Treliving

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe a bit worse on the ice (comparatively speaking), definitely a bit better for ownership money wise, probably a lot better in the room.

Everyone, well, not wins necessarily....

Saving billionaires some money should matter so little to any of us that it shouldn’t even be brought up.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Johnhitbox

I’m not sure If this a question for a whole new thread.. but, is Calgary one of those places players just don’t want to sign in, And why? The weather isn’t as bad as most areas.

Kadri's wife is American and she didn't want to move here. That's actually pretty common. This isn't the 80s anymore - hockey wives have a say in where guys play.

To Americans, Canada is like a whole different country. It's cold. They have no friends and family here. Long flights to anywhere rich people go to have fun. To wives it's far from ideal if they plan to have kids and want her parents around to help.

Calgary isn't Edmonton or Winnipeg, but it's not as far off as we want to believe. In polls of NHL players it comes in the bottom third of desirable places to play. And with more NHL players being from the U.S. or having American wives, and couples today wanting to raise the kids with their parents nearby, it's just a reality that Calgary will be on a lot of no-trade lists.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Kadri's wife is American and she didn't want to move here. That's actually pretty common. This isn't the 80s anymore - hockey wives have a say in where guys play.

To Americans, Canada is like a whole different country. It's cold. They have no friends and family here. Long flights to anywhere rich people want to have fun. To wives it's far from ideal if they plan to have kids and want her parents around to help.

Calgary isn't Edmonton or Winnipeg, but it's not as far off as we want to believe. In polls of NHL players it comes in the bottom third of desirable places to play. And with more NHL players being from the U.S. or having American wives, and couples today wanting to raise the kids with their parents nearby, it's just a reality that Calgary will be on a lot of no-trade lists.

Didn't they want to stay in Toronto (which is in Canada fyi)

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Saving billionaires some money should matter so little to any of us that it shouldn’t even be brought up.

A ton of the #### we talk about on these forums doesn't need be brought up.

But its all part of the overall operation of the team, so it does.

[Vinny01]

If Treliving was let go they would either promote Conroy or Maloney to the position

[Toonage]

Maloney is about as plug & play as you can get for a replacement GM.

Can't see it getting there though. It would genuinely surprise me.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

No, you don’t. The cap savings were minimal and the eventual buyout is going to be way worse than any cap savings. Lucic isn’t an NHL worthy player, Neal is. Better off retaining a bunch of Neals salary in a trade than trading for the worst contract in the NHL. Defending the Lucic deal is insanity.

I wouldn't have done the deal but Lucic is playing better for the Flames than Neal ever did.

Neal is only an NHL player on the powerplay with the league's top offensive talent. He is on a winning team with double digit goals and a double digit minus.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Didn't they want to stay in Toronto (which is in Canada fyi)

Kadri had no intention or desire to play in Calgary. From the people I know who are connected to the situation, this was certainly true. It wasn’t just about not wanting to leave Toronto. Calgary was on his NTC list.

Fact is as I’ve mentioned before if anyone has a 5-10 team no trade list, guarantee Calgary is on it. As is Edm, Wpg, Ott, Buff and at times either NYI/Arz. But even NYI is being put on less these days for NTC.

That’s why it’s imperative the team drafts well and continues to produce developed talent.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

Kadri had no intention or desire to play in Calgary. From the people I know who are connected to the situation, this was certainly true. It wasn’t just about not wanting to leave Toronto. Calgary was on his NTC list.

Fact is as I’ve mentioned before if anyone has a 5-10 team no trade list, guarantee Calgary is on it. As is Edm, Ott, Buff and at times either NYI/Arz. But even NYI is being put on less these days for NTC.

That’s why it’s imperative the team drafts well and continues to produce developed talent.

Well okay orange Julius...but he did want to play in Canada despite his American wife. Just not here.

[CliffFletcher]

On the radio a couple days ago, a Toronto-based NHL insider (Chris Johnston?) said Kadri's wife didn't want to move to another Canadian city. She's from L.A. and would prefer to live in the U.S.

It's just reality that a lot of NHL players and wives don't want to live in small Canadian cities like Calgary. No sense pretending it's not the case. As soulchoice says, it just means franchises like the Flames really have to focus on drafting and development rather than trades and free agents signs.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Well okay orange Julius...but he did want to play in Canada despite his American wife. Just not here.

Toronto is a stone’s throw from a bunch of major US cities on the eastern seaboard. Calgary is a stone’s throw from the middle of nowhere. Hard not to see the difference here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Johnhitbox

I’m not sure If this a question for a whole new thread.. but, is Calgary one of those places players just don’t want to sign in, And why? The weather isn’t as bad as most areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's arguably the worst weather of all teams outside of Edmonton and Winnipeg. You can imagine players coming to training camp from hot summers in other areas of North America to Calgary to be greeted by a big September snowfall like this year must shake their heads as well as the bitter cold in the middle of winter. In that players survey this year a player (I assume from an eastern team) complained about visiting Edmonton saying the schedule seems to always have them visiting in the middle of the winter where it's extremely cold. I imagine the same goes with Calgary where players visit in the middle of winter in a -25 cold spell where they think to themselves they are lucky they don't have to play here.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

On the radio a couple days ago, a Toronto-based NHL insider (Chris Johnston?) said Kadri's wife didn't want to move to another Canadian city. She's from L.A. and would prefer to live in the U.S.

