Brad Treliving needs to go

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks for that. I personally don't think it reflects one way or another on the GM's relationship or trust level with ownership.

I think it does. Buyouts are more about cap management and don't hurt the club's economically. Not good if ownership is telling the GM how to manage the cap.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How easy or difficult do you believe it is to put together a deal like the one for Kadri?How much time do you believe such a deal takes to pull together? I think it is easy for us to say, "Just go and make another deal." But I bet it is a hell of a lot more difficult than all that

I am sure you are right here. But isn't that even more of a misfire then? Kadri's NTC was public and going all in on that was a known risk. Whoops.

What if the one deal that Treliving wants isn't there this off season?

In any case, I'm sure we can agree the better scenario is Darryl gets this team on a heater and we make some noise in the playoffs. I certainly haven't ruled that out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think it does. Buyouts are more about cap management and don't hurt the club's economically. Not good if ownership is telling the GM how to manage the cap.

You are going to have to explain your thinking on this for me. The way I see it, if Treliving did indeed approach ownership about approving a buyout I could imagine their hesitation about the immediate cost, and returning to him with instructions to find a more cost-effective deal, which he did. This strikes me as nothing more than a day-to-day business exchange; I don't see it at all as "ownership is telling the GM how to manage the cap."

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Had the Kadri deal gone through, who knows what follows? Is Treliving done? Do other trades follow? It changes way too much to know. None of it matters though, so your criticism doesn’t mean much either. It’s just shrouded in negativity.

Well Tre took a team with good pieces and no cap issues, and in 7 years has hit the cap and the team is not in a playoff spot

Is pointing out the clearly observable lack of success really the kind of negative that you need to call out?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are going to have to explain your thinking on this for me. The way I see it, if Treliving did indeed approach ownership about approving a buyout I could imagine their hesitation about the immediate cost, and returning to him with instructions to find a more cost-effective deal, which he did. This strikes me as nothing more than a day-to-day business exchange; I don't see it at all as "ownership is telling the GM how to manage the cap."

But a buyout typically saves real money, in exchange for long term cap implications. Not sure what you mean by immediate cost in this case. The only reason against a Neal buyout is the dead cap money, right? Which is an awfully big reason.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well Tre took a team with good pieces and no cap issues, and in 7 years has hit the cap and the team is not in a playoff spot

Is pointing out the clearly observable lack of success really the kind of negative that you need to call out?

Bottom line.

[1qqaaz]

I have thought Treliving should be fired for a while now, but after listening to Kelsie Snow's podcast I remembered that these are real good people and there's a ton of dynamics we don't see.

There's a lot of value in having GM continuity. That consistency is valuable.

But if the Flames miss the playoffs this year, I don't see how the organization can justify keeping Treliving around.

[Psytic]

Whats Dean Lombardi doing ?

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What makes you think that these are the types of players Treliving is targeting moving forward?

Darryl Sutter.

Those are the types of players I think suit Darryl Sutter style hockey whereas it doesn’t appear skilled guys like Gaudreau and Monahan are thriving under his system right now.

Some of the words I’ve heard from Sutter’s mouth so far is “pace” and “check.” So basically guys that can get in quickly on the forecheck and be hard on pucks. From what I can remember, Darryl seemed to like the Dwight Kings, Kyle Cliffords and Jordan Nolans of the world. Super basic, super nonsense hockey.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Well, perhaps I’m too much of an optimist.

I don’t think this window is closing. I think the Flames are well suited to ship out one or two pieces this off season and maintain their competitive balance. If the situation is that dire, why did Sutter come back?

I think the current cores’ original window is all but closed if this season goes into the crapper. Gio’s Norris calibre days appear to be over, Gaudreau and Monahan could be ready to move on and Tkachuk’s next contract will be the $9+ million. There’s no elite #1 center on this team and I don’t think we have any blue chip prospects ready to make an impact either, so management will have to rely on UFAs and or trading current pieces that aren’t as valuable as they once were.

Hate to say it, but the Oilers look like they’re ready to turn a corner and the Jets window looks wide open again. Vegas isn’t going anywhere and Colorado looks poised for greatness. I don’t know where that leaves the Flames exactly, but we’re in a tough spot from an optics standpoint.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well Tre took a team with good pieces and no cap issues, and in 7 years has hit the cap and the team is not in a playoff spot

Is pointing out the clearly observable lack of success really the kind of negative that you need to call out?

However, almost every team in the league has hit the cap due to the pandemic. And what good pieces did the team have before Tre, aside from Monahan and Gaudreau, who are now being characterized on this board as being essentially worthless?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But a buyout typically saves real money, in exchange for long term cap implications. Not sure what you mean by immediate cost in this case. The only reason against a Neal buyout is the dead cap money, right? Which is an awfully big reason.

Im guessing he means soon as they buy a player out, they have to cut a cheque for the 1st year. whereas had he stayed on the roster the salary gets paid out over the course of 9 months if the buyout happens in July as they typically do.

In Neals case that would have been somewhere around 3.9 million.

