Brad Treliving needs to go

[oldschoolcalgary]

I think Sutter is a very good coach...but can't help but think that some of the picks the team made while he was in town, like Hunter Smith and Kanzig, were based on that vision...so instead of drafting on talent they were drafting on size.

Arguably, he also traded a lot of picks in a 'win now' effort...which really impacted the prospect pool for years.

Hopefully, he has evolved his coaching and thinking to today's NHL

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Also, why are we in on every single available player, as the media suggests? They can't all possibly fit what we are trying to do. That to me suggests there is no real coherent vision, but just a reactionary mentality. "Building through the middle", Bingo, I would suggest is a strategy and a pretty standard one at that, but what is the actual vision? What are we trying to create?

I agree on the Conroy comments ... hope it's out of context, but taken as is, that's a terrible way to use talent in the management ranks.

In on everything doesn't mean no plan though.

It's due diligence.

If a GM is moving a player you get in there and see what it would take. If it's discounted you add value by acquiring him. Even if you don't make the move you've improved your knowledge of what the market is for similar moves you want to make. Additionally, maybe you up the value a bit for a competitor

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The anti Bongo. I like that..

Maybe you should have a custom user-title? God knows, you have been here long enough.

...also, "Bongo." Ha!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

I think we’ll be drafting for Wright and Bedard if the plan is to wait for Hanifin to be great. Dude was carried by Tanev. A great dman carries Tanev, not the other way around...

I think all of this is nonsense. In the first place the Flames are nowhere near bad enough to find themselves in the bottom two or three next season. Second, Tanev demonstrated rather unequivocally that he is indeed a defenseman whose presence is critical to stabalising a line. Third, Hanifin was also very good when paired with Andersson. All tbat to say that I think your reading on Hanifin is completely off-base.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I agree on the Conroy comments ... hope it's out of context, but taken as is, that's a terrible way to use talent in the management ranks.

In on everything doesn't mean no plan though.

It's due diligence.

If a GM is moving a player you get in there and see what it would take. If it's discounted you add value by acquiring him. Even if you don't make the move you've improved your knowledge of what the market is for similar moves you want to make. Additionally, maybe you up the value a bit for a competitor

Ok, I agree with you in the sense that it is beneficial to inquire to know the lay of the marketplace - good point. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Treliving himself needs to be doing that. Maloney can perfectly well call Adams in Buffalo and ask about Ristolainen and say "what are you offering for us to take him?"

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I think Sutter is a very good coach...but can't help but think that some of the picks the team made while he was in town, like Hunter Smith and Kanzig, were based on that vision...so instead of drafting on talent they were drafting on size.

Smith and Kanzig were drafted under Burke/Treliving, Sutter was long gone at that point. Sutter was terrible at drafting though and traded a lot of picks.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Ok, I agree with you in the sense that it is beneficial to inquire to know the lay of the marketplace - good point. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Treliving himself needs to be doing that. Maloney can perfectly well call Adams in Buffalo and ask about Ristolainen and say "what are you offering for us to take him?"

You can for sure.

But there's also some value in the conversations that build relationships with ALL of the GMs.

We always see some teams that only deal with one or two other teams historically because of comfort.

Rather have the guy that calls on everything and talks to everyone.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Ok, I agree with you in the sense that it is beneficial to inquire to know the lay of the marketplace - good point. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Treliving himself needs to be doing that. Maloney can perfectly well call Adams in Buffalo and ask about Ristolainen and say "what are you offering for us to take him?"

This seems like a really trivial—possibly meaningless—conplaint. All sorts of management structures are totally capable of accomplishing the same things.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Smith and Kanzig were drafted under Burke/Treliving, Sutter was long gone at that point. Sutter was terrible at drafting though and traded a lot of picks.

Kanzig was Feaster
Smith was Treliving

Zero evidence that Burke had any influence on either pick so it gets annoying when people keep insisting he was involved. The only influence he had on either was fleecing the Avalanche for the second round pick (Berra) that Treliving then used on Smith

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by neo45

Kanzig was Feaster
Smith was Treliving

Zero evidence that Burke had any influence on either pick so it gets annoying when people keep insisting he was involved. The only influence he had on either was fleecing the Avalanche for the second round pick (Berra) that Treliving then used on Smith

You're right, was going off memory. Point was that Sutter was long gone at that point.

The only reason I said Burke/Treliving is that Treliving had only been on the job a short time. If you bring that up as part of his drafting record people jump all over you to defend him and I'm not really interested in the argument today.

[Psytic]

[QUOTE=VladtheImpaler;7933724]Ok, I agree with you in the sense that it is beneficial to inquire to know the lay of the marketplace - good point. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Treliving himself needs to be doing that. Maloney can perfectly well call Adams in Buffalo and ask about Ristolainen and say "what are you offering for us to take him?" [/QUOTE


Certainly makes you wonder. Poor utilization of his team. They are twiddling their thumb while Brad has two phones to each ear. Owners give him a pat on the back because he "looks" like he's working hard all the time but he's working hard not smart. Ultimately hes getting less done than those that properly use their team I would speculate to. Of course this is reading a ton into a few random quotes from Conroy but I can see you being correct.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This seems like a really trivial—possibly meaningless—conplaint. All sorts of management structures are totally capable of accomplishing the same things.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

That is trivial - the big picture is the issue.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by neo45

Kanzig was Feaster
Smith was Treliving

Zero evidence that Burke had any influence on either pick so it gets annoying when people keep insisting he was involved. The only influence he had on either was fleecing the Avalanche for the second round pick (Berra) that Treliving then used on Smith

Brad Treliving hired April 28, 2014

NHL Draft June 27th, 2014

Brad Treliving years as a GM as of June 27th 2014 0.16

Brian Burke years as a GM as of June 27th 2014 16.0

Yep huge huge leap.

[flambers]

So far, the Flames have not generated a trade of substance to improve the team for 2 years

Maybe they just don't have the assets, not sure....

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Brad Treliving hired April 28, 2014

NHL Draft June 27th, 2014

Brad Treliving years as a GM as of June 27th 2014 0.16

Brian Burke years as a GM as of June 27th 2014 16.0

Yep huge huge leap.

None of that is evidence


But yes it actually is a huge leap to think the President was circumventing the GM and scouting department to randomly drop in and make tall draft picks in the late second round.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

? Have you been under a rock for the last 4 years?

I was responding to a poster who gave Treliving an F for THIS OFF-SEASON. Not for the past 4 years.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I noticed that you keep saying this, but I don't agree.
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/...r00005090.html


Since the 2008 draft under Sutter, this team has been much a much better drafting team.


2008: Bouma 3rd round, Brodie 4th round
2009: Bust draft
2010: Ferland 5th round
2011: Out of the park draft - Granlund 2nd round, Gaudreau 4th round, Brossoit 6th

2012: Kulak 4th
2013: Bust outside the Monahan pick (including 2 other 1st rounders)
2014: Nothing except 1st round Bennett
2015: Kylington 2nd round, Andersson 2nd round, Mangiapane 6th round

2016: Dube 2nd, Fox 3rd
2017: Ruzicka 4th (played some games, but I wouldn't say he graduated).

1000?
JF - Gaudreau
BT - Fox*
DS - Brodie

700?
BT - Mangi**
BT - Andersson**
DS - