Brad "Frickin" Treliving

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man you haven’t changed since the old days; can’t make a point without salacious insults.

I’ve never said anything is all luck or just because of luck. Heck I’ve never said mostly luck.

Teams that have high shot attempt splits, high shots on goal splits, high scoring chance splits and a number of players that have had their career shooting percentages halved have experienced some strange bounces

That isn’t ridiculous at all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, you were saying he's the infamous LannyMacdonald, right? I think anyways, may have been someone else. Either way, kind of neat to know he was back all this time.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I could be wrong, but I don't think Bingo meant to suggest that "luck" accounts for everything that went wrong with the Flames last season.

Really? His own words from this very page. "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."

By and large, I think it is also shortsighted to dismiss how much the randomness of luck factors into a team's success for failure over the course of a full season.

Again, really? The Flames were just unlucky last season? It had nothing to do with a faulty system that was both predictable and flawed in its design? Bad luck played a larger role in the Flames messing the bed last year than a garbage system that saw pretty much the whole team have a horrible shooting percentage? That is where the ridiculousness of the suggestion comes in. What's the old adage? Teams make their luck. The Flames under Gulutzan played a very suspect game all season long, and had the bad stats indicative of a bad system, That wasn't luck, that was expected.

So, you have now changed the tack of your argument, which was originally:

While I think you are now more on-point with your "predictability" narrative, you would also do well to acknowledge that there were certainly elements of the coach's system last season that did work: namely, the team was able to control the puck in the offensive zone, and to generate high-quality scoring chances with a high level of consistency.

This is in large part what Bingo is getting at, and which various models help to identify: The Flames need to improve in areas beyond their ability to possess and control the puck, which appear to be just fine.

No change. The system was faulty and relied on trying to get a lot of shots on the net, a majority of them poor scoring opportunities. The Flames don't need more time with the puck, they need to get better shots on goal and from better scoring areas. Shooting from the slot right into a defenseman or the goaltender's chest counts as a danger zone opportunity on net, but if the shot is into major traffic because the opposition has collapsed into a defensive shell the shot quality is still garbage. They Flames generated a lot of shots, but they weren't good shots, even from home plate. The eye test proved that.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man you haven’t changed since the old days; can’t make a point without salacious insults.

Where's the salacious insult in what I said? That saying the whole season can be distilled down to bad luck is a ridiculous belief? Come on, where's the Bingo that used to mock Oiler fans for saying the same thing, and then trotting out Corsi stats to support their belief? That wasn't an insult then, and its not an insult now. It's a statement of the obvious. A team is not unlucky for a whole season. They just have a bad system or suck at the game of hockey.

I’ve never said anything is all luck or just because of luck. Heck I’ve never said mostly luck.

You stated it was luck. If you would like to apply a qualifier now that is fine by me. But you did state, "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."

Teams that have high shot attempt splits, high shots on goal splits, high scoring chance splits and a number of players that have had their career shooting percentages halved have experienced some strange bounces

That isn’t ridiculous at all.

That is different than suggesting the Flames were just unlucky. I would agree with what you said above, especially if you applied the blame where it obviously belonged - on the system that caused the abysmal shot stats. Those stats, and every stat in creation, were indicative of a horrible system and the players struggling to try and find success in that system. It definitely wasn't luck.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Any system that shows a lion's share of scoring chances did work.

All that it worked at was getting the lion's share of scoring chances. Whether that "works" at getting wins is up for debate, but it certainly didn't for Gulutzan in Calgary or Peters in Carolina.

Having said that, it seems that Treliving agrees with you that it's a winning strategy, so hopefully you're both proven right.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

All GMs are wrong often.

The key is to have more wins than losses, and have the impact of the wins out weight the impact of the losses.

Treliving has been that so far.

That last sentence is just false.

There is an objective and very accurate measuring stick for the impact a GM makes, and that's the standings. If Treliving had been a net positive impact, that should be visible in the standings. So far that just hasn't been the case. He inherited a team that did better than anything he's managed to put together, that's just a fact. It's not even close, his teams have bombed completely twice.

