Brad Treliving needs to go

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Would have been tough inheriting Ehlers or Larkin either since they hadn't been drafted. I thought you were talking about missed picks.

No, we are talking about what Feaster left Treliving. And yes, I mixed up my dates between Feaster and Treliving regarding Bennet. So erase those ones.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There are plenty of moves that teams make that fan bases oppose instantly.

There are plenty of moves that fan bases call for before the GM makes a move.

But I don't remember a huge swell of CP people thinking that Monahan and Gaudreau were headed for a sharp decline.

Do you?

I think you're essentially just repeating my point. I don't think the owners will excuse his performance/outcomes, because fans felt one way or the other. Owners can't fire the fans.
And it's also layered, maybe he could be forgiven in a vacuum, but there were plenty of other blunders. There was the large fall off in those two players, not adding anyone to compliment them and then there's the whole Hamonic thing.
If your answer to all of it is "yeah but the fans...." well I'm just not sure that's the way to run a successful organization.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What a horribly low bar. Anyone could have inherited that team with the draft picks and cap space and improved it.

I guess this is what we have come to. Arguing that Treliving didn’t take a bad team with promising young players and make it worse.

It’s true. This is the type of standard I hope we can finally get rid of in this fanbase. Flames fans have seen mediocrity here for so long that when a GM reaches a slightly higher level of mediocrity, we just shrug our shoulders or even defend it. Winning 1 round would feel feel like winning a Stanley Cup to CP.

I’ve peered into other forums from winning franchises and they scream bloody murder when their team loses in round 2. That’s the type of standard we need around here and in that executive boardroom. Set the bar and expectations high and never waiver from that standard. No more mediocrity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jig]

BT is a bad GM why:
1. Poor pedigree Arizona
2. Has not being able to transition from assistant GM to GM
3. GM is able to identify direction and style of play
4. Able to find a good coach
5. Able to improve the team through free agency, trades
6. Keeps building and developing assets
7. Able to Honestly evaluate the stage the team is at
8. Able to have strong believes and stick to those
9. Makes deals that are not popular but eventually work out, has not made any unpopular deals

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jig

2. Has not being able to transition from assistant GM to GM

I have no idea what this means.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Hackey]

Only that one?

[nieuwy-89]

To me it’s simple: Treliving led the franchise into this mess, he should lead them out of it.

Firing him would be letting him off the hook.

He knows the league, the organization, and the city, inside out. He’s learned his lessons and taken his lumps. Now is the time for stability and patience. Let’s capitalize on having a tenured GM who should now be entering his prime.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

To me it’s simple: Treliving led the franchise into this mess, he should lead them out of it.

Firing him would be letting him off the hook.

He knows the league, the organization, and the city, inside out. He’s learned his lessons and taken his lumps. Now is the time for stability and patience. Let’s capitalize on having a tenured GM who should now be entering his prime.

lol what?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol what?

Worked out fine for the Titanic.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

To me it’s simple: Treliving led the franchise into this mess, he should lead them out of it.

Firing him would be letting him off the hook.

He knows the league, the organization, and the city, inside out. He’s learned his lessons and taken his lumps. Now is the time for stability and patience. Let’s capitalize on having a tenured GM who should now be entering his prime.

It is a tough call for ownership. On the one hand you have Brad who in terms of on the ice results will have a worse regular season record relative to his peers over his 7 seasons than the Flames did over the 7 seasons prior to his arrival vis-a-vis their peers.

The year before Brad came the Flames were 27th in league standings. The Flames 7 years later are currently tied for 25th in winning percentage in the league, but could conceivably drop to 27th (thankfully the Flames have been relatively healthy this season or else they could be worse).

Finally it is a live debate on whether the overall quality of the Flames prospects and assets is better now or whether it was better in 2014. So you have those factors on one side of the debate.

