Brad Treliving needs to go

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

He even said something like "will be done within the week" and then it took closer to three weeks.

[Strange Brew]

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.

Those are a lot of ifs though Bingo. And you're right, we don't know everything.

What I believe we might agree upon is that the state of the club is highly disappointing and in the majority of instances, a GM who has been at the job for seven years would have had a major hand in that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Everyone scenario being discussed in the context of the Sutter hiring has a bunch of ifs though.

IF the owners told Brad to hire Darryl.
IF Brad didn't agree they made him do it
etc...

Ok...just as big an IF as anything else being speculated on.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Those are a lot of ifs though Bingo. And you're right, we don't know everything.

What I believe we might agree upon is that the state of the club is highly disappointing and in the majority of instances, a GM who has been at the job for seven years would have had a major hand in that.

For sure ... but wanted to create an alternative where they wouldn't be disappointed because they were part of the problem themselves.

I forget who it was ... Friedman or Lebrun I think that said the word is the ownership is content with Treliving and they didn't see him going.

But as a group (ownership/management) they have to be disappointed. The plan didn't work. The idea that they had 2/3 of a first line to build around has completely fallen apart in the last two years and because of that they're sort of forced to retool.

If that is 100% on Treliving, and the ownership group was suggesting they move on from the duo sooner than yeah he could be in trouble. But if they were in concert with what was going on, than I'm guessing the owners and management are right along with myself and probably most of this site in not seeing that complete 13/23 collapse coming.

If that's the case they probably don't fire him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Everyone scenario being discussed in the context of the Sutter hiring has a bunch of ifs though.

IF the owners told Brad to hire Darryl.
IF Brad didn't agree they made him do it
etc...

Ok...just as big an IF as anything else being speculated on.

Forget all the IF's

Let's focus on the state of the club. Sutter is still coach number 5 no matter who wanted to hire the guy.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Forget all the IF's

Let's focus on the state of the club. Sutter is still coach number 5 no matter who wanted to hire the guy.

Ok....that's a different topic. The topic at hand was whether Sutter's hiring was a sign of reduced confidence that ownership had in the GM.
If we want to go more broad that's cool.
But I've stated my reasons for retaining BT. Not sure either of us has a fresh take on that or will convince the other.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

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?

No, it’s not outlandish at all. I’ve been pretty consistent with my position, I think Treliving has at least this offseason and next year to correct course. If the team misses the playoffs next year, I can easily see his tenure coming to an end. It would also be consistent with how/when most GM’s are relieved from their duties, with one year left (not two) on their contract.

if ownership is taking away Treliving’s autonomy to make decisions, then I would question why he is still the GM. 2+ years is a long time to be a lame duck GM. If they were going to fire him, they should have done it when Sutter was hired, which would have worked well for the people who are say the owners hired Sutter, not Treliving. This would have also provided the new GM to ‘see what he has’ which is something nearly every GM wants from the outset. That way the new GM would be in a much better position to make changes to the roster this offseason.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

For sure ... but wanted to create an alternative where they wouldn't be disappointed because they were part of the problem themselves.

I forget who it was ... Friedman or Lebrun I think that said the word is the ownership is content with Treliving and they didn't see him going.

But as a group (ownership/management) they have to be disappointed. The plan didn't work. The idea that they had 2/3 of a first line to build around has completely fallen apart in the last two years and because of that they're sort of forced to retool.

If that is 100% on Treliving, and the ownership group was suggesting they move on from the duo sooner than yeah he could be in trouble. But if they were in concert with what was going on, than I'm guessing the owners and management are right along with myself and probably most of this site in not seeing that complete 13/23 collapse coming.

If that's the case they probably don't fire him.

Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.

And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.

The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.

[CSharp]

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?

