Brad Treliving needs to go

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Peters and Ward had the exact same system. Darryl’s system is completely different. I honestly don’t think Peters’ 50 win season was as impressive as it looks, they caught lightning in a bottle in November-December, won seemingly every game. But after the all star game, the league started to play more playoff style hockey and the same dynamic duo struggled once again, just like the year before. Only this time around, they built up enough of a cushion where their placement in the standings wasn’t badly effected unlike in 17-18 when they were just a bubble playoff team all season long. In the end though, Colorado showed the Flames what they truly are though.

Quite simply put, this roster has been flawed for a loooong time. They rely on a dynamic duo to get them to the playoffs, but once they get there, there’s no back up plan when this line inevitably falters like they always do. Not enough scoring depth, goaltenders not good enough, no real team identity. I mean, what else is new? It’s the same old story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flames still had a decent record after the all-star game largely thanks to the emergence of the Mangiapane-Ryan-Hathaway line. The went 0-2-2 after the bye week then won 7 in a row, lost 4 in a row, won 3 in a row then went 6-5 the rest of the way. 16-11-2 after the break which is still 96pt pace.

That team had an elite goals for and goals against. They also had depth 5 players over 70pts, Backlund had 47, Ryan, Brodie, Hanifin, Jankowski all had over 30 and Bennett was close at 27. Insane depth if you ask me. Let’s not pretend that season was like 2015 this team produced and had the fancy stats to back it up. Having said that it is clear as day that season was an aberration based on the steep drop since.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That really seems very different to me. I place little to no value on any hockey figure's public comments. I'd argue there is a ton of real estate between not placing value and accusations of being a liar. How many times has a GM's vote of confidence in a coach turned into a dismissal weeks later?

But I guess what's the relevance here. Do you feel Treliving had full autonomy in this last coaching decision or was ownership involved? And do you feel that's significant?

I doubt ownership is making the day to day decisions but IMO there is evidence the dynamic has changed and isn't that the point?

Well I believe what happened is that
- Tree wanted to hire Sutter in the off-season
- This was one of the times, or the time, that he could have been referring to when he has stated that had talked in the past but the timing wasn’t right
- When it didn’t work out he moved back to Ward absent a perceived better choice
- He gave Ward 2 years because that’s generally standard practice to hiring a lame duck coach

Then when the team couldn’t get on track, one of two things happened
- He went to owners and expressed a desire to re-engage with Sutter
- Or the Owners went to him and encouraged him permission to re-engage with Sutter

In either case I don’t think it’s a case that he didn’t want to hire Sutter and therefore made him hire him.
Moreover, if they didn’t believe in BT, why would they let him handle the trade deadline? Once you lose faith in your GM you have to get rid of them.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well I believe what happened is that
- Tree wanted to hire Sutter in the off-season
- This was one of the times, or the time, that he could have been referring to when he has stated that had talked in the past but the timing wasn’t right
- When it didn’t work out he moved back to Ward absent a perceived better choice
- He gave Ward 2 years because that’s generally standard practice to hiring a lame duck coach

Then when the team couldn’t get on track, one of two things happened
- He went to owners and expressed a desire to re-engage with Sutter
- Or the Owners went to him and encouraged him permission to re-engage with Sutter

In either case I don’t think it’s a case that he didn’t want to hire Sutter and therefore made him hire him.
Moreover, if they didn’t believe in BT, why would they let him handle the trade deadline? Once you lose faith in your GM you have to get rid of them.

Mid season GM firings are rare. It happened with Ray Shero last year but they do not happen very often. As for letting him run the deadline, they let him make two trades for prospects. But I imagine, given the ratio of firing GM’s in the offseason vs. mid-season firings in the league in general, that keeping him on is not necessarily a sign that they are fine with him.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Mid season GM firings are rare. It happened with Ray Shero last year but they do not happen very often. As for letting him run the deadline, they let him make two trades for prospects. But I imagine, given the ratio of firing GM’s in the offseason vs. mid-season firings in the league in general, that keeping him on is not necessarily a sign that they are fine with him.

This is where that argument falls apart for me, 'they let him'. If Treliving is in a spot where his role/authority is being taken away, that is constructive dismissal. Why would he stay at that point? Why would the ownership allow him to act as the GM with access to their information and the ability to set the table this this years offseason, which looks to be a pivotal one?

Again, doesn't make much sense. Treliving deserves ciriticism, as do all GM's, but I don't see a path here for his termination this offseason short of philosophical differences, ie: Treliving wants to rebuild and the owners don't want that. I believe this is similar to what happened with Hextall leaving Philadelphia and Linden leaving Vancouver.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well I believe what happened is that
- Tree wanted to hire Sutter in the off-season
- This was one of the times, or the time, that he could have been referring to when he has stated that had talked in the past but the timing wasn’t right
- When it didn’t work out he moved back to Ward absent a perceived better choice
- He gave Ward 2 years because that’s generally standard practice to hiring a lame duck coach

Then when the team couldn’t get on track, one of two things happened
- He went to owners and expressed a desire to re-engage with Sutter
- Or the Owners went to him and encouraged him permission to re-engage with Sutter

In either case I don’t think it’s a case that he didn’t want to hire Sutter and therefore made him hire him.
Moreover, if they didn’t believe in BT, why would they let him handle the trade deadline? Once you lose faith in your GM you have to get rid of them.