On the other hand you have stability. I do appreciate this post though for pointing out a historical ridiculous argument (stability and patience) along with the aspirational idea that Brad has learned his lessons from past mistakes (this year will be the only time in Brad's years, hopefully, where we will have two consecutive seasons where the Flames are not rumored to be actively trying to trade their 1st round pick or have actually traded their first round pick). Those two arguments have always been persuasive for years and if they were ever relevant they are even more so today. Tough call on what to do with a guy like Brad who has such an impressive track record and is clearly learning so much.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is a tough call for ownership. On the one hand you have Brad who in terms of on the ice results will have a worse regular season record relative to his peers over his 7 seasons than the Flames did over the 7 seasons prior to his arrival vis-a-vis their peers.

The year before Brad came the Flames were 27th in league standings. The Flames 7 years later are currently tied for 25th in winning percentage in the league, but could conceivably drop to 27th (thankfully the Flames have been relatively healthy this season or else they could be worse).

Finally it is a live debate on whether the overall quality of the Flames prospects and assets is better now or whether it was better in 2014. So you have those factors on one side of the debate.

On the other hand you have stability. I do appreciate this post though for pointing out a historical ridiculous argument (stability and patience) along with the aspirational idea that Brad has learned his lessons from past mistakes (this year will be the only time in Brad's years, hopefully, where we will have two consecutive seasons where the Flames are not rumored to be actively trying to trade their 1st round pick or have actually traded their first round pick). Those two arguments have always been persuasive for years and if they were ever relevant they are even more so today. Tough call on what to do with a guy like Brad who has such an impressive track record and is clearly learning so much.

I would get fired from my job if I had a track record like Brad Treliving. Assistant GM's get paid to learn on the job not the GM especially one in his 7th season as if he hasn't figured things out after 5+ years it's a good sign he's never going to.

[scotty2hotty]

Agreed with most everyone here.

I have always been a BT supporter ... but facts are facts.

The team is a mess, and that’s on him and no one else. Time to go, unfortunately.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Worked out fine for the Titanic.

The US should have given Trump another chance!

[Johnhitbox]

That country deserves everything they get.

[GioforPM]

Comparing Treliving’s 7 years to the previous isn’t exactly applies and oranges. No prime Iggy, Reg, Kipper (two of whom Sutter was given as a starting point). Sutter inherited a vet team, with Gelinas, Conroy, Lydman, Yelle, Lowry, Clark, and then went out and targeted older, experienced players in their primes, clearly looking for short term success. Guys like Nolan, Amonte, Langkow, etc. He didn’t really try to build via draft at all - Phaneuf, Backlund, Brodie are his only draftees of note. He was building a team for immediate success. Right after the lockout Sutter had gone out and gotten Amonte, Huselius, Langkow, Hamrlik, McCarty, Marchment. A year later he gets Tanguay, Primeau, Stuart. Clearly trying to get really short term success and not build with younger players.

Treliving obviously had a different mandate - he inherited 2 young core guys and drafted a whole lot more guys to stick to the team, and his earlier big trade acquisitions were mostly young guys in the same age bracket as the draftees - Lindholm, Hanifin, Hamilton.

And Treliving’s overall winning record includes the 3/4 Hartley years that are among the worst records seen by the team, but right at the beginning of a complete rebuild, which Sutter never did. Take out those years and his winning percentage is pretty good.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And Treliving’s overall winning record includes the 3/4 Hartley years that are among the worst records seen by the team, but right at the beginning of a complete rebuild, which Sutter never did. Take out those years and his winning percentage is pretty good.

You take out the Hartley years and the Flames have averaged 92.7 points per 82 games (pending rest of the season). Overall over all 7 years the Flames have averaged 90.7 points per 82 games. During the two Hartley seasons the Flames averaged 87 points per season, far from the worst in Flames history (our record this year and last year combined will likely be worse).

If you take out the final 2 years before Brad joined (as those were also rebuild years) the Flames averaged 93.2 points per 82 games.

The Flames would have to go 13-7-1 over the rest of the season to equal what the Flames did from 07/08 to 11/12. Possible I guess to be as good in Brad's final 5 years as the Flames were from 07/08 to 11/12.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I think you're essentially just repeating my point. I don't think the owners will excuse his performance/outcomes, because fans felt one way or the other. Owners can't fire the fans.
And it's also layered, maybe he could be forgiven in a vacuum, but there were plenty of other blunders. There was the large fall off in those two players, not adding anyone to compliment them and then there's the whole Hamonic thing.
If your answer to all of it is "yeah but the fans...." well I'm just not sure that's the way to run a successful organization.

