Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Jiri Hrdina]

My concern with this is largely that this is precisely how this organization has operated historically.
Again, I would strongly suggest that one of the shared characteristics of poor organizations is lack of consistency within upper management. And part of this is GMs not being given enough time.
Ultimately, results matter, but I don’t think you can just evaluate a GM on the basis of standings. At some point the roster has to do the job.
So when I look at BT I think you have to evaluate the entire body of work including:

• Drafting
• Trades
• Retaining free agents
• Signing new free agents and if those deals are good or not
• Overall cap management
• Overall asset management

I won’t go blow by blow, but for me, BT makes more good moves than bad.
Firing him after this season, because the team doesn’t make the playoffs, will be more of the same for this franchise. Meaning, hire a guy, don’t give him enough time, fire him, rinse and repeat.

At some point you gotta break the cycle and just believe that the guy you have on top is smart and ultimately is making more good moves than bad. If, you don’t believe that, then yes he should be canned.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Dan403

But this thread IS stupid.

It is, but it's cyclical. Once the Flames go on a hot streak, it will disappear for a bit. Just have to ride it out.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

At some point you gotta break the cycle and just believe that the guy you have on top is smart and ultimately is making more good moves than bad. If, you don’t believe that, then yes he should be canned.

Good perspective and all of the thing you list are important. Stability is important, and at the same time perennial mediocrity and spinning your wheels should it happen, should not be acceptable.

Quantity of good vs bad moves aside, at the end of the day, the reason they are doing all of them is for long term sustained success. At the NHL level.

(It’s kind of like Corsi - outshoot the opponent all you want, and that shows something, but the goal is to outscore them and win)

The key core pieces that Hartley took to round 2 are for the most part still there. Many good roster moves have been made. The rebuild is done. This is the deepest NHL roster we have seen in a long time.

If the drafting, free agents, contracts, etc. have all been good, then naturally you should ask why the team is not demonstrably better. Treliving attempts to answer that question ever year, and on an ongoing basis, with his moves.

Look, if I am an owner, winning means money. Playoff dates mean more money. Whether it is for passion or investment, I need a winning team. If the rebuild is done, and the team is not a playoff team, then what? I then have to ask the question whether Treliving has taken the team as far as he can.

I think it is actually very, very reasonable to have high expectations of the roster. Last year it fell on the coach, who was the GM’s guy.

Gulutzan was the result of Tre’s exhaustive search, was a mess, and Peters is absolutely Tre’s guy. If Peters fails with this roster, I have to conclude as an owner that the GM doesn’t know what he is doing with respect to hiring coaches. Especially not considering the available Cup winning Sutter makes it risky.

I respect your opinion and mine differs. At some point the franchise has a goal - winning, and a point of accountability. The process must have an end goal, and a timeline for that goal.

Again, it is early. Only 11 games in. I don’t expect to judge the team on its season until much later. But if I was an owner, my timeline would be this year and the goal would be at a minimum making the playoffs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

On Hartley, the last year was brutal but a few things. 3 goalie monster interfering with normal practices, Brodie out for the first bunch, Gio coming off a major injury, Hiller putting up historically bad numbers, etc. Remember how crappy Hamilton was the first 10-20 games? Plus a GM that was pretty much forced by the Jack Adams to grudgingly re-up Hartley, and I believe that after the mess of a start, Treliving had Hartley as dead man walking. If the players sniff that, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Ramo had started to steady things when his knee was blown out. Then they rode out the year just like last year. That was rough.

Yeah, but you can make different excuses each year for each coach. Look at this year. Hamonic out for a bunch, three rookies in the lineup, eight new players to the team, Brodie sub-par, Smith way below the beginning of last year's standard, a weird travel schedule that results in almost constant travel (with resulting changes to practice times, sleep times, etc.).

The players hated Hartley. It's not that they just thought he was tough like Sutter, they hated him. And he hasn't had a sniff of the NHL since.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, but you can make different excuses each year for each coach. Look at this year. Hamonic out for a bunch, three rookies in the lineup, eight new players to the team, Brodie sub-par, Smith way below the beginning of last year's standard, a weird travel schedule that results in almost constant travel (with resulting changes to practice times, sleep times, etc.).

The players hated Hartley. It's not that they just thought he was tough like Sutter, they hated him. And he hasn't had a sniff of the NHL since.

Sure, I believe some of them hated Hartley. Some guys who hated Hartley were the vets that were not given and didn’t earn. Look at how many playoff games those guys have participated in, or won, with the coach they didn’t hate.

Lots of players hated Scotty Bowman. And Keenan. These guys all have cups.

