Brad Treliving needs to go

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Carolina and Calgary are very different organizations. Different market, different ownership, different expectations I would bet. It's no surprise the Canes have had that amount of draft capital, they are a budget team who had an ownership change during the time frame you are looking at. They compile picks by trading players they don't want or can't afford to pay. If the Flames were in sell mode as often as the Canes have historically been, they would likely have a similar amount of draft picks, but, again, what's the mandate from ownership? Part of the reason behind the Lindholm Hanifin trade was Carolina didn't want to pay them what they were worth. As for the return for those two assets, the Canes may only have a second and a third to show for it by this offseason. So, let's wait and see there.

Also, you correctly point out that they haven't ascended to their spot with the benefit of a 1OA pick, but they did win the lottery and jump 10 spots to pick 2OA. The Flames haven't had that good fortune yet.

I'm not convinced the Canes model is all that relevant, or should be followed, when looking for franchises to compare.

Yes going with those parameters every organization is of course different, but that doesn't preclude them from being compared to one another.

Carolina was a cap team last year, and are basically in the exact same cap position as the Flames this year. So I think calling them a budget team is incorrect.

The Canes model is showing to be a successful path? Why are they not relevant?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I suspect it is more about levels of involvement. I suspect they are involved in most key decisions - but could just mean they are informed. Or it could be that they approve (doubtful).
In the case of Sutter they could have been more involved because
- The team is underperforming
- The existing coach was being fired mere months into a new deal
- Incremental budget was required
- Pre-existing relationship with Sutter

The level of involvement and influence is what's key. Ultimately what really matters is what is BT's decision that they approved or their decision that was imposed about BT.

I suspect the former but we don't know.

So yesterday I hopped in the car in the evening to go get some milk, and there was a discussion between Pat and Loubo being re-aired from earlier in the day

Loubo was talking about Sutter and figuring out who were ‘his guys’, and Pat was volunteering what he believed he could say based in what he had observed

One interesting thing that Loubo mentioned was that Sutter was ‘brought in by ownership’ as the first half of a sentence, the context for his further pontification

It was stated as known and accepted - further attention wasn’t drawn to it, and it was crystal clear

[Erick Estrada]

Eric Francis said this week on 960 that it's 50/50 Treliving returns which I thought was interesting. Now we know he's not a Flames insider but he tries his hardest to be buddy buddy with the coaches and management (probably out of necessity given the players hate him) as he was apologizing for Ward right down to the very end. The fact he's not saying Treliving should or will be back may mean the GM's job security is more tenuous than we think.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Eric Francis said this week on 960 that it's 50/50 Treliving returns which I thought was interesting. Now we know he's not a Flames insider but he tries his hardest to be buddy buddy with the coaches and management (probably out of necessity given the players hate him) as he was apologizing for Ward right down to the very end. The fact he's not saying Treliving should or will be back may mean the GM's job security is more tenuous than we think.

Finally some good news.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So yesterday I hopped in the car in the evening to go get some milk, and there was a discussion between Pat and Loubo being re-aired from earlier in the day

Loubo was talking about Sutter and figuring out who were ‘his guys’, and Pat was volunteering what he believed he could say based in what he had observed

One interesting thing that Loubo mentioned was that Sutter was ‘brought in by ownership’ as the first half of a sentence, the context for his further pontification

It was stated as known and accepted - further attention wasn’t drawn to it, and it was crystal clear

I'm surprised we are even debating it. Ownership was obviously far more involved in this coaching hire than any of the last four.

A question to ask is whether anyone believes BT has the power to fire Sutter if he thinks he's not doing a good job. I certainly don't think so.

Isn't this kind of similar to Feaster being brought onboard when Sutter was GM?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm surprised we are even debating it. Ownership was obviously far more involved in this coaching hire than any of the last four.

A question to ask is whether anyone believes BT has the power to fire Sutter if he thinks he's not doing a good job. I certainly don't think so.

Isn't this kind of similar to Feaster being brought onboard when Sutter was GM?

I was surprised we were debating it a while back.

It’s one of those things where you know it to be true, even though people weren’t saying it out loud.

It’s just that some people wanted to debate it then. The whole narrative made no sense, but there was never a smoking gun. I heard it out, and it still didn’t pass the sniff test.

I just brought it up because it was the first time I heard it nonchalantly stated as a given


And no, I really don’t think Brad could fire Darryl either

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Eric Francis said this week on 960 that it's 50/50 Treliving returns which I thought was interesting. Now we know he's not a Flames insider but he tries his hardest to be buddy buddy with the coaches and management (probably out of necessity given the players hate him) as he was apologizing for Ward right down to the very end. The fact he's not saying Treliving should or will be back may mean the GM's job security is more tenuous than we think.