Now, just because he has so far failed to have an objectively net positive impact doesn't mean he's a bad GM, or that he has made more bad moves than good. Not everything is the GMs fault. For all I know he might turn us into the next dynasty team.

But right now the jury is still out. For all we know, Carolina could have gotten the three best players in a five player deal, and he just hired another bad coach. Or maybe we got the two best players in that deal and he hired a future hall of famer.

What bugs me is the certainty with which people are proclaiming him a great GM when objectively his teams have been between mediocre and bad.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Itse

What bugs me is the certainty with which people are proclaiming him a great GM when objectively his teams have been between mediocre and bad.

He's the Bill Peters of GMs.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Itse

That last sentence is just false.

There is an objective and very accurate measuring stick for the impact a GM makes, and that's the standings. If Treliving had been a net positive impact, that should be visible in the standings. So far that just hasn't been the case. He inherited a team that did better than anything he's managed to put together, that's just a fact. It's not even close, his teams have bombed completely twice.

Now, just because he has so far failed to have an objectively net positive impact doesn't mean he's a bad GM, or that he has made more bad moves than good. Not everything is the GMs fault. For all I know he might turn us into the next dynasty team.

But right now the jury is still out. For all we know, Carolina could have gotten the three best players in a five player deal, and he just hired another bad coach. Or maybe we got the two best players in that deal and he hired a future hall of famer.

What bugs me is the certainty with which people are proclaiming him a great GM when objectively his teams have been between mediocre and bad.

I think that's a bit harsh. The flames had one complete exception year before treliving,and other than that, the team has performed about the same: below average.

His biggest fault has been over estimating the team and spending assets a team that is still essentially rebuilding simply cannot afford (1st & 2nd round picks).

My 'hot take' is the flames would have not been all that much better or worse the last few years had they not made the Hamilton and hamonic deals. Those assets would have been rounding out by now....

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I think that's a bit harsh.

It may be, but Itse is correct. I personally think that Treliving has done a very good job assembling teams on paper. Where he has failed is bringing in a coaching staff that can get the most out of those players, and then investing high value assets in difference makers more so than support players.

His biggest fault has been over estimating the team and spending assets a team that is still essentially rebuilding simply cannot afford (1st & 2nd round picks).

I think Treliving could have gotten away with one of those trades, not both. Both were very expensive and have created a gaping hole in the developmental system. With one of these deals the system could likely work past the loss of those assets as a minor road bump. But with the loss of all of those assets, the system has seen a large chunk of the road washed away. As bad as it was to lose the 1sts and 2nds, the loss of top end college prospects was equally as damaging. With the loss of all of those assets in short order it has established an opportunity window the team will have to exploit, and because of the hole in the system that window will close and the team will go through another similar rebuild.

My 'hot take' is the flames would have not been all that much better or worse the last few years had they not made the Hamilton and hamonic deals. Those assets would have been rounding out by now....

This is where using those assets for difference makers comes in. Hamilton should have been a difference maker. That was a deal you make because of the sheer potential of Hamilton. It looked like it was going to workout as expected, but personalities on the team didn't gel and he had to be moved.


The Hamonic deal is the one that was soul crushing and derailed the train. They paid a difference maker price, but got a mediocre support player in return. I don't think they did their due diligence to understand Hamonic's role in Long Island and the importance of his contribution. I think they could have got a similar player elsewhere for less. I understand why Treliving made the deal, and liked what it signaled, but I think your assessment of the timing and the belief of where the team was is accurate. They overspent on a player that was an "over the top" acquisition, and the Flames were not close enough where acquiring one player would out them over the top.


Treliving has done a good job, but he's had some big misses to go along with his big acquisitions. I like him and think he's a smart guy, but like all people he has his blind spots. I think his blind spot is understanding the importance of coaching and systems, and we have been subject to that with Gulutzan. I'm hoping Peters isn't much of the same, but systematically and outcomes generated they look pretty similar. I can't wait for the pucks to hit the ice to see what we have in the new staff and if they will be the difference maker we need behind the wonderful paper roster assembled.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

League average shooting % is around 9.1%. Here are the 2017-18 Flames:

