Brad Treliving needs to go

[troutman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

I think people will pay for hope and change, and will tolerate losing if the team is working hard, and there are some exciting young prospects.

As it stands now, I know many STHs will not be renewing.

[Vinny01]

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.

I am still far from convinced that this team needs to completely start over which is why I welcome a guy like Lombardi coming in. I think we are having a really bad season that followed a season that at one point looked to be horrible but turned around after Peters was let go. The season before this was the best Flames team in 30 years.

No doubt the personnel need to be changed and very important pieces. I just don’t think tanking and trading off our pieces for futures guarantees anything but playoff misses for the next several years.

Ian Clarke doesn’t have a contract next year. Flames are paying Markstrom 30M over the next 5 years. Blaster always talks about how cheap the Canucks owners are with coaches so he could be had.

You move guys that do not fit Sutter’s style for guys that do and get a renewed number 1 goalie and I could easily see this team back in the mix for the playoffs next year.

Hopefully we get picks for our current UFA’s and help build up the pipeline that is looking better with prospects like Zary, Pelletier, Pettersson, Philips, Wolf looking really good

[DeluxeMoustache]

So
52% think he should be fired
21% think he should not
26% seem to be fine with further rationalizing mediocrity

77% think he will not be fired
23% think he will be fired

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

26% seem to be fine with further rationalizing mediocrity

God. This is just not helpful at all.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think people will pay for hope and change, and will tolerate losing if the team is working hard, and there are some exciting young prospects.

As it stands now, I know many STHs will not be renewing.

Because of the team or because of the world and economic situation we sit at now?

Im sure some wont either way, but we have heard this refrain every year....for most of the 41 years the club has been here.

The only time it came to reality was during the young gun nonsense (which is what is being advocated for once again ironically) and only for a few years at that.

Really though...you go rebuild right now and blow up the team. It means a new coach as well as DS sure isnt looking for that. They will be horrible for at least 5 years. That includes a move into a new building.

I just do not see that as a wise business move short ($$$ out to pay guys no longer here) nor long term. (move into the new barn)

[1qqaaz]

I'll wait for the trade deadline before voting, but I'm leaning towards having Brad fired.

If Brad is fired, do you think the Flames should clean house with the assistances, directors, etc? Or should they remain for continuity?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So
52% think he should be fired
21% think he should not
26% seem to be fine with further rationalizing mediocrity

77% think he will not be fired
23% think he will be fired

Not sure that your math is correct.

134 votes so far state he should be fired
57 votes he should not be fired
70 votes state they are unsure

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

God. This is just not helpful at all.

Perhaps not, but if you were to create a poll for those posters asking them to evaluate Tre’s term as successful, mediocre, or unsuccessful, where do you think it would land?

And if you are not sure as to whether he should be fired, then there is further evaluation of the pros and cons required to land at a decision

So it’s not the most pleasing way to describe the situation, but it’s probably not wrong


My view is this. We have a good idea of what Treliving is. This mess is his and he should be accountable

I don’t see how he sets a culture of accountability, based on the evidence that the team displays.

I don’t see him with a discernible strategy with Tre. And by that, I can frame it this way. How does Treliving think the team needs to play to win, is he getting players that suit that philosophy, and is he getting a coach that can implement it successfully?

I have seen enough.

When he dismissed Hartley, he sad he thought that Bob had taken the team as far as he could.

Same here

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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".

Sure you could assert that only 52% are "convinced" he should be fired but I'm confident you can see how you are trying to lead the reader vs. excluding the undecideds which is rather accepted practice in describing polling results.

But what I stated was clearly my opinion, by using the term "guessing" to divine other's motivation. I was not trying to mislead.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

So if Monahan and Gaudreau can’t be fixed, then why are they still being trotted out together? Why were they paired to begin with this season? Why weren’t they split up? Why did this organization believe that Tkachuk belonged with Lindholm? Why Mangiapane and Backlund? Why Leivo, Simon, Ritchie and Nordstrom of all people? Why has Sam Bennett never found the right role, position or even consistent spot in the depth chart. Why did they think Andersson and Gio were the right pairing to go into this season with. Why have we seen 5 different coaches in this era?

This was a problem created by management because of how many holes they have in the lineup and the proposed solution by management to fill those holes only made things worse. Now none of the lines have any chemistry at all which has resulted in this team being unable to score enough goals to win enough games this season.

If the braintrust in the Flames boardroom know their players so well, then the Flames wouldn’t be in the mess they are this season. This team was suppose to be a contender by now and they haven’t come close, they’ve actually regressed and are going backwards. So yes, I think it’s more than fair to say that this management group doesn’t know their players or this team very well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Because of the team or because of the world and economic situation we sit at now?

