissistic so I have to make decisions about how smart they will be perceived? It's very contrived. Overall I think the phrase is overused on this board and over applied.

I first heard it in regards to Jankowski and the draft. But this is exactly how the draft works. You have 30 groups of scouts who are all trying to outsmart each other in the quest to find impact NHLers. All of these scouts believe in themselves and their own abilities and are willing to put their opinions ahead of any "consensus" (which doesn't actually exist). So the phrase itself in regards to scouting seems silly. Every team and scout is trying to find players that other teams may have overlooked or underrated. They are all trying to be the smartest men in the draft building that day. That's their goal. And it aligns perfectly with their job. So accusing them of trying to outsmart the other scouts and GMs is to accuse them of doing their job. So the use of this phrase as a knock on Weisbrod and the scouting staff over the Jankowski pick was laughable to me. And of course Jankowski has turned into a fine NHLer for where we picked him so those who were motivated to use it as a derogatory phrase have failed.

And its the exact same thing with Treliving and being a GM. If he makes a smart hire it looks good on him whether it was a candidate the fans wanted or not. To suggest he makes a hire the fans didn't want only to look smart seems preposterous to me. His goal isn't to look smart, his goal is to contend. If he turns the Flames into a contender he will look smart. It's a byproduct of achieving his goal, not a primary motivation.

Overall I think the phrase is exceptionally stupid. But at least you've backed up why you use it very well.

If Peters ends up trending as Jankowski has, it paid off and the risk was worth it.
I'm really hoping he doesn't take the risk, as I'm sure I was back when Jankowski was chosen.

If Jankowski ended up being as fruitful a decision was Gulutzan, I'd hope they leaned to consensus next time around.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But at the end of the day, you don't want to be the GM that misses out on the best candidates.

How would you know who the best candidates are when you just fired your coach earlier on in the week and likely haven't spoken to many candidates?

This would make sense to me if Peters was Tre's guy back when he joined the Flames and he's been biding his time ever since. Sounds unlikely, but possible I guess.

In any case I'm at a loss to explain why we're not interviewing people, or waiting to interview / solicit interest from quality assistant coaches who may soon be knocked out of the playoffs.

[Split98]

Was going back through old posts to see what the vibe was when Gulutzan was fired, and stumbled on this gem from a thread in 2013 'Dallas fires Glen Gulutzan and Paul Jerrard'

Originally Posted by May 25, 1989

My under the radar prediciton is Bill Peters, currently assistant coach in Detroit. Won a memorial cup in Spokane.

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=73332

Woah.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Peaceful Warrior

I would be happy with Sutter, Vigneault, or Peters (who seem to be the Board's favourite and the rumoured favourite), but I'm surprised at the analysis going on with regard to Peters. There seems to be a lot of focus on his last four years compared to Sutter and Vigneault's career records, but if you look at the last four years of all three, and the first 3 years (as NHL coaches) of all three, they are basically all hovering right around 500.

In other words, 4 years in to their careers as coaches, Sutter and Vigneault had very similar success as Peters has had. And in the last few years all three have had similar records with Peters probably having the least impressive line-up, and goaltending that doesn't compare to Quick or Lundqvist.

That is just not actually true, it is as they say "Fake news". I am kinda confused as to whether you are talking about the last 4 years for Sutter and Vigneault or the first 4 years, but in either case, this is what the actual numbers say

1st 4 years

Sutter - .544 hockey (this was also in an era where .500 meant something as you did not get any loser points)

Vigneault - .533 hockey (again for 3 out 4 of these years .500 meant something as Vigneault also did not get the advantage in those years of having a loss not count as a loss for .500 purposes)

Peters - .498 hockey (Bill got the advantage of his losses not counting as losses in some of the games. If you count all losses, Bill Peters has a .418 winning percentage over his first 4 seasons)

Nonetheless, regardless of the fact that Sutter and Vigneault (for the most part) did not get loser points, over an average 82 game season, they averaged the following numbers of points in each season

Sutter - 89 points a season

Vigneault - 87 points a season

Peters - 81 points a season

If you look at Sutter and Vigneault's last 4 seasons the results are as follows

Sutter - .584

Vigneault - .599

Over an 82 game season they averaged

Sutter - 96 points

Vigneault - 98 points

2 of those 3 coaches are significantly above .500 in both their first 4 years and their last 4 years. One of those coaches in a middling .500 coach over his first 4 years and his last 4 years.