Brad Treliving needs to go

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Maybe you should have just simplified it?

Should BT be fired?

Yes or no.

Not that it matters one iota we think.....im still pretty sure he wont be simply because of $$$.

Maybe. The OP had requested that the poll account for posters who were unsure. Given the high number of posters who have responded as such I think it rightly indicates that plenty of people are not convinced by the available data one way or the other.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not that it matters one iota we think.....im still pretty sure he wont be simply because of $$$.

They may lose more $ keeping him. Got to sell tickets and boxes.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You are reading the poll correctly. 133 out of the 189 who have an opinion say he should be fired (70.4%).

It's just math. I'm guessing people that want to argue it are those that don't like the idea of 70% of the "decided" voters feeling a certain way.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neither matter ... they're essentially league minimum NHL hockey players that can be assigned to the AHL team with no impact on your cap.

Simon was a pretty solid hockey player in Pittsburgh, no offence, but good up and down. He was lost in Calgary.

Any pro scouting review should focus on the bigger fish.

In order all UFA signings ...

Michael Frolik - good signing
Kris Versteeg - good signing
Chad Johnson - good signing
Troy Brouwer - bad signing
Jaromir Jagr - neutral?
James Neal - bad signing
Derek Ryan - good signing
Austin Czarnik - good signing
Tobias Rieder - good signing
Cam Talbot - good signing

I'll leave Markstrom and Tanev out of it. I think both are good signings.

You can't gloss over big mistakes with quantity, but really it's a two UFA issue in Treliving's tenure.

I think the impactful (good and bad) list would be Frolik, Brouwer, Neal, Markstrom and Tanev when it's all said and done.

See, I don’t like the viewpoint that the little signings don’t count or are considered insignificant. To me, it all matters. That should be the standard. That everything counts and everything matters including 4th liners because all of it contributes to winning and losing. Obviously the bigger misses hit harder because of larger cap hits and etc.

But in this particular instance, the forward signings may have been league minimum signings, but those players played huge parts going into the season. The pro scouts knew who the pairs (forwards) would be going into this season, so the exercise was more so about “how well do you know your players” and based on the amount of line juggling we’ve seen this season along with the incredible lack of production, I would give their performance on that a big “F” because it’s clear they don’t know their players all that well, especially Gaudreau and Monahan. After 7 years together, this is the worst line mate set I’ve ever seen them play with and the numbers back that up.

I would go a little further and say that the biggest reason why this season has gone awry is because of that lack of chemistry from the forward group. This team to put it simply, cannot score. They’re as bad as the rebuilding Ottawa freaking Senators in terms of even strength scoring which is absolutely not ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe. The OP had requested that the poll account for posters who were unsure. Given the high number of posters who have responded as such I think it rightly indicates that plenty of people are not convinced by the available data one way or the other.

Yeah i get that.

I said im unsure but if was to choose one or the other i would say yes he should be (but that should have happened when Ward was gassed) even though i am convinced he wont be.

Now if you believe he should be, i would like to know when that timing is right.

He is the one guy who is compiling whatever data there is on the draft which will be right after seasons end. He is also the guy who will be making any TD deals. If you allow him to continue with those, you know those things are tied to other discussions he has/is having with other teams. He leaves office, so do a lot of those possibilities.

Beyond the $$ aspect of him being let go, it would really signal a rebuild of some magnitude and Darryl Sutter just didnt sign up for that.

Add it all up and i think it a long long longshot he is dismissed any time soon.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I see what you are saying now.

Dont count those that are unsure one way or the other from those with decisive opinions.

I still thought it would be way higher.

I thought so too. No one is really coming forward with ar argument that he has done a good job. But there are arguments that it's not his fault, inherited a disaster or needs one last kick at the can to prove he can get it done.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You are reading the poll correctly. 133 out of the 189 who have an opinion say he should be fired (70.4%). If it was a proper poll, you would ask the unsure/undecided which way they are leaning. That is why on political polling there are always two answers, one with unsure/undecided in it and one that includes leaders and thus gets rid of the undecided (largely because undecided is not an opinion)

I could be wrong, but for most political polls I don't think it is common for the undecided group to form over a quarter of the sample. It is a significant number—even higher than the number of those who have voted that Treliving should keep his job. My point being that it should probably not be disqualified from the results.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It's just math. I'm guessing people that want to argue it are those that don't like the idea of 70% of the "decided" voters feeling a certain way.

I mean you could read it another way to where over 78% of people feel he should be fired or are potentially open to him being fired. But the people who have a solid opinion it is 70%

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, Sutter had a huge run in 04 obviously. But his winning percentage can’t be great in the POs (when he even made it).

I’m not a big Darryl Sutter guy. I wasn’t that excited for his arrival as I don’t put as much stock into coaching as others around here do. Plus, his performance as a GM was mediocre at best. His best move was probably acquiring Huselius for practically nothing and obviously trading for Kipper who hid a lot of the team’s underlying problems for a long time. Outside of that, his performance as a GM deserved a pink slip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jig]

Brad needs to go and I think he will. The optics of keeping him are bad. But the owners are limited in who they can bring in as a GM because we have a new coach for the next 3 years. The Flames will also bring in a new Burke. Could be Jim Rutherford to oversee hockey ops. Maybe Conroy or Lombardi for GM. The choices are limited given DS is in. I like what Pittsburg did we should follow the same script.

At this stage it is clear that a new combination set of eyes is required to evaluate and make changes but the process has started with DS.

The team is left with a very poor prospect pipeline. There is really no major help coming.

Our younger players who are in the NHL and in the prospect pool are small not overly fast and are not highly skilled which is consistent with the team we have now. Part of the problem is that we have not drafted high or traded our picks. This also speaks to BTs shortcomings of overvaluing the team. That needs to change.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So seems to be holding steady at slightly over 70% of posters with an opinion on the topic think the GM should go.

FWIW I disagree that low dollar FA signings "don't matter". You have so many roster spots and the job is to put a good team out on the ice. It's fine to say they're lower risk but the goal is to actually hit on a few of these.

They don't take up roster spots or impact the cap at all if they don't work out.

Simon is a perfect example. He was one of the 23 to start the season, not he isn't. So yeah Simon literally doesn't matter. Free NHL depth whether it works out or not.

Sure you want to find players that work out, but if they're making less than $1.2M they don't hurt you at all if they don't work out.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah i get that.

I said im unsure but if was to choose one or the other i would say yes he should be (but that should have happened when Ward was gassed) even though i am convinced he wont be.

Now if you believe he should be, i would like to know when that timing is right.

He is the one guy who is compiling whatever data there is on the draft which will be right after seasons end. He is also the guy who will be making any TD deals. If you allow him to continue with those, you know those things are tied to other discussions he has/is having with other teams. He leaves office, so do a lot of those possibilities.

Beyond the $$ aspect of him being let go, it would really signal a rebuild of some magnitude and Darryl Sutter just didnt sign up for that.

Add it all up and i think it a long long longshot he is dismissed any time soon.

I said I was unsure as well. For me though I don’t say yes without knowing what options are next. If you are firing him and giving the job to Conroy/Pascal/Maloney then I am leaning towards keeping Brad. If Dean Lombardi, or another high end recent cup winning GM who built his team is available I would lean toward letting Brad go.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

...The pro scouts knew who the pairs (forwards) would be going into this season, so the exercise was more so about “how well do you know your players” and based on the amount of line juggling we’ve seen this season along with the incredible lack of production, I would give their performance on that a big “F” because it’s clear they don’t know their players all that well, especially Gaudreau and Monahan. After 7 years together, this is the worst line mate set I’ve ever seen them play with and the numbers back that up.