[1_Flames_Fan]

Mike Futa is a good candidate to succeed Brad I think.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think it does. Buyouts are more about cap management and don't hurt the club's economically. Not good if ownership is telling the GM how to manage the cap.



I am sure you are right here. But isn't that even more of a misfire then? Kadri's NTC was public and going all in on that was a known risk. Whoops.

What if the one deal that Treliving wants isn't there this off season?

In any case, I'm sure we can agree the better scenario is Darryl gets this team on a heater and we make some noise in the playoffs. I certainly haven't ruled that out.

I read/heard something like Dubas was sure he could get Kadri to accept the deal. He wanted to stay a Leaf and thought he would by vetoing the trade.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not really what I am saying. My point is that complaints about the fact that Gaudreau and/or Monahan were not moved before 2020 are baseless with everything else considered.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I agree for the most part, but I think last TDL was the time to make that move given everything we knew at that time (I was on the record then). But, we don't know whether BT and/or ownership were open to the idea; and even if they were the value may not have been there.

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

Yeah I appreciate your points TC. I just keep reading a lot of excuses and frankly they seem a little weak. The Brodie/Kadri example: If one trade doesn't happen, why not use those assets in a different trade. Is Toronto the only team that was interested in Brodie? What was the second best offer?

All the work BT has done has brought the team to.... what... repeat first round embarrassments and a coach mill? His beloved core has churned through coaches almost annually during his tenure.

I doubt you were getting a similar return anywhere else (a player of Kadri's calibre for 3 years). I do agree he could've tried something else, but it's not that easy and there is a limited window around draft/UFA time when teams are most open to making moves.

As TC said, this isn't evidence of BT being great, it's just evidence that he wasn't sitting on his hands with this group.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Darryl Sutter.



Those are the types of players I think suit Darryl Sutter style hockey whereas it doesn’t appear skilled guys like Gaudreau and Monahan are thriving under his system right now.



Some of the words I’ve heard from Sutter’s mouth so far is “pace” and “check.” So basically guys that can get in quickly on the forecheck and be hard on pucks. From what I can remember, Darryl seemed to like the Dwight Kings, Kyle Cliffords and Jordan Nolans of the world. Super basic, super nonsense hockey.

I think this is a gross oversimplification of what Sutter envisions for success. No doubt, he pays a tonne of lip-service to the merits of these types of players, but neither he nor Treliving are under any delusion about what it takes to win: highly skilled, smart and effective centremen , mobile defensemen, and a top goalie.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

Mike Futa is a good candidate to succeed Brad I think.

The most likely replacement for Treliving is Craig Conroy.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks for that. I personally don't think it reflects one way or another on the GM's relationship or trust level with ownership.




How easy or difficult do you believe it is to put together a deal like the one for Kadri?How much time do you believe such a deal takes to pull together? I think it is easy for us to say, "Just go and make another deal." But I bet it is a hell of a lot more difficult than all that.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im guessing he means soon as they buy a player out, they have to cut a cheque for the 1st year. whereas had he stayed on the roster the salary gets paid out over the course of 9 months if the buyout happens in July as they typically do.

In Neals case that would have been somewhere around 3.9 million.

Maybe. That would be an odd decision for a group of business people. Turn down significant cash savings because you don't like the timing of payments in year 1.

I'd say more likely they didn't like having Neal's cap hit around for 8 years.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this is a gross oversimplification of what Sutter envisions for success. No doubt, he pays a tonne of lip-service to the merits of these types of players, but neither he nor Treliving are under any delusion about what it takes to win: highly skilled, smart and effective centremen , mobile defensemen, and a top goalie.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Look at the playoffs under Sutter's first couple years in L.A. and who the top producers were.

11-12 (Won Cup): Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, Richards, Williams, Carter
13-14 (Won Cup): Kopitar, Williams, Carter, Gaborik, Brown, Doughty

Don't get it twisted, there was a lot of skill on those teams. Guys like Carter, Gaborik, even Williams weren't seen as great defensive forwards prior to Sutter.

Sutter's success though was getting these skilled guys to buy into a system that maybe limited their counting numbers, but made them better 200ft players overall while still being effective offensively.

That's what Sutter is trying to do here too.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I agree for the most part, but I think last TDL was the time to make that move given everything we knew at that time (I was on the record then). But, we don't know whether BT and/or ownership were open to the idea; and even if they were the value may not have been there.

I think we know with some level of certainty that ownership and management were not entertaining the idea of moving Monahan and/or Gaudreau at the TD. And quite frankly, I disagree that this was tbe right time to do it. Young players with term are almost never traded at the TD because these sorts of deals are always more complex, requiring more active NHL players involved. The best time to have traded them was last offseason, but the flat cap and the pandemic no doubt badly interfered with any efforts to do so. They can still be moved this summer, although in there will also be the obstacle of a NTC to contend with.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[ForeverFlameFan]

I used to really like Treliving and would defend him in anything, but I think after this season, anything short of a playoff round win and he’s the one that gets canned. We need a new GM that can take this organization the direction we need to either win now or retool on the fly to get us going again in a short matter of time.

Treliving is a good GM and would thrive under a team that already has their core with a franchise center (or D) player. We just don’t have that here.