I don’t really care if the players like their coach. That what assistant coaches are for. Rather would see them win.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The players hated Hartley. It's not that they just thought he was tough like Sutter, they hated him. And he hasn't had a sniff of the NHL since.

They may have hated him but they played hard for him and the enthusiasm and effort level appeared higher than it was under Gulutzan. Also it can't be discounted that Hartley coached the Flames to their 2nd best season since 1989. Low bar without a doubt but outside of Darryl Sutter no Flames head coach had won a playoff round with this organization. Not saying he was the answer but it does look like a hard ass coach is the approach the team didn't want but it's the approach they need.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

...I don’t really care if the players like their coach. That what assistant coaches are for. Rather would see them win.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

...Not saying he was the answer but it does look like a hard ass coach is the approach the team didn't want but it's the approach they need.

But it is no longer 1995. Like it or not the NHL players culture has changed, and there simply is no room in today's game for coaches like Hartley or Scotty Bowman. I have serious doubts that players of any team would respond at all to a "hard ass coach." This is a different world in which we live.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sure, I believe some of them hated Hartley. Some guys who hated Hartley were the vets that were not given and didn’t earn. Look at how many playoff games those guys have participated in, or won, with the coach they didn’t hate.

Lots of players hated Scotty Bowman. And Keenan. These guys all have cups.

I don’t really care if the players like their coach. That what assistant coaches are for. Rather would see them win.

It wasn't just the vets who hated Hartley. And like I said, they didn't just think he was tough (like Bowman and Keenan). In fact, vets loved Keenan.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They may have hated him but they played hard for him and the enthusiasm and effort level appeared higher than it was under Gulutzan. Also it can't be discounted that Hartley coached the Flames to their 2nd best season since 1989. Low bar without a doubt but outside of Darryl Sutter no Flames head coach had won a playoff round with this organization. Not saying he was the answer but it does look like a hard ass coach is the approach the team didn't want but it's the approach they need.

Why does everyone forget Hartley's last year, where the team just kind of gave up? And wait, second best season since 1989? Are you simply basing that on PO rounds, where they beat a suspect Vancouver team? Because there plenty of years between 89 and 2015 where the Flames had a better record.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why does everyone forget Hartley's last year, where the team just kind of gave up? And wait, second best season since 1989? Are you simply basing that on PO rounds, where they beat a suspect Vancouver team? Because there plenty of years between 89 and 2015 where the Flames had a better record.

Nobody forgets Hartley's final season where the Flames received the worst goaltending recorded in the NHL in over a decade. Yes that season was the second best season since 1989 as they got to the 2nd round which has been a nearly insurmountable feat for this organization. Define plenty as I count four seasons higher than 97 points since 1989 and one was 98 and one 99 points so kind of splitting hairs there. Again I'm no big Hartley fan but it seems some of you are in denial in regards to some of the good things he achieved with a rebuilding team.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It wasn't just the vets who hated Hartley. And like I said, they didn't just think he was tough (like Bowman and Keenan). In fact, vets loved Keenan.

Why does everyone forget Hartley's last year, where the team just kind of gave up? And wait, second best season since 1989? Are you simply basing that on PO rounds, where they beat a suspect Vancouver team? Because there plenty of years between 89 and 2015 where the Flames had a better record.

Keenan here wasn’t hard ass Keenan. Some vets liked him. Kipper and Regehr didn’t like him

I suspect Tre had Hartley as dead man walking.

[GreenLantern2814]

I think if you're a GM, your first priority has to be goalie. If you don't have a goalie, it doesn't matter who you have on defense, who your forwards are, who the coach is

None of it matters if you don't have a stud who can throw up .920 sub 2.40 stats with regularity. Three goalies have won Stanley Cups with save percentages worse than .920 in the cap era - Niemi, Fleury in 09 and Quick during LA's second run.

This team is playing like it doesn't trust its goalie, and the only way to fix that now is for Rittich to get four or five games to show us what he's got.

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It wasn't just the vets who hated Hartley. And like I said, they didn't just think he was tough (like Bowman and Keenan). In fact, vets loved Keenan.

This is true (at least by the end of his tenure) about Hartley. I don't know if it was a full-on mutiny in the room by the end but I know firsthand that the young guys had completed tuned Bob out, weren't following team rules and were essentially just mailing in the end of that final season.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Good perspective and all of the thing you list are important. Stability is important, and at the same time perennial mediocrity and spinning your wheels should it happen, should not be acceptable.

Quantity of good vs bad moves aside, at the end of the day, the reason they are doing all of them is for long term sustained success. At the NHL level.

(It’s kind of like Corsi - outshoot the opponent all you want, and that shows something, but the goal is to outscore them and win)

The key core pieces that Hartley took to round 2 are for the most part still there. Many good roster moves have been made. The rebuild is done. This is the deepest NHL roster we have seen in a long time.