BT is competent and fully capable of auctioning off their pending UFA's, which he demonstrated.

It's not as binary as believing in him or not. I expect ownership will consider at the end of the season whether he is the right guy to fix this, or whether they believe they can find someone better.

If Treliving didn't believe in Ward, why did he let him coach his last game which he won? Such decisions are usually made over time and the Sutter hiring is in IMO, an indication of ownership having less confidence in the GM. I don't think they pull the trigger on replacing him though.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The Sutter hiring would be an indication of ownership having less confidence in the GM if it was there idea or they primarily influenced it
If BT went to them and said he wanted to do it, it would potentially suggest the reverse.

I guess we'll find out in the off-season

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TOfan

This is where that argument falls apart for me, 'they let him'. If Treliving is in a spot where his role/authority is being taken away, that is constructive dismissal. Why would he stay at that point? Why would the ownership allow him to act as the GM with access to their information and the ability to set the table this this years offseason, which looks to be a pivotal one?

Again, doesn't make much sense. Treliving deserves ciriticism, as do all GM's, but I don't see a path here for his termination this offseason short of philosophical differences, ie: Treliving wants to rebuild and the owners don't want that. I believe this is similar to what happened with Hextall leaving Philadelphia and Linden leaving Vancouver.

Constructive dismissal? Lol. What lawyer takes on that case, and what case law do they rely on

Like I said, this is not the first time the owners have given the GM actionable instructions with respect to a coach

Suppose they insisted on a coaching change (or “suggest” the option to Brad, while also outlining the alternative option for him), it doesn’t mean they take over every hockey decision.

Path for termination? Brad, you have had 7 years and your team stinks. There’s the door.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The Sutter hiring would be an indication of ownership having less confidence in the GM if it was there idea or they primarily influenced it
If BT went to them and said he wanted to do it, it would potentially suggest the reverse.

I guess we'll find out in the off-season

I can’t believe you actually think that hiring Sutter was primarily Treliving’s idea

It’s one of those ‘I can’t prove it for a fact but I know it to be true’ items

I find it an absurd position to hold, to be honest. You think he went hat in hand to the owners, told them he made a mistake with Ward but that he thinks he can get Sutter now?

And no, we may not find out in the off season. And lots of people agree with me on this, based on the poll option selected by more people than any other option

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The Sutter hiring would be an indication of ownership having less confidence in the GM if it was there idea or they primarily influenced it
If BT went to them and said he wanted to do it, it would potentially suggest the reverse.

I guess we'll find out in the off-season

Agreed although even if ownership was heavily involved, it is something he could survive IMO.

Isn't it almost a given they have less confidence in BT at this point? Doesn't everybody and it's just a question of where your breaking point is?

[Boreal]

Can this nonsense just stop.

Treliving is learning and has learned on the job. I would rather the Flames benefit from what he’s learned from his mistakes on the job than a different team.

One of the things I think he is doing with the draft but I’m not sure of is tracking which scouts are responsible for players selecting players higher on both their list and how they before in the NHL (drafted by the Flames or other teams). I would be shocked to find out that the Flames DIDNT do this based on the interview Craig Custance did with Treliving on his podcast.

In the book the Play Makers Advantage, Leonard Zaichkowsky stated that he was shocked how most NHL teams don’t do this.

I think Treliving has read that book and does exactly this, which is why the Flames drafting is steadily improving.

Yah they’re middling and not accomplishing what we all want.

But it’s extremely easy to get a lot worse really quickly and stay at the bottom.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I can’t believe you actually think that hiring Sutter was primarily Treliving’s idea

It’s one of those ‘I can’t prove it for a fact but I know it to be true’ items

I find it an absurd position to hold, to be honest. You think he went hat in hand to the owners, told them he made a mistake with Ward but that he thinks he can get Sutter now?

And no, we may not find out in the off season. And lots of people agree with me on this, based on the poll option selected by more people than any other option

An alternative theory on that could be they knew they wanted Sutter before they brought Ward back, the deal was agreed upon in the summer but everyone knew he wasn't arriving until a later date. One I think holds water. Because no GM has survived this many coaches.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dammage79

An alternative theory on that could be they knew they wanted Sutter before they brought Ward back, the deal was agreed upon in the summer but everyone knew he wasn't arriving until a later date. One I think holds water. Because no GM has survived this many coaches.

I don’t follow. Sutter wanted to start in March instead of January so they signed Ward to a 2 year deal?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I don’t follow. Sutter wanted to start in March instead of January so they signed Ward to a 2 year deal?

Yup. Probably because that was the only way to make it happen. Ward was a lame duck coach from the onset. And I wager that the owners have written the covid era completely off too. Meaning they're not going to judge anything during this time too harshly.