Michael Frolik: 5.2
Matt Stajan: 5.7
Sam Bennett: 5.8
Curtis Lazar: 5.9
Troy Brouwer: 6.2
Michael Stone: 6.6
Travis Hamonic: 6.8
Mikael Backlund: 7.0
Mark Jankowski: 7.2
Brett Kulak: 7.2
Garnet Hathaway: 7.7
Dougie Hamilton: 7.9
Mark Giordano: 8.1
TJ Brodie: 8.1
Matthew Tkachuk: 8.5
Micheal Ferland: 10.1
Johnny Gaudreau: 10.4
Sean Monahan: 10.7

And here are the newcomers:

Noah Hanifin 7.6
Derek Ryan 8.3
Elias Lindholm 8.7
James Neal 11.5

If just half of the sub 0.091 shooters increase back towards the mean, we should see quite a bit more offense even if Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal regress a bit.

Yikes. If league average is 9.1, I don’t see a ton of good news in these numbers. It’s a team made up of poor finishers.

Interesting though that the best finisher of the group played in a different system than the Flames/Hurricanes possession focused systems.

So are these teams just unlucky or are the systems they deploy likely to yield low shooting percentages?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Really? His own words from this very page. "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."



Again, really? The Flames were just unlucky last season? It had nothing to do with a faulty system that was both predictable and flawed in its design? Bad luck played a larger role in the Flames messing the bed last year than a garbage system that saw pretty much the whole team have a horrible shooting percentage? That is where the ridiculousness of the suggestion comes in. What's the old adage? Teams make their luck. The Flames under Gulutzan played a very suspect game all season long, and had the bad stats indicative of a bad system, That wasn't luck, that was expected.



No change. The system was faulty and relied on trying to get a lot of shots on the net, a majority of them poor scoring opportunities. The Flames don't need more time with the puck, they need to get better shots on goal and from better scoring areas. Shooting from the slot right into a defenseman or the goaltender's chest counts as a danger zone opportunity on net, but if the shot is into major traffic because the opposition has collapsed into a defensive shell the shot quality is still garbage. They Flames generated a lot of shots, but they weren't good shots, even from home plate. The eye test proved that.



Where's the salacious insult in what I said? That saying the whole season can be distilled down to bad luck is a ridiculous belief? Come on, where's the Bingo that used to mock Oiler fans for saying the same thing, and then trotting out Corsi stats to support their belief? That wasn't an insult then, and its not an insult now. It's a statement of the obvious. A team is not unlucky for a whole season. They just have a bad system or suck at the game of hockey.



You stated it was luck. If you would like to apply a qualifier now that is fine by me. But you did state, "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."



That is different than suggesting the Flames were just unlucky. I would agree with what you said above, especially if you applied the blame where it obviously belonged - on the system that caused the abysmal shot stats. Those stats, and every stat in creation, were indicative of a horrible system and the players struggling to try and find success in that system. It definitely wasn't luck.

The statement "Flames were unlucky" isn't the same as "luck is 100% to blame for the Flames misfortunes last season"

You can keep trying to make that the case but it won't stick. I don't know why you keep attempting to make it so. Pretty weak attempt at winning an argument you likely shouldn't have started in the first place.

I said his deployment was an issue, I talked about his break out being D to D too often, and pointed to a study that said they didn't forecheck at all. That's hardly saying 100% luck, but why get in the way of a good rant right?

Luck played a role, the numbers say as much, and that's all I've ever said.

The salacious insult is to take someone that actually digs deep into things, writes 3000 words of copy on what he finds, but compare it to closet infantile Oiler fans that count on luck being the issue every summer. This Bingo is here and healthy don't worry buddy.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I think the obvious answer is the problems are systemic. I will point out that Gaskal's numbers also appear to be a little off. According to NHL.com Jankowski was a 14.4%, Tkachuk was a 12.8%, Monahan a 15.3%, Lindholm a 10.4%, and Ryan a 11.1% for shooting percentage.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

No change. The system was faulty and relied on trying to get a lot of shots on the net, a majority of them poor scoring opportunities. The Flames don't need more time with the puck, they need to get better shots on goal and from better scoring areas. Shooting from the slot right into a defenseman or the goaltender's chest counts as a danger zone opportunity on net, but if the shot is into major traffic because the opposition has collapsed into a defensive shell the shot quality is still garbage. They Flames generated a lot of shots, but they weren't good shots, even from home plate. The eye test proved that.