If the drafting, free agents, contracts, etc. have all been good, then naturally you should ask why the team is not demonstrably better. Treliving attempts to answer that question ever year, and on an ongoing basis, with his moves.

Look, if I am an owner, winning means money. Playoff dates mean more money. Whether it is for passion or investment, I need a winning team. If the rebuild is done, and the team is not a playoff team, then what? I then have to ask the question whether Treliving has taken the team as far as he can.

I think it is actually very, very reasonable to have high expectations of the roster. Last year it fell on the coach, who was the GM’s guy.

Gulutzan was the result of Tre’s exhaustive search, was a mess, and Peters is absolutely Tre’s guy. If Peters fails with this roster, I have to conclude as an owner that the GM doesn’t know what he is doing with respect to hiring coaches. Especially not considering the available Cup winning Sutter makes it risky.

I respect your opinion and mine differs. At some point the franchise has a goal - winning, and a point of accountability. The process must have an end goal, and a timeline for that goal.

Again, it is early. Only 11 games in. I don’t expect to judge the team on its season until much later. But if I was an owner, my timeline would be this year and the goal would be at a minimum making the playoffs.

I agree that the expectations should be raised. But I would push on any assumption that regular changes to key front office personnel actually help get you closer to that goal. Hasn't helped the Flames


If the Flames don't hit a reasonable goal this year, then it shouldn't mean Tre gets fired. That's just too binary and too simplistic. There should be work to understand why the goal wasn't met to drive those decisions. And in doing so, you might make far different decisions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Keenan here wasn’t hard ass Keenan. Some vets liked him. Kipper and Regehr didn’t like him

I suspect Tre had Hartley as dead man walking.

Kipper didn't like any coach, I suspect. Reg liked every Sutter.

Hartley gets a pass based on goaltending, but GG had pretty crappy goaltending as well. I will agree all day that GG's team was fragile. But so was Hartley's in his last year. And I guess the market has spoken - Hartley's time has passed in the NHL.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I agree that the expectations should be raised. But I would push on any assumption that regular changes to key front office personnel actually help get you closer to that goal. Hasn't helped the Flames


If the Flames don't hit a reasonable goal this year, then it shouldn't mean Tre gets fired. That's just too binary and too simplistic. There should be work to understand why the goal wasn't met to drive those decisions. And in doing so, you might make far different decisions.

Treliving is the 11th longest tenured GM in the league right now. 20 other teams have brought in someone new since the Flames hired him.

I think the stability for the sake of it angle is overblown. The Flames should rightly make a GM change if they miss the playoffs again, IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Treliving is the 11th longest tenured GM in the league right now. 20 other teams have brought in someone new since the Flames hired him.

I think the stability for the sake of it angle is overblown. The Flames should rightly make a GM change if they miss the playoffs again, IMO.

That's a bit misleading though. How long were the GMs that were let go/retired there? Isn't the correct comparison the average tenure of a gm (in the more modern era - previous GMs had incredibly long tenures)?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's just too much money to sink into the position. If Bobrovsky hits the open market this summer he is not signing a contract for anything less than $8.5 m. And he could get a deal close to $10 m.

No. There are other possible good options out there, and Treliving is probably going to have to be creative to fix the problem.

So pay Bobrovsky.

If Treliving just stopped signing replacement players to large deals on July 1, we could afford to do this with zero concern. If you don't have a goalie, you're not doing anything.

Get the goalie. Whatever it costs. Get the goalie.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's a bit misleading though. How long were the GMs that were let go/retired there? Isn't the correct comparison the average tenure of a gm (in the more modern era - previous GMs had incredibly long tenures)?

Here is a link for average & median tenure of coaches and managers in various leagues:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coac...league-2016-12

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Here is a link for average & median tenure of coaches and managers in various leagues:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coac...league-2016-12

That would be coach (NHL, NBA & NFL) and manager (MLB & EPL) I would think, and not GMs, though?

Edit: And it is for current tenure, so skewed somewhat by recent hires, and not a true average.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

That would be coach (NHL, NBA & NFL) and manager (MLB & EPL) I would think, and not GMs, though?

Hm, you could be right.

Here is some data collected for NHL GM's - http://www.healthgeomatics.com/hockey-gm-tenure-length/

Results

1. First, GMs last an average of about 5.5 years in their job. I didn’t break the data down by month, so this number could be off by a decimal point or so. But that’s the ballpark figure. The old-time GMs (like Art Ross, Frank Selke and Harry Sinden) are outliers that drag the mean away from centre. It should be no surprise that the median tenure is 4 years. Here’s a histogram of the distribution: