Treliving

[GullFoss]

I'm a big treliving fan, but when you only interview one candidate, the bar is pretty high that you did a lot of research around that guy.

I really want to know what his due diligence and information seeking skills around bill peters actually was. I think Tre has questions to answer in this regards. One of the reasons Tre hired peters was that Hartley was too old school and gully was too much of a players coach. Even if you ignore the racism...peters is starting to look really old school

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I'm a big treliving fan, but when you only interview one candidate, the bar is pretty high that you did a lot of research around that guy.

I really want to know what his due diligence and information seeking skills around bill peters actually was. I think Tre has questions to answer in this regards. One of the reasons Tre hired peters was that Hartley was too old school and gully was too much of a players coach. Even if you ignore the racism...peters is starting to look really old school

Treliving hired Peters because he worked with Bill at the WHC. Peters was also the protegé of the man widely regarded as one of the three best coaches in the league.

I don't blame Brad for the hire, and I don't blame him for only interviewing one guy. Hockey Canada and Babcock and Carolina thought enough of the guy, I understand why Brad did too.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Treliving hired Peters because he worked with Bill at the WHC. Peters was also the protegé of the man widely regarded as one of the three best coaches in the league.

I don't blame Brad for the hire, and I don't blame him for only interviewing one guy. Hockey Canada and Babcock and Carolina thought enough of the guy, I understand why Brad did too.

I do blame Brad for hiring Peters and interviewing only one guy. Just a pathetic way to run a multimillion dollar business. If I ran my company like that I would have been broke 30 years ago!

[questionmotives]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are assuming that Treliving was acting out of character for an NHL executive. I am sure he did his due diligence—insofar as any GM would do in his vetting process of a coaching candidate.

The problem is NOT Treliving. It's the NHL; it's hockey. Certainly, he should have to answer questions for his part in employing Bill Peters, and I would hope that Treliving is part of the solution moving forward. But to foist upon him the responsibility for what is a deeply entrenched issue that extends far into the guts of the League is not fair.

I had the chance to speak to a former NHL GM this afternoon, he would not go as far to say Treliving was acting out of character, but that it was his opinon there was zero chance Treliving wasn't aware that some of this existed, and he either acknowledged these character issues when he hired him, or else acted in willful ignorance and simply chose to turn a blind eye.

Either way, this is essentially corroborates your argument that it's a culture problem in hockey but doesn't mean Treliving or anyone else should escape culpability going forward.

If this is the beginning of the end of his tenure, so be it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

An interesting wrinkle in this is if people think Francis had any obligation to tell a fellow GM what was going on or past complaints.
If someone calls me about a past employee I give an authentic overview (the good and the bad) out of respect to a fellow employer.

People need to be careful with this IMO. Many corporations have policies that limit what can be said in a reference check to confirming length of employment. You start passing on unsubstantiated allegations and a former employee can have a case that you are inhibiting their ability to gain employment.

Not saying you’re doing this obviously but I always think about this. People should always ask before using you as a reference and if I can’t give a good reference, I say no. Hockey is a small circle though and no doubt information gets shared. But it’s why references on resumes are useless and what’s more telling can be who is not included.

Flames have a history of hiring coaches without much of a process. Does anyone think Hartley or Brent Sutter were properly vetted?

[Corral]

Originally Posted by questionmotives

I had the chance to speak to a former NHL GM this afternoon, he would not go as far to say Treliving was acting out of character, but that it was his opinon there was zero chance Treliving wasn't aware that some of this existed, and he either acknowledged these character issues when he hired him, or else acted in willful ignorance and simply chose to turn a blind eye.

Either way, this is essentially corroborates your argument that it's a culture problem in hockey but doesn't mean Treliving or anyone else should escape culpability going forward.

If this is the beginning of the end of his tenure, so be it.

This is exactly what I think is delaying the removal of peters. He wants to be paid for the entire contract and he is reminding treliving that he knew about this when he hired peters. And thus there is no cause for dismissal on known events that happened a decade ago.

Either that or because treliving turned the blind eye on this the flames are going to fire both of them because peters is going to disclose what treliving knew when he hired peters

[Scorch]

Why hasn’t this been Treliving’s thinking yet?

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by memphusk

So you're saying Rod the Bod is the best coach in all the land?

Young players developed and they did spend more money with the new owner.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by questionmotives

I had the chance to speak to a former NHL GM this afternoon, he would not go as far to say Treliving was acting out of character, but that it was his opinon there was zero chance Treliving wasn't aware that some of this existed, and he either acknowledged these character issues when he hired him, or else acted in willful ignorance and simply chose to turn a blind eye.

Either way, this is essentially corroborates your argument that it's a culture problem in hockey but doesn't mean Treliving or anyone else should escape culpability going forward.

If this is the beginning of the end of his tenure, so be it.

I don't know how the hiring process works in the NHL, it probably varies from team to team, but one cannot help but question if Tre turned a blind eye. It boggles my mind that you do not check up on some references on a guy you are going to pay 2 million dollars a year. A responsible and prudent boss should always always check up on these things.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I don't know how the hiring process works in the NHL, it probably varies from team to team, but one cannot help but question if Tre turned a blind eye. It boggles my mind that you do not check up on some references on a guy you are going to pay 2 million dollars a year. A responsible and prudent boss should always always check up on these things.

Who said he didn't? For all we know he checked with several references and found nothing to be concerned about. Maybe he talked to Ron Francis and Francis had nothing but great things to say about Peters. None of us know right now.