Im sure some wont either way, but we have heard this refrain every year....for most of the 41 years the club has been here.

The only time it came to reality was during the young gun nonsense (which is what is being advocated for once again ironically) and only for a few years at that.

Really though...you go rebuild right now and blow up the team. It means a new coach as well as DS sure isnt looking for that. They will be horrible for at least 5 years. That includes a move into a new building.

I just do not see that as a wise business move short ($$$ out to pay guys no longer here) nor long term. (move into the new barn)

They are already horrible.

Let's not kid ourselves, we're 8th worst. What the hell would they be afraid of?

Also, well managed teams don't have to be horrible for 5 years. Keep certain pieces, sell others. Draft high this year.

Like - if we're talking about trading Gaudreau and Giordano it's not going to crater this team. If we're talking about adding Monahan in there, it's also not cratering this team. They aren't team-making pieces, in fact one could make a good argument that the cap we spend on those players being freed up, mixed with the assets we'd return would make us a better team IF the cap-space is used properly.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

They are already horrible.

They most cetainly not great but they are miles ahead of a first year team after blowing it up.

Let's not kid ourselves, we're 8th worst. What the hell would they be afraid of?

Who? Ownership? Pretty obvious answer...no?

Also, well managed teams don't have to be horrible for 5 years. Keep certain pieces, sell others. Draft high this year.

Who has that worked for recently?

Buffalo? Detroit? Other than the Rangers (who have advantages other teams do not) it takes time to rebuild teams...and even with them they are still a ways away.

Re-tool on the fly? Sure I agree. However in that case you need someone locked into what is going on in the league right now. Someone who has been in on discussions with other GM's and knows what the thinking on the other end is. Literally, some of the bigger deals take a year to get to fruition. Im assuming BT lets his assistants know what is going on, but I certainly do not want one of them over what sits in that chair now.

Like - if we're talking about trading Gaudreau and Giordano it's not going to crater this team. If we're talking about adding Monahan in there, it's also not cratering this team. They aren't team-making pieces, in fact one could make a good argument that the cap we spend on those players being freed up, mixed with the assets we'd return would make us a better team IF the cap-space is used properly.

Top minute F, top line C and top minute D...and it wont crater the team if gone?

Come on.

That is the very definition of blowing this thing up unless you are bringing back existing NHL players in return. In which case you have to get equal production from the returnees. Unlikely to happen.

And then advocating using the cap space "properly"? Like how? UFA? Cause that is an even worse idea where you end up getting good players more often than not, but you always over pay them.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

They are already horrible.

Let's not kid ourselves, we're 8th worst. What the hell would they be afraid of?

Also, well managed teams don't have to be horrible for 5 years. Keep certain pieces, sell others. Draft high this year.

Like - if we're talking about trading Gaudreau and Giordano it's not going to crater this team. If we're talking about adding Monahan in there, it's also not cratering this team. They aren't team-making pieces, in fact one could make a good argument that the cap we spend on those players being freed up, mixed with the assets we'd return would make us a better team IF the cap-space is used properly.

Cap space is a huge challenge for most teams. The pandemic has reduced revenues dramatically and taking on 6 and 7 million players without trading out the equivalent is not feasible.

Most of the time you will be offered/taking back other teams highly paid problems, not high end young players and /or draft picks.

Very tough trade market

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They most cetainly not great but they are miles ahead of a first year team after blowing it up.



Who? Ownership? Pretty obvious answer...no?



Who has that worked for recently?

Buffalo? Detroit? Other than the Rangers (who have advantages other teams do not) it takes time to rebuild teams...and even with them they are still a ways away.

Re-tool on the fly? Sure I agree. However in that case you need someone locked into what is going on in the league right now. Someone who has been in on discussions with other GM's and knows what the thinking on the other end is. Literally, some of the bigger deals take a year to get to fruition. Im assuming BT lets his assistants know what is going on, but I certainly do not want one of them over what sits in that chair now.




Top minute F, top line C and top minute D...and it wont crater the team if gone?

Come on.

That is the very definition of blowing this thing up unless you are bringing back existing NHL players in return. In which case you have to get equal production from the returnees. Unlikely to happen.

And then advocating using the cap space "properly"? Like how? UFA? Cause that is an even worse idea where you end up getting good players more often than not, but you always over pay them.

Maybe it could be better expressed as how much lower can you go. Tied for 5th/6th in a seven team division. I guess you could be last but how much worse is that?

