Brad "Frickin" Treliving

[Poe969]

If he finds a way to move Brouwer, I'd consided him to be a great GM

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I don't recall the Flames having a GM who makes the high number of significant trades that Treliving does. These aren't minor moves he's making here, he's adding legitimate top 6 or top 4 players every year. No fear with this guy, that's for sure.

It reminds some of us old farts of ‘Trader Cliff’ Fletcher.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So I was thinking about the fact that the Flames are basically set on costs for the next 3 years, and I decided to look at the lineup of 3 years ago on NHL.com to get a reminder/perspective on how long 3 years actually is in the NHL.

This is the top 12 scorers up front for the Flames 3 years ago:

1. Hudler (out of the league?)
2. Gaudreau
3. Monahan
4. Bouma (buyout)
5. Jones (out of the league)
6. Glencross (out of the league)
7. Colborne (life support)
8. Backlund
9. Jooris (life support)
10. Raymond (out of the league)
11. Byron
12. Granlund

Bouma and Jones were in the top 6. FOUR of those guys are out of the league, and 3 more are on life support.

On top of that, Wideman (out of the league?) led the D in scoring.

It is actually quite amazing how fluid the league is with respect to turnover.

And the Flames are basically locked up for 3 years, with a decent stable of young prospects for possible injection.

Yes, Backlund is a question mark for next year, but unlike some, I don't foresee any problems - especially with Stajan's contract coming off the books.

If one of the goalie prospects can step up over the next couple years and take the reins, giving us cheap goaltending for a while, the Flames would be in unbelievable shape.

Treliving deserves the slow clap for what he has done with this team.

Next to Hudlers name it should be , (tried to order cocaine on a plane)

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If he finds a way to move Brouwer, I'd consided him to be a great GM

If he can build a team that consistently competes in the playoffs I'll consider him a great GM.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Itse

If he can build a team that consistently competes in the playoffs I'll consider him a great GM.

This. For some reason CP likes to evaluate Treliving on the moves he makes not the results on the ice.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Itse

If he can build a team that consistently competes in the playoffs I'll consider him a great GM.

Yes.


Let's see the results before crowning him a great GM.



What happens if the team doesn't make playoffs next year? Do we go back to the Fire Treliving thread?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Yes.


Let's see the results before crowning him a great GM.



What happens if the team doesn't make playoffs next year? Do we go back to the Fire Treliving thread?

I'd have a hard time blaming him for poor results. He did pretty much everything he could to fix the problems people have identified, which was RW and secondary scoring. Scoring/RW? Get Neal. Secondary scoring? Get Lindholm, Ryan and Czarnik. PP? Three of the new guys excel there.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Itse

If he can build a team that consistently competes in the playoffs I'll consider him a great GM.

Yeah. He kind of reminds me of Darryl Sutter the GM. Lots of moves, constant tinkering, and questionable coach hiring right down to the trading of all the team’s 2nd round picks. Some of the moves by both of them looked good on paper but haven’t resulted in improving the on ice product. I like the look of the current roster a lot so I can’t criticize his efforts but we need to see more than just a bubble team as has been the case since his arrival.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'd have a hard time blaming him for poor results. He did pretty much everything he could to fix the problems people have identified, which was RW and secondary scoring. Scoring/RW? Get Neal. Secondary scoring? Get Lindholm, Ryan and Czarnik. PP? Three of the new guys excel there.

He’s the GM. The results of the team fall at his feet. You can’t blame the coach without blaming the guy that hired him. You can’t blame the players without blaming the guy that brought them in. Professional sports isn’t about how good moves look on paper as it’s about the results. We need to see the playoffs for back to back seasons or there’s no other verdict to be made other than he’s failed getting the most out of this core while it’s in its window.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He’s the GM. The results of the team fall at his feet. You can’t blame the coach without blaming the guy that hired him. You can’t blame the players without blaming the guy that brought them in. Professional sports isn’t about how good moves look on paper as it’s about the results. We need to see the playoffs for back to back seasons or there’s no other verdict to be made other than he’s failed getting the most out of this core while it’s in its window.

Actually I can blame the players without blaming the guy that brought them in, if they don't perform like they did before. Peters I grant you has not been a winning coach. But let's say he hired Sutter but things didn't work out - would that therefore have been a bad decision, based on the facts before him?

Treliving works with what's available to him. So explain to me what better moves he could have made now, even if the results don't come in. Or explain what better moves he could have made before? The only one that's purely on him is GG's hiring. Brouwer was a huge miss, but also a guy that never put up less than 33 points and 17 goals after his rookie year. If anything, Brouwer was noted as a consistent player. Then things fell apart.