They're sure jamming a lot of defenseman in a tight space to make sure assertion correct



But I'll ignore all the data and just go with your eye test.

I just hope these teams don't figure out that they can defend against the rest of the league and not only the Flames this way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

That last sentence is just false.

There is an objective and very accurate measuring stick for the impact a GM makes, and that's the standings. If Treliving had been a net positive impact, that should be visible in the standings. So far that just hasn't been the case. He inherited a team that did better than anything he's managed to put together, that's just a fact. It's not even close, his teams have bombed completely twice.

Now, just because he has so far failed to have an objectively net positive impact doesn't mean he's a bad GM, or that he has made more bad moves than good. Not everything is the GMs fault. For all I know he might turn us into the next dynasty team.

But right now the jury is still out. For all we know, Carolina could have gotten the three best players in a five player deal, and he just hired another bad coach. Or maybe we got the two best players in that deal and he hired a future hall of famer.

What bugs me is the certainty with which people are proclaiming him a great GM when objectively his teams have been between mediocre and bad.

I didn't proclaim him a great GM

You don't think he's made more good moves than bad, that's fine. It's a subjective opinion but to call my opinion false is pretty bush league.

But none of these men got the wealth they've accumulated by not digging a lot deeper into their businesses than the standings, so I have to disagree with you there. These men are well aware of how much went right the year Treliving inherited the team and how much heavy lifting was due to come to make the team a perennial standings contender.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Luck played a role, the numbers say as much, and that's all I've ever said.

Someone as smart as yourself, and invested in statistics to the level you are, should recognize the failing of this statement. Statistical analysis is designed to all but eliminate "luck" and anomalous events. To suggest luck was involved is to suggest the model is flawed to begin with. Seriously, try introducing the concept of luck to a statistics professor. Be prepared for a a rather long dissertation on the existence of "luck" or chance.

The salacious insult is to take someone that actually digs deep into things, writes 3000 words of copy on what he finds, but compare it to closet infantile Oiler fans that count on luck being the issue every summer. This Bingo is here and healthy don't worry buddy.

I don't know Bingo, Tyler Deelow managed to rally his yearly claim of luck using those same statistics into a short lived NHL job.



Trust me Bingo, I appreciate the work you do and the excellent writing you provide for the masses here. Dissent to a theory is not disapproval of the author or their hard work. You are, and always have been, a bright mind who will dig into the numbers. I've always appreciated that about you, which is why your sickness really personally hit me hard. I'm very relieved you are healthy again and can continue your writing. Life wouldn't be the same without it, and I'm very happy it will continue on for years to come.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Someone as smart as yourself, and invested in statistics to the level you are, should recognize the failing of this statement. Statistical analysis is designed to all but eliminate "luck" and anomalous events. To suggest luck was involved is to suggest the model is flawed to begin with. Seriously, try introducing the concept of luck to a statistics professor. Be prepared for a a rather long dissertation on the existence of "luck" or chance.





I don't know Bingo, Tyler Deelow managed to rally his yearly claim of luck using those same statistics into a short lived NHL job.



Trust me Bingo, I appreciate the work you do and the excellent writing you provide for the masses here. Dissent to a theory is not disapproval of the author or their hard work. You are, and always have been, a bright mind who will dig into the numbers. I've always appreciated that about you, which is why your sickness really personally hit me hard. I'm very relieved you are healthy again and can continue your writing. Life wouldn't be the same without it, and I'm very happy it will continue on for years to come.

Once again you're calling counting stats a model, which is a huge failure on your part.

A model comes leads to a suggested out come. Counting stats never do anything but sit on the page. You can ignore them, or you can look deeper into other counting stats and see what they tell you.

-The Flames were huge on shot attempts
-But also huge on dangerous scoring attempts
-I looked into their passing rates from danger areas in an effort to prove your theory ... that the team is so rigid that they are easy to block, but no the passing stats were better than NHL powerhouse teams.
-The Flames were the largest shot missing team since the league started counting stats 19 years ago this past season. They shot high, wide, hit more goal posts, cross bars than any other team when they are all totalled.
-They had key contributors not only crater in shooting percentage, but entire top lines crater in on ice shooting percentage below replacement levels.

