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

[Toonage]

I think its been asked before, but if Peters gets to walk do his assistants also go?

Not sure I want Steve Smith back in Calgary.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Your second point doesn't actually address WHY they should pick Peters over AV, and that was the question to Elliotte.

They brought that point up earlier in the segment and explained that Peters may be a good coach, but its hard to say for certain because his teams were always budget.

I was never trying to make the case that they should hire Peters based on what Friedman said.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by chummer

Interesting that Friedman said he wouldn't have fired Gullutzan if Peters wasn't available.
Or did I hear that wrong?

That was Friedman's belief, yes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree with this, you are putting your trust in the guy making the decision who has access to a whole lot more information than we have.

I would quibble with your rating on the trade front. I don't rate him anywhere near great and in fact over the last 14 months, other GM's have gotten the better of him in deals. Although I get that some people view the Hamonic deal more favorably than I do. He has shown to be adept at auctioning off his pending UFA's, which is an important skill, but I view that somewhat differently than going out and acquiring players you need.

It is slightly OT, but I have yet to be convinced in BT's ability to assess talent, player, coach or otherwise. He sounds smart, and appears thoughtful though.

I do think he deserves credit for many of the contracts he has negotiated.

I'd rate his trades for players about slightly above average. I have a positive view of the trades for Hamilton, Hamonic, Smith, Chiasson, Nick Shore and even Lazar (I think he's better than a middling second round pick). I don't like his trades for Bollig (even at the small price), Shinkaruk (though I understand the reasoning), Lack (waste of time), and, in hindsight, Elliott. Stuff like Drew Shore for Corban Knight are non factors.

One GM ability which Bingo didn't mention was contract negotiation, which is a big strength of Treliving.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I don't think he was lying about Drew Shore.

The Flames picked him and had him still playing in the AHL months after the trade. I am sure a few GMs called wondering if he really was in the Flames plans and if they were willing to move him.

Teams weren't going to give up a lot for him, but they probably thought they could take a flyer on him if the Flames didn't want him.

I doubt he was lying. Just a way of talking up his recent acquisition, as I doubt the media was specifically asking about Drew Shore or that Drew Shore was the one Flame other GM's coveted.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Its been said here before but I don't think luck had as much to do with it as you'd think.

The slower pace of the flames attack means defense has more time to set up with 5 players back or whatever set-up they want. This basically means that while the flames skilled players succeeded despite this (basically they are good enough offensively to score even when opposition is fully setup) the bottom six was more often facing a situation where they are less likely to score because of the number of defenders back

if you look at teams like boston vegas and tampa bay they all defend as a five man unit (similar to what GG did but with more pressuring the puck in all three zones) but they moved the puck forward as soon as they got it this gives their players, including depth players more opportunities for 2on1s 3on2s etc.


I think more than anything the Peters/GG system doesn't maximize the opportunities for depth scoring and although it seems to generate lots of shots, as we witnessed most of the season, if they are weak or low percentage shots then whats the point...

That's a very good point. HDSC does not take into account how the teams got to the areas close to the net with the puck, just that they did. If Peters' system produces less odd-man rushes because they don't push the puck forward fast enough like the Penguins, Bruins, Knights, or Lightning, that would be a huge concern to me.

Are we certain Peters' system has allowed for less odd-man rushes in the past? Or are we just inferring this from the lack of goal-scoring?

I haven't watched enough Carolina Hurricanes to know how many odd-man rushes they have. Have you? Or have you read someone who has?

[Enoch Root]

Regarding why the Flames aren't interviewing a bunch of people... probably because they have already done their homework on all the potential candidates. Organizations don't sit around doing nothing and then when it's time to can the coach, say "okay, who else is out there?" They already know all the players and know who they like.

I agree that there is too much appeal to authority in this thread, but I also have zero doubt that Treliving and his team have already done all of the analysis they need on all of the candidates they are considering.

He is not my choice, but I will keep an open mind and hope that Treliving and company have made the right choice.

My biggest concern though, is that I hate their style of play and the last thing I want is more of the same.