[Erick Estrada]

He could have not made the Hamonic trade. I think that is a trade that bites you long term and so far hasn’t produced immediate dividends. Gulutzan was a bad hire that kind of wasted two season of Monahan, Gaudreau under solid contracts. The goaltending position is still as big a question mark as when he arrived. There a lot of things he could have done better.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He could have not made the Hamonic trade. I think that is a trade that bites you long term and so far hasn’t produced immediate dividends. Gulutzan was a bad hire that kind of wasted two season of Monahan, Gaudreau under solid contracts. The goaltending position is still as big a question mark as when he arrived. There a lot of things he could have done better.

All very true, but I would imagine there isn't a GM out there without any significant warts. I generally like all the moves Treliving does. It's so nice having a GM that isn't afraid to make big moves and change things up. He is calculated, he takes risks, he has a vision.

All in all I can't imagine being happier with anyone else as GM right now. There just isn't any better candidates available right now.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Actually I can blame the players without blaming the guy that brought them in, if they don't perform like they did before. Peters I grant you has not been a winning coach. But let's say he hired Sutter but things didn't work out - would that therefore have been a bad decision, based on the facts before him?

Treliving works with what's available to him. So explain to me what better moves he could have made now, even if the results don't come in. Or explain what better moves he could have made before? The only one that's purely on him is GG's hiring. Brouwer was a huge miss, but also a guy that never put up less than 33 points and 17 goals after his rookie year. If anything, Brouwer was noted as a consistent player. Then things fell apart.

So as long as the GM's moves look good on paper they are not responsible for on ice results - that is what you are saying here?

[drewtastic]

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by J pold

So as long as the GM's moves look good on paper they are not responsible for on ice results - that is what you are saying here?

I'm saying results aren't always the GM's fault - it's not black and white.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah BT's cap management and trades are spectacular.

His FA signings have been hit and miss, but the first few were just to fill out a rebuilding roster and get to the cap floor (Hiller, Raymond, etc).

Brouwer has been his only really bad miss in UFA so far.

Drafting it's too early to tell, but there are loads of promising prospects in the system.

I would argue that Raymond's was a miss too. Any time a GM is forced to buyout a player, that is a mistake made. Either he got Raymond wrong on the level of play and the fit, or he got the rest of the team wrong in their ability and cap requirements.


However, I agree with you in that his FA signings are very overblown. Most of them contributed to the team.



I measure it by 'costly mistakes' - mistakes that hurt the team in some way. So far, I count two - Gulutzan (a costly mistake costing the Flames 2 years) and waiving Byron (smaller cost, but losing on an extremely versatile player that was good on the ice and in the room was still costly).


Everything else was 'meh' to me, including Brouwer. I can't say he is hurting this team - Gulutzan overplaying him hurt the team I would say, but I think he is a positive contributor on the 4th line that is massively overpaid. Will be interesting to see if a perennial 20 goal scorer has indeed declined to this level, or if the Gulutzan system was kryptonite for his career. I think both are probably involved here.


Other than that, I don't really mind all his other moves. Bollig was a miss that cost the Flames, but those types of moves are almost expected at times, especially with a young roster full of undersized players. I thought he was 100% on the money with Engelland, and he got great value out of Russell and Glencross as well, so it all balances out that way.

[ForeverFlameFan]

We've just gotta find ourselves a #1 goaltender and we'll be fine.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He could have not made the Hamonic trade. I think that is a trade that bites you long term and so far hasn’t produced immediate dividends. Gulutzan was a bad hire that kind of wasted two season of Monahan, Gaudreau under solid contracts. The goaltending position is still as big a question mark as when he arrived. There a lot of things he could have done better.

I'm not sure he "wasted" two years of Gaudreau/Monahan. You're chastising him for attempting big moves to make the team better, but also saying that he should have had more success with a clearly rebuilding team. The fact of the matter is that the Flames have in no way been ready to compete for the last 2 years. They lacked depth, leadership, and development.

Could the team have made the playoffs, but then been knocked out in the first round last year....sure. I don't see how that would have put the team in a better position now though, when their competitive window is actually starting to open. A year of failure was probably good for this team.

Treiveling, unlike any GM I can remember, has actually attempted to make moves that will make this team better. In the past we've had GMs bring in depth scoring or Jokinen/Cammalleri, but I can't remember a GM doing so much to address actual needs.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by J pold

This. For some reason CP likes to evaluate Treliving on the moves he makes not the results on the ice.

As they should.

Of course hiring the right coach is a huge part of the job, but other than that it's constructing the now and building the future.

If a GM does that right you likely have a good GM.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by J pold

So as long as the GM's moves look good on paper they are not responsible for on ice results - that is what you are saying here?

But what is the definition of "on paper"?

Assembling a roster based on scouting reports, recent history and projections that should get you to where you want to go.

That's essentially the job description.