None of that is a model. I'm not applying formulas from data into a hypotheses. They are all just counting stats that suggest the same thing, some bad bounces played a role in the team's odd season last year.

But don't agree with me, that's fine. I love dissent, just drop the need to insult by comparing me to halfwits in sweat pants and you'll be fine.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I think that's a bit harsh. The flames had one complete exception year before treliving,and other than that, the team has performed about the same: below average.

His biggest fault has been over estimating the team and spending assets a team that is still essentially rebuilding simply cannot afford (1st & 2nd round picks).

My 'hot take' is the flames would have not been all that much better or worse the last few years had they not made the Hamilton and hamonic deals. Those assets would have been rounding out by now....

Treliving understands the value of draft picks. If I recall correctly, he has stated that drafting and developing is the life blood of an organization (paraphrasing).

He spent the first two seasons buying 'currency', ie: draft picks. The Hudler and Glencross trades speak to this, and the organization used them wisely. Simultaneously, he acquired young players to complement the core that was in place. Hamilton & Hamonic were age appropriate acquisitions. Further they carry value moving forward. The Flames got younger and acquired (likely) core pieces in the Hamilton deal & Hamonic is an in-his-prime RHS D on a very team friendly contract. That type of asset has very good value.

I suspect it won't be long before Treliving starts flipping current roster players to replenish the picks he has spent over the past couple seasons. For example, where does Sam Bennett fit in moving forward? At this point he is clearly behind Gaudreau and Tkachuk on the left and baring significant injury to other players his time at C looks to be over. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Dillon Dube in his spot by next years draft, or sooner.

This season or next, the Flames are going to have to make room for Anderson, Valamaki, and Kylington. What does that mean for Stone, Hamonic, Brodie?

If the Flames want, they can recoup picks. They are well positioned from a developmental prespective to be a competitive team for the foreseeable future and beyond. That is a testament to the work Treliving has done.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Treliving understands the value of draft picks. If I recall correctly, he has stated that drafting and developing is the life blood of an organization (paraphrasing).

He spent the first two seasons buying 'currency', ie: draft picks. The Hudler and Glencross trades speak to this, and the organization used them wisely. Simultaneously, he acquired young players to complement the core that was in place. Hamilton & Hamonic were age appropriate acquisitions. Further they carry value moving forward. The Flames got younger and acquired (likely) core pieces in the Hamilton deal & Hamonic is an in-his-prime RHS D on a very team friendly contract. That type of asset has very good value.

I suspect it won't be long before Treliving starts flipping current roster players to replenish the picks he has spent over the past couple seasons. For example, where does Sam Bennett fit in moving forward? At this point he is clearly behind Gaudreau and Tkachuk on the left and baring significant injury to other players his time at C looks to be over. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Dillon Dube in his spot by next years draft, or sooner.

This season or next, the Flames are going to have to make room for Anderson, Valamaki, and Kylington. What does that mean for Stone, Hamonic, Brodie?

If the Flames want, they can recoup picks. They are well positioned from a developmental prespective to be a competitive team for the foreseeable future and beyond. That is a testament to the work Treliving has done.

I don't know about that. His intention is to move this team into a contender. Contending teams do not trade roster players for picks. Picks are used at the deadline for big playoff runs.

If the flames are starting to make moves for more draft picks, it certainly won't be treliving, as he will be let go for not putting together a winning team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I don't know about that. His intention is to move this team into a contender. Contending teams do not trade roster players for picks. Picks are used at the deadline for big playoff runs.

Not always.

