Should/Will the Flames keep Ward

[CliffFletcher]

Burnside in the Athletic says the Flames talked to Reirden before the 20170-18 season, and he wouldn't be surprised if they approached him again now.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Burnside in the Athletic says the Flames talked to Reirden before the 20170-18 season, and he wouldn't be surprised if they approached him again now.

Please God no! That would be such a Flames move.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Or, some people find winning in the playoffs to be enjoyable. Which has nothing to do with “armchair GM’ing”. I’m glad you were entertained, but it was an inflated winning percentage that did not reflect the team as a whole. Which became glaringly obvious come playoff time.

I don't see anything wrong with armchair GMing. People should enjoy that side of the sport if they want. Seems like a valid thing to enjoy. It wasn't meant as an attack.

Anyways, if you enjoy winning in the playoffs, that's another reason to remember Hartley's time fondly. He actually won a round, which is a rare occurrence for the Flames.

I also understand if Jiri didn't like him because he was a bully. Fair reason not to have liked him. Suggesting fans of Hartley just have rose tinted glasses because the exciting hockey and playoffs round 1 win that actually happened under him wasn't sustainable doesn't make much sense to me though. Even if not sustainable, at least it actually happened.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Ferland won a round, and you’ll never convince me otherwise. They lose if he isn’t on that team.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Please God no! That would be such a Flames move.

No doubt his character and wisdom have improved tremendously, thanks to two years of failure. Much like GG was ripened in Dallas and Peters in Carolina. We just have to reap the rewards!

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Or, some people find winning in the playoffs to be enjoyable. Which has nothing to do with “armchair GM’ing”. I’m glad you were entertained, but it was an inflated winning percentage that did not reflect the team as a whole. Which became glaringly obvious come playoff time.

He is the only one that won a playoff round, other than Darryl. I don't like Hartley, I didn't like how he was hired, BUT... watching the Flames since Keenan left has been like watching paint dry, aside from Hartley that season and the first few months of last season. Hartley renewed my interest in the on-ice product. He also fostered a team toughness and strength of will. A lot of people dismiss the goonery as neanderthal, but I think the stunt he pulled against the Canucks (much like Sutter's last minute brawl against Nashville) sends a message to the opposition and to your own team that fosters unity and swagger.
Talk about dinosaurs, past-due-date, etc, but the Flames played their best under very experienced coaches - Sutter, Keenan and Hartley...

[Igottago]

Good thing the Flames have figured out how to play sustainably winning hockey since Hartley.

[taxbuster]

Given the 50/50 split on the votes to this point, who knows what they'll do?

Probably promote him above Brad.

[overtimewin]

Like most... I did not like how he pulled Talbot - just a bad decision overall. That however, is forgivable - what I really didn't like was his response when he was asked about it... that it was due to an equipment issue. Even if true, you can put the goalie right back in. I hate excuses - admit it was the wrong thing to do that the time. Also, I don't like how he used Lucic ...Lucic was good in the first series but IMO became less effective as the playoffs went on. But they have a history together...

That said, i do like how he changed the mentality and brought the team together. Just some poor decisions. Overall I would not be opposed to him being back.

[JohnnyB]

My thoughts with him saying iit was an equipment issue is that it had more to do with not throwing Talbot under the bus. He made up an excuse rather than saying Talbot went to the room and had taken his gear off or was having a meltdown or whatever. Talbot was then obviously pretty frank with reporters, but I guess Ward hadn't coordinated any answer with him and wanted to keep it in the room rather than out him. Just speculating, but based on how he tends to always talk his players up to media, that's my guess at why he came out with that.

As for Lucic, he may have over used him a bit, but how can you be dissatisfied with his coaching of Lucic overall? He helped turn Lucic from dead weight back into an impact player. That's a pretty outstanding achievement.

[Doctorfever]

Managerment will have tough decisions about whether they keep Ward on or not. Do you think any decision about the coaching staff are at all related to if they do or don’t decide to retool or rebuild?

Maybe Tre tries a few bigger trades, they fall through, and the team ends up looking largely the same as last year. If that happens, they might want to kept Ward in the Head position for another year.

The other end of the spectrum is the team has a different look, so let’s also go with a new head coach.

Of course these may not be related at all, and Managerment is looking at the head coach and the “look” of the team as two totally unrelated items.

Or it might be as simple as who is available that we think would be better than what we currently have...

EDIT
For the record, I voted to keep Ward. I think he should get a full season (or at least have the opportunity to start a full season).

Plus the coaching carrousel in this town is making me dizzy.