This is the second time you have made this assertion, and I find it to be a massive leap to declare that the Flames pro scouts "don't know their players all that well." There is a huge difference between correctly identifying problems and then effectively correcting them. The tinkering and attempted adjustments that the Flames have explored over the past two years I think shows rather clearly that they know what is going on with Gaudreau and Monahan; the problem has been an inability to fix it, which is a different matter altogether.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I mean you could read it another way to where over 78% of people feel he should be fired or are potentially open to him being fired. But the people who have a solid opinion it is 70%

There are really two questions in the poll. I focused on should he be fired? Yes, No or don't know.

Polls generally only highlight the percentage of decided voters, In this case, I don't know to interpret the undecided voters so not going to.

But one of them could be what Tranny alluded to. Doesn't matter what i think, it only matters what the decision makers will do and since we ad two questions intertwined, you had a way to express a view on that question only.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

They may lose more $ keeping him. Got to sell tickets and boxes.

And rebuilding now would guarantee selling fewer in theory because the club would be much worse.

Changing GMs is essentially just that.

BT has been really good in his trade acquisitions for the most part, so i am assuming there is a desire to see what he does get for JG or whoever they decide to jettison.

This club, i think most would agree, is not a sum of its parts. Lots of good to great NHL players.

BT has assembled a bunch of nhl talent but has failed to assemble a great NHL team...and has for a few years now.

Im really starting to wonder if there isnt a big divide within the room among vets/youngins or somethung like that. Cause this group sure as hell dont play for one another...something every successful team ever has had.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They don't take up roster spots or impact the cap at all if they don't work out.

Simon is a perfect example. He was one of the 23 to start the season, not he isn't. So yeah Simon literally doesn't matter. Free NHL depth whether it works out or not.

Sure you want to find players that work out, but if they're making less than $1.2M they don't hurt you at all if they don't work out.

Bad players always hurt you regardless of salary.

Simon matters because he has contributed to the team losing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I said I was unsure as well. For me though I don’t say yes without knowing what options are next. If you are firing him and giving the job to Conroy/Pascal/Maloney then I am leaning towards keeping Brad. If Dean Lombardi, or another high end recent cup winning GM who built his team is available I would lean toward letting Brad go.

This is pretty close to what I am thinking as well, although there is an underlying concern that even further complicates my own feelings about this. Taking Lombardi as an example, at the outset I would agree that he could provide a fresh perspective and a renewed vision. However, I also think that this could damage the franchise even further in the long run. Ultimately the best thing to happen would be for the Flames to start rebuilding, and I have no confidence that Lombardi would have any interest in that sort of commitment. As I said earlier, Treliving may be the best positioned to sell ownership on the value and importance of jettisoning the core, and starting over.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I said I was unsure as well. For me though I don’t say yes without knowing what options are next. If you are firing him and giving the job to Conroy/Pascal/Maloney then I am leaning towards keeping Brad. If Dean Lombardi, or another high end recent cup winning GM who built his team is available I would lean toward letting Brad go.

Yeah i would agree with knowing who the successor is would make a difference.

If its Conroy or one of them ...not a chance IMO.

Lombardi doesn't excite me much either, though he would be better than a lot.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It's just math. I'm guessing people that want to argue it are those that don't like the idea of 70% of the "decided" voters feeling a certain way.

Geez louise.
No it's just data and that data can be framed either way.
Both are valid.

I could easily say "I'm guessing people that want to argue it are those that don't like that only 52% are convinced BT should be fired".

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is pretty close to what I am thinking as well, although there is an underlying concern that even further complicates my own feelings about this. Taking Lombardi as an example, at the outset I would agree that he could provide a fresh perspective and a renewed vision. However, I also think that this could damage the franchise even further in the long run. Ultimately the best thing to happen would be for the Flames to start rebuilding, and I have no confidence that Lombardi would have any interest in that sort of commitment. As I said earlier, Treliving may be the best positioned to sell ownership on the value and importance of jettisoning the core, and starting over.

Thereby absolving himself of any accountability for his failure

If I’m the owners, no way would I give the guy who bungled the last 7 years a do-over, just because he can admit it.