In the next four or five years the Flames will find themselves in situations in which they will need to make decisions for cap compliance, and to provide internal upgrades to the NHL roster. Older veteran players like Frolik, Stone, Hamonic, Backlund, Neal, Brodie, Ryan may find themselves supplanted one day by younger, cheaper, better players behind them. The GM may need to move players for picks as early as this season to make room.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

League average shooting % is around 9.1%. Here are the 2017-18 Flames:

Michael Frolik: 5.2
Matt Stajan: 5.7
Sam Bennett: 5.8
Curtis Lazar: 5.9
Troy Brouwer: 6.2
Michael Stone: 6.6
Travis Hamonic: 6.8
Mikael Backlund: 7.0
Mark Jankowski: 7.2
Brett Kulak: 7.2
Garnet Hathaway: 7.7
Dougie Hamilton: 7.9
Mark Giordano: 8.1
TJ Brodie: 8.1
Matthew Tkachuk: 8.5
Micheal Ferland: 10.1
Johnny Gaudreau: 10.4
Sean Monahan: 10.7

And here are the newcomers:

Noah Hanifin 7.6
Derek Ryan 8.3
Elias Lindholm 8.7
James Neal 11.5

If just half of the sub 0.091 shooters increase back towards the mean, we should see quite a bit more offense even if Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal regress a bit.

Not really sure how constructive this is to compare to the league average, the comparison should be to their career average, and some of those comparisons shouldn't be made like in the case of Stajan for instance. The wheels clearly fell off for him last season, and now he's in Europe.

Stone for example has a career shooting percentage of 4.4 and shot 3.1 last year, but he has some outlier seasons at the start of the career.

Lazar has a career shooting percentage of 5.7, so expecting him to hit 9 or 10% is a big ask.

Backlund can definitely improve his shooting percentage,

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As is often pointed out, not all players are created equal in their ability to create goals, which is why some players like Neal and Monahan have historically high shooting percentages. But what that breakdown does show is a significant drop in career-average shooting percentages for an inordinately high number of players, including Frolik, Bennett, Brodie and Backlund.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yikes. If league average is 9.1, I don’t see a ton of good news in these numbers. It’s a team made up of poor finishers.

Interesting though that the best finisher of the group played in a different system than the Flames/Hurricanes possession focused systems.

So are these teams just unlucky or are the systems they deploy likely to yield low shooting percentages?

My impression is that shooting percentages were down largely because shots for were up.

TJ Brodie saw a decline in shooting percentage from 7.7% to 3.4% from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018, but he saw an increase of 40 more shots as compared to the season previous.

In Backlund's final season under hartley, he took 155 shots through 82 games, converting on 13.5%.

Last season, Backlund took 214 shots, nearly 40% more shots, and converted on 6.5%. He scored 2 less points last season as compared to his last season under Hartley.

The Flames were taking a larger volume of lower percentage shots as a group which I think is the greatest contributing factor to their lower shooting percentages.

In the last season under hartley the Flames were 20th in Shots For Per Game with 29.2, basically sandwiched between 23rd place and 14th.

Last season under GG, the Flames were 6th overall in shots for with 33.6, sandwiched between 9th and 4th (carolina).

Hartley's last year outscored GG's last year by 13 goals. Hartley's last year allowed 14 more goals than GG's last season.

It's not apples to apples, but I think it's a pretty good illustration that there was a finite amount of talent on the roster for both coaches that could be deployed in different ways and essentially yield the same results.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But don't agree with me, that's fine. I love dissent, just drop the need to insult by comparing me to halfwits in sweat pants and you'll be fine.

I thought the contrast between what was being said on our site, and the past arguments made by those other guys (some of which dreamed up some of the advanced stats in use), was fair. If you took it as an insult you have my heart felt apology. I didn't mean it as such and thought it might be a way of suggesting we may be reaching to explain something systemic or talent based, like other fan bases have. When you paint it as you have - sweat pants and all - it does take on a different life, and I promise I will no longer suggest any similarity to those clowns up the road.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I didn't proclaim him a great GM

You don't think he's made more good moves than bad, that's fine. It's a subjective opinion but to call my opinion false is pretty bush league.

But none of these men got the wealth they've accumulated by not digging a lot deeper into their businesses than the standings, so I have to disagree with you there. These men are well aware of how much went right the year Treliving inherited the team and how much heavy lifting was due to come to make the team a perennial standings contender.

Well, really I'm nitpicking your words more than anything.

To me positive impact = movement up the standings and/or more playoff wins.

A good move that doesn't help us get up the standings has no positive impact.

But really its semantics. I know, not the greatest argument.