The Ward firing and the Sutter hiring is still puzzling me. I think Tre definitely trusted Ward to do the job and he would re-evaluate his coaching status up to the end of this season at least or up to a year and half into Ward's contract. But the firing 3 months in after getting him to sign a contract is just bad faith by Tre, IMO. There must've been something to it other than the team having a bad stretch that probably got Ward fired. The team was firing on all cylinders coming out of the gate in January. The only thing I can think off is after the announcement of Bennett demanding a trade. Ward, like all coaches before him, tried to put Bennett with all sorts of line combos. Nothing worked and with him taking stupid penalties or just not being effective, the coaches have no other means than to have him as a healthy scratch at times or on 4th lines. The final game where the Flames actually won that game, Bennett was a healthy scratch even though he was in prior to that. My thinking is, there is a disagreement with Ward and Tre in regards to Bennett. Ward was reluctant to put Bennett ahead of the team. So, after Bennett's agent announced that his player wanted a trade, Tre probably put pressure on Ward to try and showboat Bennett. Ward did that for a few games, but then Bennett found his way back down to the 4th lines again. To me, with Ward's last game and he had Bennett as a healthy scratch. That got me wondering immediately after it was announced later that night that Ward is fired and Sutter signed a 3 year deal as the head coach of the Flames. Ward's firing was not as immediate as everyone thinks and he likely knew his end date as Tre probably communicated a few days earlier that he's going with Sutter. I really can't see Tre being impatient with a coach he just signed. If that's the case, he'll fire Sutter by the end of the season if Sutter can pull this team together any better than what Ward and what previous coaches have done.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I’m sure Treliving, or any other GM, edits what they choose to reveal to the public. That’s not the point.

It seems like what you are suggesting though is that Treliving outright lied. Doesn’t make sense. Do you think the owners said to Treliving, ‘here’s your coach, now go make up a story to sell to the public. Oh, and we’ll see you at work on Monday’. Yeah, right. If this is how things are going, Treliving would have been fired already.

Also, it seems like you’re suggesting Treliving has no spine. He comes from a very wealthy family. Pretty sure he he could comfortably walk away if he was being put into positions he didn’t want to be in.

Maybe Treliving is all grown up as well.

How many coaches have gotten a "full faith in the coach" bump from the GM in media and then promptly been fired? its literally joked as to be a kiss of death. GMs and Coaches in press scrums are about as believable as politicians in theirs.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

Yes I get this.

I fully recognize that we both don’t know the full details what goes on behind the scenes, and we both have in idea in our heads of how things happened

I respect the reasoning behind your scenario, and at the same time, while I accept its plausibility, I look at my view of the probability.

Considering my observations and understandings about business, executives, people, hockey, politicians, public statements, corporate communications, etc., reconciled with what we have heard and seen, makes me land on the viewpoint that Tre was most likely, shall we say, given direction on his coaching change.

Absurd is perhaps too strong of a word for your liking, so my apologies, but it is kind of reflective of what I view as the probability that Sutter was Tre’s idea alone

[Jiri Hrdina]

It's basic human behavior to think that your scenario is the more probable one. As I would consider mine to be the more probable.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

It wasn't just one season though. The three regular seasons combined prior to the Colorado series Johhny Gaudreau ranked 6th in the NHL in even strength point production, and Sean Monahan was 21st. It's clear there was an organizational shift that took place.

Pts/60
2016/2017/2018

Johhny Gaudreau - 2.58pts/60 (6th)
Sean Monahan - 2.27 pts/60 (26th)

2019/2020

Johhny Gaudreau - 1.63pts/60 (163rd)
Sean Monahan - 1.55pts/60 (196th)


These two didn't just drop off over an off-season. It coincides with this organizations shift to make them more accountable and difficult to play against. It hasn't worked.

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

Johnny, Monny, and the Flames have always struggled more against the Pacific division, who they see most often. '19-20 below is only through Xmas:


thread: https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=177290

Failures in the playoffs, and this season's series format seem like further confirmation that they are especially easy to game plan against.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.

And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.

The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.

What if BT has been telling ownership he thinks they need to move on from 13/23/5? But ownership has disagreed?

I suspect they agreed on one more kick for this group last year, but then COVID made it tough...

[ComixZone]

I still can’t believe that Ward was hired.

There were zero reasons to give him the job. He did a poor job in 2020/2021, and even panicked in a key moment of the playoffs. There just wasn’t anything he did that “earned” him the job.

Perhaps Calgary is such a rotten market that literally no other coach wanted the job.

...or, perhaps Treliving is just absolutely awful when it comes to coaching hires - which to me is the clear answer. Hires Gulutzan, gets fixated on Peters and doesn’t do his homework, and then hires Ward - it’s an impressively bad list of hires.

Given Tree’s track record, I am inclined to believe there was at least some involvement from ownership when it comes to the Sutter hire. I’m not big on speculating this or that based on what was said publicly, but I no longer look at Treliving as a “man with a plan”, but rather a dog chasing cars. It’s hard for me to look at this roster, and at his coaching hires, and think there’s any real vision for this team.