[activeStick]

Burke asserted this morning on the Fan that spending money on players or coaches was never an issue at least when he was with the organization, so I don't think it's valid when fans say that ownership has been unwilling to spend the money required on one of the big name coaches. Burke does say that he expects new pandemic pricing to change how much this round of free agents (coaches and players) get in the offseason.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Burke asserted this morning on the Fan that spending money on players or coaches was never an issue at least when he was with the organization, so I don't think it's valid when fans say that ownership has been unwilling to spend the money required on one of the big name coaches. Burke does say that he expects new pandemic pricing to change how much this round of free agents (coaches and players) get in the offseason.

So this might be the perfect storm to get a proven coach at a discount. Just another reason to go that route.

[Toonage]

I wonder what the balance will be. Between what a top tier coach wants vs what the team is willing to spend. of course if a guy like Laviolette drops his price, that just means a guy like Ward drops his which probably makes him more attractive to Flames ownership all things considered.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Burke asserted this morning on the Fan that spending money on players or coaches was never an issue at least when he was with the organization, so I don't think it's valid when fans say that ownership has been unwilling to spend the money required on one of the big name coaches. Burke does say that he expects new pandemic pricing to change how much this round of free agents (coaches and players) get in the offseason.

Yeah I found that interesting as Burke shot down the talk of ownership not willing to pay for a top head coach. Maybe Treliving simply isn't good at identifying what is the right coach for the team? Maybe after seeing what happened to his buddy Maloney in Phoenix he's weary of hiring a head coach that has more experience than he does? No idea but most of the coaches he interviewed when he hired Gulutzan were of the inexperienced or previously short tenured head coaches. If he doesn't at least interview or call to interview one of the bigger fish available I will have to seriously question if he's trying to win at all costs. I think with the Gulutzan hire he was hiring a guy that fit his vision for what would work with the team rather than hire a guy that had proven results. Peters really wasn't a proven winner in the NHL and it seems Treliving hired him based off of what he saw from him in the World Championships. I'm not sure hiring by gut, feel, or vision is the right way to go about things in a results based business. This could be his last coach hire so he best ensure he hires a guy that fits the most important criteria which is proven winner.

[Roof-Daddy]

It sure would be nice to know if the Flames have ever been turned down by a coach, and if yes, when and why.


If Treliving has approached Laviolette/Gallant and they've said they just want to take some time off (thanks, but no thanks, going to wait for an offer elsewhere) then it's hard to criticize him for not hiring a proven head coach.

But if he hasn't approached these guys I'd be very disappointed.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It sure would be nice to know if the Flames have ever been turned down by a coach, and if yes, when and why.


If Treliving has approached Laviolette/Gallant and they've said they just want to take some time off (thanks, but no thanks, going to wait for an offer elsewhere) then it's hard to criticize him for not hiring a proven head coach.

But if he hasn't approached these guys I'd be very disappointed.

True. Honestly, I think if I am a coach, I would be worried about my career if I sign with the Flames.

I would be very interested to know how many Flames head coaches have gone on to become the head coach of another NHL team? Darryl Sutter is the only recent example that comes to mind.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by keenan87

True. Honestly, I think if I am a coach, I would be worried about my career if I sign with the Flames.



I would be very interested to know how many Flames head coaches have gone on to become the head coach of another NHL team? Darryl Sutter is the only recent example that comes to mind.

Any NHL head coach worth his salt is not going to worry about what coaching in Calgary will do to his job prospects. These are extremely confident people working at the top of their profession—they're not going to be scared pff by recent history. More likely every NHL coach is certain already that he knows how to turn the Flames into a championship team.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Any NHL head coach worth his salt is not going to worry about what coaching in Calgary will do to his job prospects. These are extremely confident people working at the top of their profession—they're not going to be scared pff by recent history. More likely every NHL coach is certain already that he knows how to turn the Flames into a championship team.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I agree.

Boudreau, Laviolette, Gallant... One of these guys at least was watching our roster during the playoffs and saying "I would have done better with that group."

Get one of those guys, not a Reirden.

Hartley had a lot of eccentricies but damn do I ever miss watching the team that played under him. My wife, god bless her, grew up in Edmonton but was never a hockey fan. I got her invested in the flames during the hartley year- and she loved it. She thought the team was so exciting! Ever since Hartley left (she calls him the angry frenchman) she stopped watching again, says they're too boring.

My wife is like many young fans out there I imagine. How many young flames fans have been equally put off from this boring ass, heartless, team in the last 4 years?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I agree.

Boudreau, Laviolette, Gallant... One of these guys at least was watching our roster during the playoffs and saying "I would have done better with that group."

Get one of those guys, not a Reirden...

But here's the rub: Reirden was watching the same games and saying the same thing. To become a NHL head coach in the first place requires a confidence in your own abilities and a certainty that you can do the job better than everyone else.