Brad Treliving needs to go

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I can't quote you with Firefox.

Not sure what the previous years have to do with it?
The team went from badly declining with an aging core (GM fired) to a full on rebuild (with GM fired). Obviously they hadn't been good or he never would have been hired in the first place. Prior years mean nothing though because that mess had already been cleaned up and he was handed a fairly clean slate to start with.

They made the playoffs 4 times and won one round. The first time they made the playoffs, and won a round, it was entirely Feaster's team and coach. Here are the moves Trelving made between being hired and the end of the 2014-15 playoffs.
Traded a 3rd for Bollig
Traded Drew Shore for Corban Knight
Traded Glencross for a 2nd and 3rd
Traded Baertschi for a 2nd
2 good moves, 1 bad move and 1 meh move. None of them had anything to do with the playoffs that year.
That year was the best results of Treliving's tenure and he had almost nothing to do with it.

Since then the record is:
2015-16 - missed playoffs
2016-17 - swept in 1st round
2017-18 - missed playoffs
2018-19 - lost in 5 games 1st round
2019-20 - won play-in round against the wounded Jets, beat by Dallas in 6.

Hardly a record to be bragging about.


Edit: Anyway, have to get some work done now.

We can’t count it as 7 years if we don’t count this season he made the playoffs in 4 of 6 then with the 7th TBD

It wasn’t entirely Feater’s team. Treliving signed Hiller who played over 50 games with a .920. They miss the playoffs without him. They likely also miss without Engellend who stepped up huge after Gio went down. I don’t see either of those moves listed above?

When Treliving took over this team it could have been easy to say they were 3-4 years from being a playoff team but they only went into the tank in one year which resulted in Tkachuk and have been competitive every other year.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I personally don't feel like Treliving needs to go, or even should go. Is this team a more talented squad than when he first came on board? Absolutely. You have to really hate Treliving personally not to admit that.


Is this team closer to a Stanley Cup now? I don't know. Part of me sees the team on paper and wants to say "Absolutely", and then the other part of me watches how this team plays and sees the results, and they may be even further away.


The initial rebuild had a lot of promise. I do not doubt that Gaudreau and Monahan are top line players. I really believe that their issues are two-fold:
1) Poor coaching and systems - Under Hartley, they performed fairly in the playoffs even though it was their first playoffs. Watching them every other playoffs, at 5on5, they are targeted heavily, and the systems employed don't seem to be conducive to them winning. They are not cycle players, but that's how they are utilized.
2) Poor support - no other line is really a danger. Backlund's line is always forced to be used as a shut-down line (which I agree with). No other line are much of a scoring threat that other teams need to balance out (ala Crosby line vs Malkin line).


People say this over and over again: "You can't score on the rush in the playoffs", yet every year you see a LOT of goals being scored on the rush, so don't use that as an excuse.


I was getting angry at Peters for how terribly he got out-coached. Dump in? Colorado was set with one guy back. Johnny carrying the puck? Walked into a trap of 3-4 players swinging their sticks in the middle of the ice. Zone entries were brutal. Conversely, they just allowed Colorado an easy time in zone entries. It seemed they were playing man-to-man defence - Brodie and Backlund were tasked at shutting down MacKinnon (and Brodie was exceptional BTW - when Peters couldn't get Brodie out against MacKinnon at 5on5, MacKinnon destroyed the Hanifin-Hamonic pairing).


Yes, MacKinnon is on another level than Gaudreau as a player, and even as a physical specimen. I am not arguing that Gaudreau should have equalled MacKinnon in that series, or that they are somehow 'equitable' players in any way other than Gaudreau being an exceptional talent at carrying the puck, making plays, and even scoring.



I complained about our defence under Hartley and often likened them to race horses, but Gulutzan kept trying to use them as plough horses. Well, this analogy also makes sense when using it on Gaudreau.


The funny thing is, this team still bleeds chances. Last night's game was terrible on the PP in allowing odd-man rushes (Rittich was awesome there).



Why am I bringing up coaching? Because that's Treliving's responsibility as well.


This is the team he built. Yes, Gaudreau is an exceptional talent - not 'generational' and so on, but an exceptional talent and easily one of the most talented players ever to play for this team (right up there with Sergei Makarov and Kent Nilsson in my opinion - but not over-the-hill like Makarov was, and not lazy like Nisson was).



It is up to Treliving to set the direction of the team, acquire assets that fit that direction, trade away assets that don't fit that direction, and hire a coach that fits with the team that he has assembled.


Now, he didn't draft Gaudreau, but he signed him and didn't trade him. Gaudreau is NOT a fit with how this team is trying to play as. Heck, look at a lot of the prospects through the system - they are mostly smaller and talented - not guys that you think of when playing "North-South" hockey along the boards. Phillips, Zavgorodniy, Pelletier, Petterssen, Francis, Kerins and don't forget Dube and Mangiapane. I am not advocating that Treliving shouldn't be drafting smaller talented guys, but at the same time, if 'off the boards' hockey is what you consider effective, then he is drafting and retaining the wrong composition of prospects and players organizationally to supplement his vision, no?



His drafting record to me seems to favour players who would do well in an uptempo system. A majority of the players on the team are like this as well. The defence is built this way for the most part. Why play a system that doesn't seem to fit the roster and seemingly the organizational philosophy? Yes, there are players like Bennett, Tkachuk, Lucic (who I won't exactly count as it seems more like Treliving being forced to get rid of Neal), etc., as well as prospects like Pospisil, Ruzicka, Fischer, etc. I do think you need that mix, but strengths of this team isn't along the boards - definitely not from the line you most need to score. Brodie gone and Tanev in fits more with the philosophy that Treliving seems to be after. But overall, this is a team built to play uptempo hockey that should have a bunch of set plays on their breakouts, and that tries to push the pace and catch teams out of position. Not a heavy cycling team that makes its living in the corners.



Treliving is failing in my opinion if he keeps players around that don't fit the structure of what he is building, and then capping it off with a coach that fits with that direction, rather than the personnel. It just seems like a bit of a mismatch to me. Maybe there is more that I am not seeing and that Treliving's vision is correct. I sure hope so.



So is this team a more talented team than when Treliving took over? Absolutely.


Is this team closer to being a Stanley Cup Champion? Absolutely not.



Treliving should rightly be feeling a bit on the hot seat at the moment, but I don't think he is a poor GM. He has made mistakes, but I don't think he deserves to be fired. I do think that his job should be more scrutinized at the moment, and his job security shouldn't be unquestionable, but he is not a terrible GM.


I just think the pieces don't fit, and if he continues to be the GM of a team that is inconsistent and hasn't experienced any noteworthy post-season success, then I do think eventually you do make the change. It is a results-based business. It has been 7 years. Do you give him 8? 10? 15? At what point do you say that it is time to try someone different? I don't know what the answer is exactly, but just because a GM makes more good moves than bad ones (at least in my opinion), it doesn't mean he is the right person for the job any longer. I am not on the bandwagon to fire him at all. I don't think that there really should be a bandwagon yet. However, the needle sure seems to be going the wrong way for him at the moment.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

We can’t count it as 7 years if we don’t count this season he made the playoffs in 4 of 6 then with the 7th TBD

It wasn’t entirely Feater’s team. Treliving signed Hiller who played over 50 games with a .920. They miss the playoffs without him. They likely also miss without Engellend who stepped up huge after Gio went down. I don’t see either of those moves listed above?

When Treliving took over this team it could have been easy to say they were 3-4 years from being a playoff team but they only went into the tank in one year which resulted in Tkachuk and have been competitive every other year.

It is just such a low, sad bar. He burned off draft picks to try to maintain the level achieved in his first year. In that year, my recollection was that Wideman and Russell (two Feaster players) were the dmen who really stepped up the most after Gio went down. Hiller was an important contributor, but it is worth noting that Ramo had a higher winning percentage in the regular season and played 34 games. If we win three games in the playoffs this year our total since the 2015 playoffs will surpass the total playoff wins from that first year, a mere 6 years later. I suppose someone could have said they were 3-4 years away from being a playoff team but Feaster signings like Hudler and Wideman, Feaster trades like Russell and Jones and Feaster picks like Johnny and Monahan dragged that team into the playoffs less than 12 months after Brad became GM. I would say their contributions were more important than those of Raymond, Englland, Hiller and Bollig.

[Sylvanfan]

I don't think Treliving is going anywhere for at least a calendar year. He is at a critical point in his tenure where what he can do in the next 6-12 months will define how he rates as the Flames GM. The team hasn't done much under him in the playoffs. But at this point he has been in the playoffs 4 of 6 seasons which is better than Average, and many of the core guys outside of Giordano are still not that old yet. For me we are in the stage where he really defines how he'll be remembered as the teams GM.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is just such a low, sad bar. He burned off draft picks to try to maintain the level achieved in his first year. In that year, my recollection was that Wideman and Russell (two Feaster players) were the dmen who really stepped up the most after Gio went down. Hiller was an important contributor, but it is worth noting that Ramo had a higher winning percentage in the regular season and played 34 games. If we win three games in the playoffs this year our total since the 2015 playoffs will surpass the total playoff wins from that first year, a mere 6 years later. I suppose someone could have said they were 3-4 years away from being a playoff team but Feaster signings like Hudler and Wideman, Feaster trades like Russell and Jones and Feaster picks like Johnny and Monahan dragged that team into the playoffs less than 12 months after Brad became GM. I would say their contributions were more important than those of Raymond, Englland, Hiller and Bollig.

When Gio went down it was Brodie and Engelland who stepped up, and Wideman continued his (one) year of good play. I can’t believe you included Jones there - the guy Feaster got (with Shane O’Brien) for Sarich and Tanguay.

BTW, Monahan was the no-brainer consensus pick after Barkov and Lindholm were gone and Johnny was not a “Feaster pick”, because Feaster was notoriously not involved past the first couple rounds. What Feaster did do was trade the 14th pick in 2012 so he could move down and get Mark Jankowski. This team looks a little different with Tom Wilson, Teuvo Teravainen or Tomas Hertl (or Vasilevsky but who knows with goalies). Hell it looks better with Cody Ceci or even Zemgus.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have said for some time now that I think the turnover of GMs in the NHL is too high, and I think you answered your own question: Seven years is definitely enough time to evaluate, and to judge whether the Manager has the team moving in the right direction. I guess where you and I differ is in our evaluation vs. results: they are not there on the ice, but I like what Treliving has been working toward. It is happening slower than I would have hoped, but I think he sees pretty clearly the problems with the team, and I like the way he has tried to address these issues; I like the way that he evaluates players, and I tend to like the players that he targets; I like that he owns his mistakes and works to correct them.

And this is the bottom line I keep coming back to: who is the best person to improve the team? Right now, I don't see a better option than Treliving for the Flames. While I am not convinced that high-profile figures like Lombardi and Rutherford are realistic options, I also don't believe they provide any improvement.

Reasonable people can disagree and the bolded is where our views differ. I'm not seeing much of that and IMO he has been focusing on the wrong areas and made some poor decisions.

As for a replacement, and who could be better. Admittedly I don't have a pool of candidates but since I consider the current GM to be average to below average, I can't imagine he would be that difficult to upgrade. And rather than thinking disruption would be bad, I tend to think some change would be beneficial in this case.

But I tend to agree with most posters who believe Treliving survives into next year. It's just hard to imagine him hiring yet another coach, that would be almost unheard of burning through four coaching hires in 8 years by one GM.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I like Trelving, I wouldn't fire him.

But I get that some want him gone.

If I like the way a GM approaches things I'd rather keep him. I realize I won't like every move he makes, but more often than not I see what he's trying to do, and agree with the model on paper.

But on the ice it hasn't worked.

If you would have told me 3 years ago that Sean Monahan and Johnny Gaudreau shouldn't be 2/3 of a top line I wouldn't have believed you. It just hasn't worked.

I personally don't blame the GM for that fact, and with that being the biggest issue in what he built not working I don't see that as a flawed GM and a necessary firing.

The coaching choices have been mired for sure, but then I think that also rolls into the core and the core not being what it should have been. Doesn't mean they were the right choices necessarily, but the impact on the coaching is certainly a factor.

But GMs and coaches are all hired to be fired, and that day will come.

Wouldn't be now for me, but I certainly don't see it as insanity to think differently.

I can respect this opinion and I understand that some fear that the next guy may not be better but that mentality buys you eternal mediocrity. He hasn't been a disaster like Chiarelli or anything but the coaching hires are a deal breaker for me and Ward was the final straw. I have my theories about Treliving when it comes to coaches in that the Tippett vs Maloney power struggle left a mark on him but it's just a theory but there is definitely something up with his coaching hires as he's not even interviewed a single head coach that was considered one of the best available candidates or a strong up and comer outside of Travis Green. Maybe he wants a guy that will not have the clout to step on his toes or maybe he's got this smartest man in the room thing where he wants to unearth the next great coach. Regardless I have no faith in him ever getting the coach right which means the organization is doomed to fail in their quest for a Stanley Cup as long as he's GM. He needs to go.

All of that said I would hire him as an Assistant GM in a heartbeat as to me this is his calling. Doing all the legwork like phone calls, contract negotiations, draft input, etc. What GM wouldn't want him as his right hand man knowing his work ethic? He just isn't cut out to make the final call on some of the major decisions a GM needs to make. Great AGM, mediocre GM.