Heck, I suspect Sutter was the plan from the second the Peters 8ncident went down.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Constructive dismissal? Lol. What lawyer takes on that case, and what case law do they rely on

Like I said, this is not the first time the owners have given the GM actionable instructions with respect to a coach

Suppose they insisted on a coaching change (or “suggest” the option to Brad, while also outlining the alternative option for him), it doesn’t mean they take over every hockey decision.

Path for termination? Brad, you have had 7 years and your team stinks. There’s the door.

‘These were the roles and responsibilities as listed in my employment contract. They were taken away from me, then I was fired shortly after’? I don’t know, I haven’t seen Treliving’s employment contract. To be clear, my comment was a response to the thought that Treliving was only permitted to make certain moves at the TDL, not about hiring Sutter.

Key word in your post, ‘suppose’. You’re grasping at straws.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

‘These were the roles and responsibilities as listed in my employment contract. They were taken away from me, then I was fired shortly after’? I don’t know, I haven’t seen Treliving’s employment contract. To be clear, my comment was a response to the thought that Treliving was only permitted to make certain moves at the TDL, not about hiring Sutter.

Key word in your post, ‘suppose’. You’re grasping at straws.

Where is this going? Flames don't need a reason to relieve BT of his duties and pay him out what's left on his contract.

I don't imagine they are trying to force him to resign and save their money. That's not the kind of organization they have.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Where is this going? Flames don't need a reason to relieve BT of his duties and pay him out what's left on his contract.

I don't imagine they are trying to force him to resign and save their money. That's not the kind of organization they have.

Well, yeah, that is kinda my point. Over these last two pages there are arguments that it was the owners who hired Sutter and Treliving’s authority to make trades at the TDL was taken away, or limited. If those things are true, why on earth is he still the GM?

Or, maybe, they don’t have plans to replace him.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Agreed although even if ownership was heavily involved, it is something he could survive IMO.

Isn't it almost a given they have less confidence in BT at this point? Doesn't everybody and it's just a question of where your breaking point is?

Nothing behind closed doors can be assumed to be a given.

We just don't know.

If Treliving laid out a plan where Geoff Ward was his ride and die, and he wanted to keep Monahan and Gaudreau despite pressure from ownership to move them ... then yeah, they're likely pissed, and he's on the way out.

But what if he wanted to look at a different coach and ownership blocked it? What if he had a Gaudreau trade worked out and the ownership group didn't like the return and nixed the deal?

I always felt the delay around hiring Ward suspicious considering it was easy to bring him back. Won't guess at what that means, but it could point to an internal disagreement on which way to go, or the desire to bring in a different guy that turned them down.

either way there are no givens.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Well, yeah, that is kinda my point. Over these last two pages there are arguments that it was the owners who hired Sutter and Treliving’s authority to make trades at the TDL was taken away, or limited. If those things are true, why on earth is he still the GM?

Or, maybe, they don’t have plans to replace him.

IMO there is evidence that owners confidence in BT is waning and they may be involving themselves more in major decisions.

Maybe they are considering replacing him. Maybe they are seeing who is out there. Maybe they want to reflect on the best path forward and until they make a final decision they want to keep a tighter rein on what the GM is doing.

Those are all reasons explaining why he is still the GM and why he could remain the GM going into next year. You really believe that is so outlandish?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I can’t believe you actually think that hiring Sutter was primarily Treliving’s idea

It’s one of those ‘I can’t prove it for a fact but I know it to be true’ items

I find it an absurd position to hold, to be honest. You think he went hat in hand to the owners, told them he made a mistake with Ward but that he thinks he can get Sutter now?

And no, we may not find out in the off season. And lots of people agree with me on this, based on the poll option selected by more people than any other option

I've laid out a scenario that I think is a reasonable possibility. I'm sorry you find someone to hold a different view than you to be an absurd thing to understand.

And frankly I don't care what the poll says. It is interesting to capture the sense of the fan base, but I don't think it makes you any more or less right. Or me for that matter.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Nothing behind closed doors can be assumed to be a given.

We just don't know.

If Treliving laid out a plan where Geoff Ward was his ride and die, and he wanted to keep Monahan and Gaudreau despite pressure from ownership to move them ... then yeah, they're likely pissed, and he's on the way out.

But what if he wanted to look at a different coach and ownership blocked it? What if he had a Gaudreau trade worked out and the ownership group didn't like the return and nixed the deal?

I always felt the delay around hiring Ward suspicious considering it was easy to bring him back. Won't guess at what that means, but it could point to an internal disagreement on which way to go, or the desire to bring in a different guy that turned them down.

either way there are no givens.

This for me has always been the weird thing too. What was going on during that period? Because something was? And I don't believe it was just the time he needed to evaluate. I believe it is because he was exploring other options that he considered "better" (including possibly Sutter) and when those couldn't happen he reverted to Ward because that point he didn't have a better option.

And again - the 2 year contract thing is because otherwise you are hiring a lame duck coach, which never goes well.