To me it comes down to what is the quickest path to becoming a contender.

But yeah I agree that trading those guys for picks won't ever make you better in the short term.

[transplant99]

There will be changes to the core.

One, maybe 2 long term guys will be gone. Probably 3 or 4 tertiary guys as well. I dont think there is any question of that.

The bigger question is can the guys remaining.....remember/figure out what it was that made them really good the previous couple years and hoping they rebound.

Make your big deals at the draft, Do not trade picks etc to beef things up on the current roster, stay the course as far as draft and develop, see what happens next year and if its more of the same...clean house.

I really dont see any other realistic way for it to go down.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There will be changes to the core.

One, maybe 2 long term guys will be gone. Probably 3 or 4 tertiary guys as well. I dont think there is any question of that.

The bigger question is can the guys remaining.....remember/figure out what it was that made them really good the previous couple years and hoping they rebound.

Make your big deals at the draft, Do not trade picks etc to beef things up on the current roster, stay the course as far as draft and develop, see what happens next year and if its more of the same...clean house.

I really dont see any other realistic way for it to go down.

That's a year late. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that this group cannot and will not figure it out. They've proven this 3 times in the playoffs. Do not give them another season.

A major core shakeup needs to happen. Like only leaving 1 or 2 of the old guard. Meaning out of Monahan, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Gio, Backlund.

Edit: we might be closely saying the same thing. I'd just go a little more scorched earth this summer on the core.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There will be changes to the core.

One, maybe 2 long term guys will be gone. Probably 3 or 4 tertiary guys as well. I dont think there is any question of that.

The bigger question is can the guys remaining.....remember/figure out what it was that made them really good the previous couple years and hoping they rebound.

Make your big deals at the draft, Do not trade picks etc to beef things up on the current roster, stay the course as far as draft and develop, see what happens next year and if its more of the same...clean house.

I really dont see any other realistic way for it to go down.

Agreed, changes are coming but they waited too long to make the move (i.e. a couple key forwards should have been moved last off season).

Return on the moves are going to be under whelming to say the least in my opinion.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by chedder

That's a year late. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that this group cannot and will not figure it out. They've proven this 3 times in the playoffs. Do not give them another season.

A major core shakeup needs to happen. Like only leaving 1 or 2 of the old guard. Meaning out of Monahan, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Gio, Backlund.

They are not trading 4 or 5 of those 6 guys. Again that would literally be blowing it up. 2 probably, maybe 3 with something involving Seattle and Backlund.

And how are Lindholm and Tkachuk "old guard"? COMBINED they have played 7 seasons in Calgary.


Look Im not advocating anything one way or the other but looking at things from both ownership and management points of view as that is where the actual decisions are going to be made.

Figuring in things like salaries being paid already, losses of vast revenue for over a calendar year now, how to best be positioned to sell tickets the minute rinks are allowed people once again and when the new building is ready for occupancy, etc.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They are not trading 4 or 5 of those 6 guys. Again that would literally be blowing it up. 2 probably, maybe 3 with something involving Seattle and Backlund.



And how are Lindholm and Tkachuk "old guard"? COMBINED they have played 7 seasons in Calgary.





Look Im not advocating anything one way or the other but looking at things from both ownership and management points of view as that is where the actual decisions are going to be made.



Figuring in things like salaries being paid already, losses of vast revenue for over a calendar year now, how to best be positioned to sell tickets the minute rinks are allowed people once again and when the new building is ready for occupancy, etc.

Agreed. Not old guard but definitely core. And those are the two I'd like to keep (Chucky and Lindholm).

I actually think one of Monny or Johnny will be gone. I hope Backlund is gone. In a perfect world it would be nice if a contender wanted Gio so he has a chance at a cup.

With Chucky, they have to try figure out if he is the future or does he want out asap.

[djsFlames]

As someone that was expecting the core shake up last offseason, it feels really overdue now and with the season looking lost I'm really impatient about the needed changes that have to happen. With each day that gets struck off of Gaudreau's remaining contract, it becomes less valuable. I think you need to go for a haul for him at this deadline if you don't have certainty of your chances to re-sign him.

I appreciate the addressing of the coaching need and it was a good move but its time..... I dont have interest in this core remaining as it is to close out the year. Let Sutter work with the new guys coming in and get geared up for next year.

Time has run out on this group. Not "some time" this offseason - now. You'll get more competitive offers this deadline.

Basically get off your ass and field the offers and make some decisions Brad. He's been too inactive for too long with this core. Tinkering on the fringes did very little, its time for some major organ transplants.