It's just reality that a lot of NHL players and wives don't want to live in small Canadian cities like Calgary. No sense pretending it's not the case. As soulchoice says, it just means franchises like the Flames really have to focus on drafting and development rather than trades and free agents signs.

Not only that Cliff, of course they would have stayed in Toronto as it’s a major metro centre in North America and where Kadri is from (GTA). Denver, which wasn’t on his list, being a short flight to LA doesn’t hurt either. Even more so With his wife having a jewellery, albeit small business with ties to both in Toronto and LA.

[jonkaupp]

The way you combat the undesirable city dilemma is you build a culture that attracts players. Baltimore isn’t the most desirable city to live in in the NFL and yet they consistently are able to draw players to the team because they have such a good culture and reputation. Kawhi aside (he is a special case imo given the past) Toronto is currently seemingly building that in the NBA. I don’t look at the Flames in the same vein.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

No, you don’t. The cap savings were minimal and the eventual buyout is going to be way worse than any cap savings. Lucic isn’t an NHL worthy player, Neal is. Better off retaining a bunch of Neals salary in a trade than trading for the worst contract in the NHL. Defending the Lucic deal is insanity.

I would agree that retaining some of Neal's deal would have been the best course over a straight trade with Edmonton. However I'm also assuming that was looked at and didn't work (other teams not willing, or the club ownership not on board with the ticket retained).

So if that's true then it's keep Neal for four years (they wouldn't let him buy him out by all suggestions) or take the Lucic deal.

Neal is drifting far below NHL worthy. If you look at evolving wild's WAR model he's literally the 21st worst forward in hockey (50 minutes or more this season). He's been so bad at five on five that he's below replacement level despite scoring on half his shots on the powerplay.

If you take that same model and sort it by five on five offensive contribution ... James Neal is the worst forward in the NHL. Worst!

Agree or disagree with the guy's model ... it's not mine. But it's not a Calgary fan building it, and it certainly matches with the eye test from last season.

Boat anchor.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I would agree that retaining some of Neal's deal would have been the best course over a straight trade with Edmonton. However I'm also assuming that was looked at and didn't work (other teams not willing, or the club ownership not on board with the ticket retained).

So if that's true then it's keep Neal for four years (they wouldn't let him buy him out by all suggestions) or take the Lucic deal.

Neal is drifting far below NHL worthy. If you look at evolving wild's WAR model he's literally the 21st worst forward in hockey (50 minutes or more this season). He's been so bad at five on five that he's below replacement level despite scoring on half his shots on the powerplay.

If you take that same model and sort it by five on five offensive contribution ... James Neal is the worst forward in the NHL. Worst!

Agree or disagree with the guy's model ... it's not mine. But it's not a Calgary fan building it, and it certainly matches with the eye test from last season.

Boat anchor.

I’m definitely not arguing that Neal is a good player, he is terrible. Totally agree. Still think he’s better than Lucic but at that point we’re debating who is more terrible which in the end who cares, they both suck. I’m just not going to give Treliving any credit for dealing with his terrible mistake by acquiring another terrible player with a worse contract. It is what it is but it’s just an exclamation on how bad the Neal signing was and he absolutely deserves to be heavily criticized for that.

[VilleN]

Trelivings worst moves IMO are his coaching hires. Real bad. A who’s who of unproven coaches... I like Peters, but after the Gulutzan debacle we needed a guy without any question marks... a proven winner, so that if the team played poorly we could at least rule out coaching as the issue. Now we’re left wandering in the dark, possibly a week or so away from firing another coach and not being certain that it was the problem.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Trelivings worst moves IMO are his coaching hires. Real bad. A who’s who of unproven coaches... I like Peters, but after the Gulutzan debacle we needed a guy without any question marks... a proven winner, so that if the team played poorly we could at least rule out coaching as the issue. Now we’re left wandering in the dark, possibly a week or so away from firing another coach and not being certain that it was the problem.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason for hiring any coach. The GM should never make his decisions on the basis of what will make fans feel better. He makes decisions on what he believes is best for the team, and will result in an improved on-ice performance and results. Whether or not you agree that Bill Peters is a good coach, Treliving most certainly did the right thing to hire the coach he believes in.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason for hiring any coach. The GM should never make his decisions on the basis of what will make fans feel better. He makes decisions on what he believes is best for the team, and will result in an improved on-ice performance and results. Whether or not you agree that Bill Peters is a good coach, Treliving most certainly did the right thing to hire the coach he believes in.

Completely agree, and if Bill Peters wasn’t the right hire (which, at the moment, it is certainly beginning to look like) then that should mean that Treliving is not the right guy either.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Completely agree, and if Bill Peters wasn’t the right hire (which, at the moment, it is certainly beginning to look like) then that should mean that Treliving is not the right guy either.

To reiterate a point I made elsewhere, Canadian NHL orgs tend to be way too impatient in regards to team building. Most GMs don't build a contender inside of five years, and most wil ebb and flow between success and setbacks. If Treliving let Peters go at the end of the year (I don't think this will happen) I would hope that Flames ownership would not take the reactionary approach and start over again with someone new. Being patient is unpleasant and it's unsexy, but I think in this case it will yield better results in the end.