Also, nothing bugs me more than the supporters of counting stats arguing that bad play is actually good (but unlucky) play because of corsi. The fact is that this team under-performed massively this year. The most likely (and most cited) reasons are bad systems and a lack of talent. The best way to test this is to change one of the variable (i.e. new coach). However, if the new coach does the same thing and the results are the same, two things are going to happen:

1) nothing will be learned (we will be in the exact same boat), and
2) the stats people will be quick to conclude that it is in fact a lack of talent, like they were saying all along, and we will have to suffer another couple years of "we get lots of shots but our players suck".

That would be the end of me as a fan.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Hmm, I seem to remember Keenan (Stanley Cup), Brent (winning record) and Hartley (Stanley Cup) all coaching within the last 15 years.

Hey, I'm cheering for AV to be coach. Your assessment is incorrect however.

Also Sutter.

On the in experienced front: Gilbert, GG (though he had been an HC) and Playfair (promotion from within considered to be continuing Sutter hockey).

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I really find the constant appeal to authority as a defence of Peters rather curious. I don't see the people in this thread arguing Treliving knows better or has more information rushing into the E=NG thread and saying the same when we bash Chiarelli's decisions. Because every missing data point we have with respect to the Flames decision making is true of the other 30 teams. So relying on it here is really nothing more than an effort to shut down criticism without responding to it.

This is a bit off the mark, in that the purpose of the E=NG thread is to bash Edmonton. Relentlessly. No one will ever go in there and defend Chia.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Today is the deadline for Peters right ?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Nelson

The Flames were about -1.2% CF% and +2.16% HDSC% compared to the Hurricanes. But this is a good point. Both teams have good underlying numbers.

It makes me think the real problem with the 17-18 Flames and 17-18 Hurricanes was an inability to score because of bad luck and a lack of shooting ability.

If you look at the HDSC% rankings it’s Penguins, Predators, Sharks, Leafs, Hurricanes, Canadiens, Bruins, Devils, Jets, Flames, Lightning, Stars, and Wild (the best). Obviously the stat is not perfect in terms of correlating with success.

What I think it means is that players are getting chances to score in close, a lot of that is playmaking but a lot is systems too. But the team still has to score. The coach cannot shoot the puck. What really separates the best from the worst is the ability to score.

I think Peters would be a fine choice because his players consistently get chances to score a lot. However, that will be completely irrelevant if the team doesn’t improve its forwards, particularly with respect to shooters.

This is the problem with the supporters of counting stats. It is a simple and clear fact that the correlation (and it is a correlation, not a cause and effect) between good counting stats and good teams is not all that strong. There are lots of examples of teams that don't fit the narrative.

And while many of the stats supporters will concede that it isn't everything, it's only one piece of information, the problem is that they invariably take the outliers (and again, there are lots) and conclude that they are unlucky or untalented, instead of the FAR more plausible conclusion, which is that there is a tremendous amount of noise in these numbers, and a tremendous number of variables influencing them, and that, in all likelihood, they are simply misleading or false signals. That the team is in fact, as bad as it looks.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding why the Flames aren't interviewing a bunch of people... probably because they have already done their homework on all the potential candidates. Organizations don't sit around doing nothing and then when it's time to can the coach, say "okay, who else is out there?" They already know all the players and know who they like.

Also, is it a fact that they haven't contacted the people they haven't interviewed? Maybe AV said he wanted to stay out east or take a year off. Maybe Sutter isn't that interested in coaching (surely he could have had a job last year).

Also, while price isn't supposedly a factor, AV makes $4M right now. The Flames have to either beat that to make it worthwhile or else convince him he should work for the same money as not working. If you are paying $5M for a coach you'd better be 100% sure he's the answer. Look at MacLellan. Julien. AV himself. I wonder how much Carlyle got paid to be swept. I imagine AVC wants more than standard term too.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 868904

Here is my problem with GG and Peters, why didn't the players score despite these supposedly great systems? Was it pressure? Was it anxiety? Was it mental?

Are the players feeling too loose with GG? Are the players feeling too tight with Peters?

Could be different issues for each team. I don't think the Canes are particularly talented up front. I view each of their lines playing largely higher up in the lineup than they should be. Except Skinner seems oddly utilized - don't understand that.
But I don't know that they actually have a single player that I would say is a top line guy, so all their forwards are facing tougher match-ups than they are probably equipped to do.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We actually printed out his trade history at the office and me and a co worker gave check marks or X's against them all, then reduced it to impact trades and rated them.