Not my point at all.

I'm saying his principal failure is to not predict something that I don't think many if any on this site predicted either.

If Monahan and Gaudreau are still impact players this team doesn't look remotely like it does today.

Ultimately that's on Treliving, no argument from me at all, but I don't remember a long line of media or fans suggesting this was imminent.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

To me it’s simple: Treliving led the franchise into this mess, he should lead them out of it.

Firing him would be letting him off the hook.

He knows the league, the organization, and the city, inside out. He’s learned his lessons and taken his lumps. Now is the time for stability and patience. Let’s capitalize on having a tenured GM who should now be entering his prime.

Except his pro talent evaluation has been proven to be pretty bad at this point and that’s a big problem. Like, he's been around since Gaudreau-Monahan’s inception and he still doesn’t seem to know anything about them. He tried to pair them with Josh Leivo, Dominic Simon and Brett Ritchie this season. After all these years, this might be the worst attempted line combinations. Much much worse then the Chiasson, Brouwer fiasco in 16-17.

Then you throw in all the failed UFA’s, trades and buyouts and there’s a pretty large sample size of bad player evaluation. To this day, I still cannot understand what he saw in Neal, Lazar, Elliott, Hiller, Bollig and Hamonic. After just 2 preseason games in China I could already see that James Neal would be a disaster. I never saw anything redeeming about Curtis Lazar’s play that was worth a 2nd round pick. I hated Brian Elliott’s game right from the start. Even during the his 10 game win streak I wasn’t enamored with his play and he followed that up with maybe the worst goaltending performance in Flames’ playoff history. For Jonas Hiller, I’ll just say .879 sv% and I think that speaks for itself. Bollig was one of the most useless plugs I’ve ever seen and his spot on the roster cost the team Paul Byron who the Flames lost for nothing on waivers. That’s another minus 1 for Treliving.

The Travis Hamonic acquisition is a real interesting story in that I’ve heard Brian Burke’s backstory on it where he mentioned that Treliving absolutely loved Hamonic’s game and raved about him. He asked Brian one day to scout Hamonic and he agreed that he was indeed a great player and endorsed the trade. Probably pretty damning on both of them because Hamonic was nothing special and cost the Flames a first rounder and 2 seconds and they didn’t even make the playoffs the season he arrived. Just a real shoddy display of player evaluation from what I’ve seen and really, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[Erick Estrada]

Regardless of what happens to the GM the organization should probably take a good look at what's going on in the pro scouting department as free agency has been pretty abysmal. I think Leivo was worth a shot but who the hell thought Simon would be a good fit?

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Comparing Treliving’s 7 years to the previous isn’t exactly applies and oranges. No prime Iggy, Reg, Kipper (two of whom Sutter was given as a starting point). Sutter inherited a vet team, with Gelinas, Conroy, Lydman, Yelle, Lowry, Clark, and then went out and targeted older, experienced players in their primes, clearly looking for short term success. Guys like Nolan, Amonte, Langkow, etc. He didn’t really try to build via draft at all - Phaneuf, Backlund, Brodie are his only draftees of note. He was building a team for immediate success. Right after the lockout Sutter had gone out and gotten Amonte, Huselius, Langkow, Hamrlik, McCarty, Marchment. A year later he gets Tanguay, Primeau, Stuart. Clearly trying to get really short term success and not build with younger players.

Treliving obviously had a different mandate - he inherited 2 young core guys and drafted a whole lot more guys to stick to the team, and his earlier big trade acquisitions were mostly young guys in the same age bracket as the draftees - Lindholm, Hanifin, Hamilton.

And Treliving’s overall winning record includes the 3/4 Hartley years that are among the worst records seen by the team, but right at the beginning of a complete rebuild, which Sutter never did. Take out those years and his winning percentage is pretty good.

His playoff winning percentage doesn’t look too good though. 8-18. That equates to something like a .307 winning percentage. So if regular season winning percentage is taken into account, the playoffs should be accounted for as well.