Perhaps I’m wrong and Tree will execute an amazing tear down in the off-season...but with him at the helm I fully expect nothing more than a mixed bag of mediocrity at this stage, because that’s all he has delivered in seven years.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.

And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.

The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.

Before the playoff series against the AVS in 2019, when the Flames had the best record in the conference,VERY FEW people questioned whether Sean and Johnny were high end top line Stars, with the stats to back it up.

Yes , their play did diminish the last half of that season and gone further downhill since.However , very few on this board could, or actually did, predict the rapid decline of both.

I most definitely agree that they are, currently, a mere shadow of their former selves.

[1qqaaz]

It does seem like Treliving does put an excessive amount of weight on his prior working relationships (Peters, Ward) and interviews (Gulutzan), rather than on past track records of success (Boudreau, Gallant).

But at least we don't have to complain about coaching for a while.
I do believe that the decision to hire Sutter came from ownership.
Hopefully they can initiate a retool/rebuild as well. But it's doubtful.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

gets fixated on Peters and doesn’t do his homework, and then hires Ward - it’s an impressively bad list of hires.

I feel it's unfair to blame BT for what happened with Peters. If anything I blame the Canes for not being upfront about it. Outside of talking to every former player what diligence should they have done?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by timbit

Before the playoff series against the AVS in 2019, when the Flames had the best record in the conference,VERY FEW people questioned whether Sean and Johnny were high end top line Stars, with the stats to back it up.

Yes , their play did diminish the last half of that season and gone further downhill since.However , very few on this board could, or actually did, predict the rapid decline of both.

I most definitely agree that they are, currently, a mere shadow of their former selves.

I do feel that the saving grace for Treliving in keeping his job is just how sudden the drop off of the two most important forwards of the roster has been in the past two years. It was entirely unexpected, and it completely ruined prospect of contendership window for the group. These guys are suppose to be in the prime right now. Only Lindholm is performing adequately in relation to his potential right now.

Even if coaching has been that ####ty for several seasons - and it has been - these players were still performing well despite that. So it's not like the coaching as a whole is why they aren't carrying the team anymore. This also is a season where pretty much EVERYONE is playing below their expected performance level. But as mentioned in this thread of another from a Sutter interview, this roster is not good at playing the same team over and over again. And that's what we've seen over the past several playoff one and done's.

Now I do believe that since Tre is the GM and he built this roster, he's gotta be like the captain of a ship that's going down, and be fired to bring in a new GM with a new fresh of eyes and vision for the team. But still playing out the season to see if the Sutter effect could make the team rebound to make the playoffs probably delayed the process. And the COVID effect is still in play here where things aren't being done as they usually are, and the transition to a new GM at the point with such a crucial juncture upcoming in a little over two months doesn't give enough time to bring someone else in and settled before making big moves.

So if he does survive this upcoming offseason and can make major changes that ownership is aligned with, he might be able to save his job still.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I feel it's unfair to blame BT for what happened with Peters. If anything I blame the Canes for not being upfront about it. Outside of talking to every former player what diligence should they have done?

Tough to say, as I’m definitely not familiar with what the hiring practices are like.

I imagine it broke down in one of a few ways:

- He didn’t do enough due diligence on the hire (reference checks, I suppose - whatever the equivalent is for NHL head coaching hires), because I feel like it’d be quite difficult for the Hurricanes to cover-up the issues entirely

- He did discover some concerns, but he made a judgement that they weren’t a huge concern (not speaking specifically to the racist allegations, more so the player issues in Carolina)

- He didn’t do any due diligence and made the judgement call based on his own personal opinion of Peters

I think all 3 scenarios reflect poorly on Treliving, and whatever his hiring process is.

It’s three garbage coach hires in a row in slightly more than 4 years (June 2016 - September 2020). That’s just ugly work.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think the more likely scenario is he did an appropriate amount of diligence and this wasn’t revealed
Companies hire racists every day because they don’t know they are racist.

If he had talked to the Canes do you really think they would have admitted to what had happened? With the coach they had kept employed?

So the only way he likely could have uncovered it would have been by talking to a player that would have willingly shared what happened, including Aliu. But why would they have thought to talk to Aliu?

I would hope as a result they reviewed their process to avoid it in the future. But I think it's an unfair thing to blame him on. If he knew about it and ignored it that's different. But we have no evidence of that being the case.