[News] UPD: Geoff Ward officially named the franchise's 20th head coach (2 year deal)

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by bax

More term = Less money

Why? Ward said he would look at coming back even as assistant and certainly had no leverage to be in a position to bargain. I don't see that at all as being the case. Between the buyouts and personnel changes I see a GM who wastes a lot of dollars.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Totally normal for a former GM to go on the local radio station to defend the owners from the fanbase perception that they are cheap.

Happens in every market.

Totally normal.

Yeah and totally normal for Brian Burke to be used as a marketing device because he's generally afraid to shake up the planet with any thing that could be construed as controversial.

The guy has a history of saying what he thinks. There honestly may not be a person out there that is more off the cuff and out there with comments.

But yeah mocking someone is fun on the internet. Good for you!

[PepsiFree]

I find the whole narrative around how long he searched for, who he interviewed, what owners are willing to spend money on, etc. to be really strange.

Treliving is the GM. None of us actually know what goes on behind the scenes, but the result is what it is. Whether Treliving signs Ward or Gallant, he likely knows their success or failure at this point is his success or failure, and is going to dictate his fate. He's going to pick what he feels is the best coach available to the Flames because he knows what's at stake. If it works out, great, if not, Treliving is probably in trouble.

Doesn't matter to me how many people he interviewed or who was willing to come here. We don't know, we can only see how we go from here.

[bax]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why? Ward said he would look at coming back even as assistant and certainly had no leverage to be in a position to bargain. I don't see that at all as being the case. Between the buyouts and personnel changes I see a GM who wastes a lot of dollars.

I mean typically the more term you get a contract, the more security. You get that in exchange for less dollars per season.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm hoping there is more to Ward than we've seen.

He took over a team midway through a season in a rain storm of chaos. I would think he didn't change what he would have changed from Peters' system if he had the team from training camp on.

So maybe there is more systemic change to come?

More dump, more chase, more collapsing towards their net in the defensive zone to give their opponents free reign and dictate high quantity chances.

Looking forward to more low-octane hockey where the other team literally always dictates the pace of the game.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why? Ward said he would look at coming back even as assistant and certainly had no leverage to be in a position to bargain. I don't see that at all as being the case. Between the buyouts and personnel changes I see a GM who wastes a lot of dollars.

A lot of people say they love their job so much they'd do it for free. Most of those people would not actually do their job for free.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Isn’t this rinse and repeat?

Hartley too mean
Gulutzan too soft
Peters too mean
Ward potentially too soft?

Did the players tune out Ward like they did the others? I don't believe so.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

More dump, more chase, more collapsing towards their net in the defensive zone to give their opponents free reign and dictate high quantity chances.

Looking forward to more low-octane hockey where the other team literally always dictates the pace of the game.

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

You must be a lot of fun to watch hockey with!

Sorry ... I'll leave you be so you can go back to wallowing.

[TheScorpion]

I don't hate this. Ultimately I see Ward as a guy who is still figuring out how to be an NHL HC. He did ok in a bad situation last year and I think he's earned another shot.

He's not a big name, but the "big names" didn't all start out as big names, either.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did the players tune out Ward like they did the others? I don't believe so.

Yet.

I hope it doesn’t happen but it seems like Treliving swings from the Hard to Soft coaches each change.

This group has proved they can handle the hard coach for about one season then they tune him out (at least that is what I appears for Hartley and Peters). Maybe Gulutzan was just the wrong soft coach for the team?

I am meh on this award hiring. Not angry or excited about it.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

He's not a big name, but the "big names" didn't all start out as big names, either.

This is always the reasoning given with these coaching decisions, but when's the last time a Flames coach has went on to be a big name? Or even a consistent name.

If you're using the same strategy for 3 decades and getting the same crappy result, maybe try something new?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

You must be a lot of fun to watch hockey with!

Sorry ... I'll leave you be so you can go back to wallowing.

Haha I'm just having some fun with this at this point. Just responding to your post, but nothing really directed at you.

I just think it's funny how as fans we look for a missing piece or an explanation for some of these moves, because we obviously don't see any explanation on the ice. The only possible explanation is that we must expect some other change within the system, or some other shoe must drop. That's the only way these moves make sense.

[Nammer403]

Eh I wanted a new coach but I can see why they kept him

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

This I don't agree with, the term. Why would you give him an extra year? This was an easy 1 year show me contract decision. Seems like BT is good at throwing money away.

When was the last time a HC signed a one-year contract? I suspect that with the uncertainty of next season Ward also rightly insisted on some longer term insurance. To me this is a pointless quibble.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[flambers]

Not surprised, I voted he should be back and he would be back.

He took over a team coming out of bad situation with Peter's.

I thought the Coaches did a good job

Flames issues are not coaching, rather the core is not working.

GM has to address the core for this team to make the next steps.

[SuperMatt18]

Dissapointed by this move.

Boudreau and Gallant both available and the Flames end up with a guy that made some obvious mistakes in the playoffs (keeping line out for last 3 minutes of game 4, pulling Talbot in game 6)

Probably never on the cards for ownership to agree to pay more for a coach though when they never have before, and especially with the economy the way it is.

[Joborule]

Flames are gonna Flame.

Let me guess, the goalie coach is sticking around also?

When you got several coaches on the market at the same time with credible resumes of success for a prolonged period of time, why bother pursing them, and keep meddling with options that are mediocre, or simply non-existent, after you've had three coaches in the past several years fail?

Franchise is what it is. Just like Oilers, stuck in mediocracy until there's a true personnel, and philosophical change on how they operate to be successful.

...

Even if core personnel are changed on the roster, the coaching should also be changed, and next season should be a complete fresh start from this past season. The ONLY way I feel that this decision is acceptable to me is if Tre is intending to do a rebuild/retool, and as a result, the coaches available were not interested in coming to Calgary as a result. Although honestly with Calgary's history of coaching hires, I doubt that they wouldn't be intersted still.

So if rebuilding is the case, and ownership is onboard, then that means that Tre probably gets another shot at another coach since he would have rope. But then I question if he should be the one who gets to lead the rebuild.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

This I don't agree with, the term. Why would you give him an extra year? This was an easy 1 year show me contract decision. Seems like BT is good at throwing money away.

Guiding principle is that you never make a coach a lame duck coach and never give him only 1 year.

Also most head coaches usually get at least 3 years on their first contract.

So if anything 2 years shows they are being a bit stingy here.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Table 5

This is always the reasoning given with these coaching decisions, but when's the last time a Flames coach has went on to be a big name? Or even a consistent name.

I'll throw that right back at you: who was the last rookie Flames head coach? I think it was Playfair, right? And before that.... er, Don Hay? Greg Gilbert? Then you get Bob Johnson and Terry Crisp.

But the Flames usually go for retreads who haven't succeeded on their previous NHL stops. Gulutzan was coming off a mediocre tenure in Dallas, Peters in Carolina, Hartley in Atlanta, Keenan wherever he was before Calgary. These guys all came off mediocre tenures and continued being mediocre in Calgary.

Ward is a fresh new HC who Treliving really likes. He did well coming into a really tough situation last year. Would he have been my first choice? No. But he's not a bad choice either.

[GranteedEV]

There goes the Laviolette dream.