[Macho0978]

I feel like Treliving has done a good job considering this team was in full rebuild mode when he came here and it's pretty clear that the Flames are not a top destination from players signing here or when it comes to who is listed on NTC. I feel like no matter who our GM is they will be handcuffed to a certain degree and because of this the Flames will always be a team that struggles for consistent long term success.

I do think this team is better than their record is this year and it's a young team on average and there is lots to be happy about. But for me 8 teams play in the 2nd round of the playoffs every year which is about 25% of the league. 6 years and no 2nd round appearance is not good. Full rebuild to start off with still isn't bad but my concern is this team even though they are young they are about to hit cap hell after next year and it could last for 3 years. Only way to work through that is to move out a core piece which more than likely leads to a step back in your team or you draft well and replace depth through the farm system. I feel like this team doesn't have enough in the farm to afford any sort of bust or slow development from our prospects to with stand the cap hell moving forward. It's very realistic this team misses the playoffs this season and next year are supposed to be the peak of what Treliving set up cap wise for this team.

Even though the Flames have made the playoffs 4 of 6 years under Treliving if they don't make it this year and don't have a 2nd round appearance this year or next it's very possible we won't have 1 for a 10 year stretch under Treliving. IMO even though this team isn't a prime location for players the salary cap should allow us to compete still. I don't think it's acceptable as a fan to accept that this team can't build to make the final 8 2 or 3 times in a 10 year stretch. Cups are harder to expect but it would be nice to at least see some real playoff success once in awhile.

I've been a huge Treliving fan but my opinion of him is slipping even if the playing field isn't level for him vs some successful GMs/franchises

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Edited:


I have my theories about Treliving when it comes to coaches in that the Tippett vs Maloney power struggle left a mark on him but it's just a theory but there is definitely something up with his coaching hires as he's not even interviewed a single head coach that was considered one of the best available candidates or a strong up and comer outside of Travis Green. Edited

Did he even interview Green? I know there were rumours at the time about Treliving asking about Green, but then eventually it came out that Treliving wasn't asking about Green, but only about Gulutzan. IIRC, he never interviewed Green nor did he even inquire about him to the Vancouver organization. Maybe I am wrong, but that's what I remember anyway. Furthers your overall point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Did he even interview Green? I know there were rumours at the time about Treliving asking about Green, but then eventually it came out that Treliving wasn't asking about Green, but only about Gulutzan. IIRC, he never interviewed Green nor did he even inquire about him to the Vancouver organization. Maybe I am wrong, but that's what I remember anyway. Furthers your overall point.

No. Treliving approached the Canucks for permission to interview Green, and they declined because he was already lined up to become their next head coach. In addition to Green, Jim Montgomery was also among the rumoured candidates in his 2016 search.

If Treliving does get another coaching hire, I would bet on him pushing hard to get one of these two guys.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No. Treliving approached the Canucks for permission to interview Green, and they declined because he was already lined up to become their next head coach. In addition to Green, Jim Montgomery was also among the rumoured candidates in his 2016 search.

If Treliving does get another coaching hire, I would bet on him pushing hard to get one of these two guys.

Well, that would be perfectly on brand.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

When Gio went down it was Brodie and Engelland who stepped up, and Wideman continued his (one) year of good play. I can’t believe you included Jones there - the guy Feaster got (with Shane O’Brien) for Sarich and Tanguay.

BTW, Monahan was the no-brainer consensus pick after Barkov and Lindholm were gone and Johnny was not a “Feaster pick”, because Feaster was notoriously not involved past the first couple rounds. What Feaster did do was trade the 14th pick in 2012 so he could move down and get Mark Jankowski. This team looks a little different with Tom Wilson, Teuvo Teravainen or Tomas Hertl (or Vasilevsky but who knows with goalies). Hell it looks better with Cody Ceci or even Zemgus.

Deryk Englland, the straw who stirred the drink. The man who was 4th in dman icetime in the playoffs, a mere 6 minutes a game less than Russell, Wideman and Brodie will forever be a Flame. Often overlooked, but never forgotten, Deryk did much more than one season Dennis ever did that year.

Let me know when Brad drafts a forward as talented as Johnny in the 4th round. I am indifferent about whether he is active in the process or whether he lets his scouts do their job. I will trust your insider knowledge though about the Mendoza line for what round Feaster ceases to get credit for the organization he managed picking a stud player.

Joel Farabee would look good in our lineup this year, but alas, we decided to trade the pick that we could have got him with for Travis Hamonic. The player we actually lost with that pick in the Jankowski draft was the great Gergenson, but I suspect if cherry picking is allowed the Hamonic trade will look horrific in 5 years (even worse than Dobson).