I had 10 impact trades

Glencross - check
Baertschi - check
Hamilton - check
Hudler - check
Russell - check
Elliott - check
Stone - check
Lazar - X
Smith - check
Hamonic - check

I realize there are many that will be "X" on the Hamonic deal, maybe the Elliott deal but my assessment is on what they acquired and based on what logic, not necessarily things working out.

I am taking out Glencross, Hudler and Russell on that list as I classify an auction of a UFA differently. Understand if others see that differently. And I'm happy with how he has done there.

I wouldn't call the Baertschi deal an impact trade, or if I did, probably call it a push.

So of the remaining six deals, I'd go:

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. It's disappointing to me that BT was using up assets to have other teams absorb salary in deals. The Flames should not be in such a position at this point IMO.

You could convince me that Elliott was a push, but in the big picture have given up too many picks in the quest for a goalie.

Hamonic was just a flat out overpayment IMO.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Could be different issues for each team. I don't think the Canes are particularly talented up front. I view each of their lines playing largely higher up in the lineup than they should be. Except Skinner seems oddly utilized - don't understand that.
But I don't know that they actually have a single player that I would say is a top line guy, so all their forwards are facing tougher match-ups than they are probably equipped to do.

Sebastian Aho is one for sure. But overall you are correct, it's just unknown at this point who is what moving forward.

they are an extremely young club.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

As an aside, I just continue to shake my head at the growing mass of people on this site that are legitimately angry with those that disagree with them. You can see it in their posting style.

Speaking for myself, I am extremely angry, because we just suffered through 2 years of slow, low shooting%/high shot volume hockey, and it looks like Treliving has learned nothing. He is about to hire a coach with the exact same results as he fired the last guy for, which is, high shot quantity combined with low shooting %.

People are blaming Carolina's goaltending for Peters poor record, but this doesn't change the fact that his skaters, for 4 years, have been "snakebitten/unlucky" at 5v5:

2017/18
SH% - 28th
SCSH% - 26th
HDSH% - 22nd

2016/17
SH% - 20th
SCSH% - 19th
HDSH% - 27th

2015/16
SH% - 24th
SCSH% - 24th
HDSH% - 30th

2014/15
SH% - 29th
SCSH% - 29th
HDSH% - 29th

This is what we just went through with GG. When you play a slow game, your competition has time to setup & defend, and so your shots are not as dangerous as is typical from those zones on the ice.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. .

This one puzzles me. He traded a guy likely not to sign here (or there), a back-up goalie and a pick for Smith.
This doesn't seem like overpayment in the least.
Can you expand on that?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Today is the deadline for Peters right ?

Deadline might not mean anything if the Canes owner wants him gone.

Report out there Dundon might be flexible in extending the deadline.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Stupid

[/B]

This is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

No. It is not. It would be a logical fallacy to say that I believe Treliving's decisions are always the right decisions because he is the General Manager. But I didn't say that. I said I defer to his opinion because he is the expert, and I would expect an expert to make better decisions than casual observers—if given the choice between the two.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am taking out Glencross, Hudler and Russell on that list as I classify an auction of a UFA differently. Understand if others see that differently. And I'm happy with how he has done there.

I wouldn't call the Baertschi deal an impact trade, or if I did, probably call it a push.

So of the remaining six deals, I'd go:

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. It's disappointing to me that BT was using up assets to have other teams absorb salary in deals. The Flames should not be in such a position at this point IMO.

You could convince me that Elliott was a push, but in the big picture have given up too many picks in the quest for a goalie.

Hamonic was just a flat out overpayment IMO.

I still think Lazar could be better than a second rounder. He was improving by the end of this season. Still has potential if he can work on his stone hands.

Hamonic as well I don't think was an overpayment. When he trades Brodie this off season we will be able to gauge the trade value of top 4 defensemen again and then circle back around on this one.

I agree that elliott was not a good decision, I never really understood that one. He was never capable of holding the #1 job anywhere else, that just seemed like hopeful stat watching to me.