I think that is fairly telling as that is a significant walk back from what Francis said earlier where Treliving was going nowhere and would be snapped up quickly if that was the case.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Eric Francis said this week on 960 that it's 50/50 Treliving returns which I thought was interesting. Now we know he's not a Flames insider but he tries his hardest to be buddy buddy with the coaches and management (probably out of necessity given the players hate him) as he was apologizing for Ward right down to the very end. The fact he's not saying Treliving should or will be back may mean the GM's job security is more tenuous than we think.

Yeah only if you believe in the BS that comes out of his mouth. All rumours, no substance.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think that is fairly telling as that is a significant walk back from what Francis said earlier where Treliving was going nowhere and would be snapped up quickly if that was the case.

Yeah. I doubt that ownership had any interest in Hartley's, Gulutzan's, Peters' or Ward's views of the roster.

But I suspect Sutter's voice carries a lot of weight and don't imagine he is very positive about the team that has been assembled. That may be having an effect.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I was surprised we were debating it a while back.

It’s one of those things where you know it to be true, even though people weren’t saying it out loud.

It’s just that some people wanted to debate it then. The whole narrative made no sense, but there was never a smoking gun. I heard it out, and it still didn’t pass the sniff test.

I just brought it up because it was the first time I heard it nonchalantly stated as a given


And no, I really don’t think Brad could fire Darryl either

But if Brad does not have the authority to fire Darryl, that would mean that somebody above him has that power and informs Brad when or if that could happen. That would seemingly usurp is power and influence as the GM, that cannot be the case can it?

[GioforPM]

Honestly - people read too much into non-inside info. Was ownership involved? Of course. They at a minimum had to approve paying two head coaches at one time. Did they force the change? Probably not. Who chose Sutter? Based on all info Treliving and the owners would have been on the same page so it doesn’t matter.

[dissentowner]

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.

If Tre wanted to hire Sutter in the offseason he would have done so. Lets not make excuses for BT trying to play smartest guy in the room again. Ward was his pick, I don't think he even considered anyone else.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If Tre wanted to hire Sutter in the offseason he would have done so. Lets not make excuses for BT trying to play smartest guy in the room again. Ward was his pick, I don't think he even considered anyone else.

Not if Sutter was available at the time.
Something was happening in those couple weeks.

[dammage79]

I think the deal was done in the Summer. Things on Sutters side didn't line up. Either with commitments to Anheim or the farm of family.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I was surprised we were debating it a while back.

It’s one of those things where you know it to be true, even though people weren’t saying it out loud.

It’s just that some people wanted to debate it then. The whole narrative made no sense, but there was never a smoking gun. I heard it out, and it still didn’t pass the sniff test.

I just brought it up because it was the first time I heard it nonchalantly stated as a given


And no, I really don’t think Brad could fire Darryl either

It's great you thought it was true but that doesn't mean that others can't challenge that or have a different perspective. How and the degree to which ownership was involved remains an unknown.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If Tre wanted to hire Sutter in the offseason he would have done so. Lets not make excuses for BT trying to play smartest guy in the room again. Ward was his pick, I don't think he even considered anyone else.

The reason I do not agree with you is the length of time it took to hire Ward after the season ended. If he was the guy from day 1 then it would have been announced sooner in my opinion. I believe Friedman when he states the organization has been talking to Darryl since Peters was let go.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Why not continue to have Ward as the interim HC for another season? They made him HC for a duration of 2 years. 20 games in and we fire him. I don’t buy that a deal was in place with Sutter in the summer one bit.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Why not continue to have Ward as the interim HC for another season? They made him HC for a duration of 2 years. 20 games in and we fire him. I don’t buy that a deal was in place with Sutter in the summer one bit.

Do you know of any interim coaches who went through an offseason and coach part of another season? I don't.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Why not continue to have Ward as the interim HC for another season? They made him HC for a duration of 2 years. 20 games in and we fire him. I don’t buy that a deal was in place with Sutter in the summer one bit.

I've never heard of a team going into a season with an interim HC. That's terrible credibility for Ward vis-a-vis players. As for 2 years - that is a year shy of a normal coaching contract and was pretty obviously one which could be easy to terminate. It was a coaching version of a "show me" contract.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Honestly - people read too much into non-inside info. Was ownership involved? Of course. They at a minimum had to approve paying two head coaches at one time. Did they force the change? Probably not. Who chose Sutter? Based on all info Treliving and the owners would have been on the same page so it doesn’t matter.

So who is doing this?

People that want to discuss why ownership seemed to have more input into this coaching hire than previous ones?

Or those that are looking for evidence that Treliving intended to hire Sutter in the summer and it's BAU?