And the David Jones trade did cost us the one good season that Tanguay had left. The upside was that David got more goals in that playoff than Alex did in the previous 3 playoffs. He did not bring Alex's patented physical game though.

[djsFlames]

Too much reading in here. Gross.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Deryk Englland, the straw who stirred the drink. The man who was 4th in dman icetime in the playoffs, a mere 6 minutes a game less than Russell, Wideman and Brodie will forever be a Flame. Often overlooked, but never forgotten, Deryk did much more than one season Dennis ever did that year.

Let me know when Brad drafts a forward as talented as Johnny in the 4th round. I am indifferent about whether he is active in the process or whether he lets his scouts do their job. I will trust your insider knowledge though about the Mendoza line for what round Feaster ceases to get credit for the organization he managed picking a stud player.

Joel Farabee would look good in our lineup this year, but alas, we decided to trade the pick that we could have got him with for Travis Hamonic. The player we actually lost with that pick was the great Gergenson, but I suspect if cherry picking is allowed the Hamonic trade will look horrific in 5 years.

And the David Jones trade did cost us the one good season that Tanguay had left. The upside was that David got more goals in that playoff than Alex did in the previous 3 playoffs. He did not bring Alex's patented physical game though.

I guess you’re right- Feaster was a genius GM and that’s why he’s been so successful in hockey operations since.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

...Let me know when Brad drafts a forward as talented as Johnny in the 4th round. I am indifferent about whether he is active in the process or whether he lets his scouts do their job. I will trust your insider knowledge though about the Mendoza line for what round Feaster ceases to get credit for the organization he managed picking a stud player...

This doesn't make any sense. It is the same scouting staff that has been drafting players under both Treliving's and Feaster's regimes, and player evaluation and draft preparation appears essentially identical over that time.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I guess you’re right- Feaster was a genius GM and that’s why he’s been so successful in hockey operations since.

I never said he was, I said the team that made the second round was basically a team made up of his players, which it was. Outside of Hiller, Treliving added no difference makers to that roster. The team has never obtained the lofty heights of game 5 in the second round in the 5 playoffs after that year as Brad increasingly put his stamp on the team. We shall see if we can make game 5 or beyond of the second round this year (hopefully we will) and the ghost of the incredible 2015 run can be put to bed. I also expressed a hope that we could set the bar higher than making the playoffs. I do not think I ever said Feaster was a genius.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You can't take away credit for a player drafted under a GM regime just because it's later rounds.

Ultimately it's the scouts (and a lot of people give credit to Button/Head of Amateur Scouting for picks because they hate Feaster/any GM).

The GM sets the qualities or attributes they want in players: High IQ, speed, size or whatever: character.

Button takes that and says to scouts get these kind of players. I think Button is great at finding what a GM wants (that's why he remained under different GM). He's just a very good scout at heart.

So yes, Gaudreau is a Feaster pick. Mangiapane, Pettersen are Treliving picks.

High IQ is a core attribute for Treliving and I like that. I think people are upset that CGY doesn't have the dynamic top 3 who combine, skill, iq, speed or size. The guys who break ankles.

It's very hard to find outside top 3 picks. Yes there are guys like Gaudreau but they have something scouts question and go lower.

But with many of Treliving's picks not top 3-5 he's gone for hockey iq. Thats a good bet. But these guys may not have the dynamic quality. He's searched for dynamic guys later on Phillips, Jeremy Poirier etc.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This doesn't make any sense. It is the same scouting staff that has been drafting players under both Treliving's and Feaster's regimes, and player evaluation and draft preparation appears essentially identical over that time.

Treliving did draft Mangiapane in the 6th round and Adam Fox in the 3rd round. A top 6 forward and top 4 D. Aaron is trying to say the Flames haven’t found late round steals under Treliving?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Treliving did draft Mangiapane in the 6th round and Adam Fox in the 3rd round. A top 6 forward and top 4 D. Aaron is trying to say the Flames haven’t found late round steals under Treliving?

I think he is using this as a point to show that Feaster was a better GM in Calgary than Treliving in part because Treliving has yet to draft a player of Gaudreau's quality in the fourth round. But your observation shows precisely why this makes no sense: it is the same scouting staff which picked Gaudreau in 2011 that has also picked Mangiapane and Fox in 2015–16.

[Jacks]

I don't think there are very many people who consider Feaster to be a great GM and the vast majority will surely consider Treliving to be better in almost every area. However, when we are looking at Treliving's body of work you have to consider what he started with and where the team is now. Feaster was mediocre at best (although I give him credit for leaving the team better than he found it) but after almost 7 years Treliving hasn't really had much success and it's fair to criticize him for that.