Unless we get some proof of the hiring process I'm really surprised there are some who think BT 'must' have known something but just didn't care. For me, unless there's proof BT knew something and didn't care I'm going to assume nothing came up during the hiring process. If it comes out BT did in fact know something but turned a blind eye I'll be first in line to bash the guy. Until then.......no reason to assume the worst.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I'm a big treliving fan, but when you only interview one candidate, the bar is pretty high that you did a lot of research around that guy.

I really want to know what his due diligence and information seeking skills around bill peters actually was. I think Tre has questions to answer in this regards. One of the reasons Tre hired peters was that Hartley was too old school and gully was too much of a players coach. Even if you ignore the racism...peters is starting to look really old school

This is an odd one though. The pool of NHL coaches is only so deep. Why would you need to re-interview a ton of guys again?

2 years prior to Peters, he interviewed a ton of guys for the HC job. Why on earth would he need to re-interview these guys only to ask the same questions? Subtract the guys that are obviously not available or clubs are not willing to make them available, then you add on what seems like an ownership mandate that they are not willing to pay money for a coach and suddenly your pool of candidates is extremely shallow.

In some senses, you can't blame BT for his selections, because he's handcuffed to a meager budget that doesn't offer many options. Gulutzan was rumored to be making like $600-800K per season as our HC. Peters is rumored to be making 1.6-1.8 mil. Peters to BT might have seemed like the only realistic coaching option at the time that fit his mandate, availability and ownership's mandate.

Who else was realistically available?

If Peters was really a horror story as is being insinuated, why on earth wouldn't Carolina try to hide the issue and cross their fingers hoping we steal a monster from them? Hell, most teams are pretty secretive and disclose injuries only as upper/lower body injuries.

Also, if BT knows about Peter's behaviour issues, why does he hire him but also simultaneously build a strong support system for the players relating to addiction and mental illness spontaneously without an external mandate? That just doesn't make sense.

[Split98]

Treliving did not know of what happened between Bill and Akim

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Do they usually hire guys who are physically abusive to their subordinates as well? I always found it shocking that Peters 137 wins and 191 losses over 4 years caught Brad’s eye, but I think a background check from former players would be something one may consider when hiring a coach to coach players .

Players are really only talking about this stuff now as a result of the floodgates opening due to the Babcock firing. It’s likely some players were consulted, but just gave the typical: “great coach, very tough and disciplined, etc.” If no one has come forward to that point about the physical abuse, what makes you think they would then? Further to that point, if the players disliked him wouldn’t they give him glowing reviews so that he would be hired and therefore gone from their organization? It’s so easy to criticize in hindsight, but the fact is it really isn’t that easy to get the kind of information you’re talking about.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Split98

Treliving did not know of what happened between Bill and Akim

Thanks for the clarification Brad.

Some of you are willfully blind with your rosy glasses when it comes to scrutiny on the home team.

Glad I don’t pay thousands for the privilege of watching this in person.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are assuming that Treliving was acting out of character for an NHL executive. I am sure he did his due diligence—insofar as any GM would do in his vetting process of a coaching candidate.

The problem is NOT Treliving. It's the NHL; it's hockey. Certainly, he should have to answer questions for his part in employing Bill Peters, and I would hope that Treliving is part of the solution moving forward. But to foist upon him the responsibility for what is a deeply entrenched issue that extends far into the guts of the League is not fair.

Saying Treliving is part of the culture problem in the league doesn't feel like much of a defense of the guy or organization.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Corral

Thanks for the clarification Brad.

Some of you are willfully blind with your rosy glasses when it comes to scrutiny on the home team.

Glad I don’t pay thousands for the privilege of watching this in person.

I don’t see how this level of condescending is helpful. Grow up.

If we assume the most likely scenario is true, then we should assume that Treliving did not know about the Akim situation. By the same token, we can also assume that Treliving knew Bill’s reputation. There’s not much wrong with the latter, considering how deeply embedded this is in hockey culture.

This is not rosy/blindness/whatever. This is just assuming the most likely situation is the true one. There’s worthy scrutiny here, but we don’t have to reach.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Corral

Thanks for the clarification Brad.



Some of you are willfully blind with your rosy glasses when it comes to scrutiny on the home team.



Glad I don’t pay thousands for the privilege of watching this in person.

Brad was directly asked.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Corral

Thanks for the clarification Brad.

Some of you are willfully blind with your rosy glasses when it comes to scrutiny on the home team.

Glad I don’t pay thousands for the privilege of watching this in person.

And then there is you: leaping to every tin-foil hat inspired conclusion and trumpeting conspiracy theory nonsense without a second thought.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Saying Treliving is part of the culture problem in the league doesn't feel like much of a defense of the guy or organization.

It wasn't intended to be. The NHL clearly needs to change.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I'm a big treliving fan, but when you only interview one candidate, the bar is pretty high that you did a lot of research around that guy.

I really want to know what his due diligence and information seeking skills around bill peters actually was. I think Tre has questions to answer in this regards. One of the reasons Tre hired peters was that Hartley was too old school and gully was too much of a players coach. Even if you ignore the racism...peters is starting to look really old school

Putting aside everything going on about hockey culture, from strictly a hockey perspective, I would argue it looks like Treliving has made 3 poor coaching decisions (I count firing Hartley prematurely a poor decision). Sure Peters had a great result last year, but if you look at the playoffs and this year, it looks like everything came apart pretty quickly. And now he has the headache of dealing with this controversy on top of it.

I agree Treliving has been a solid GM but his coaching selections haven't been great in my opinion.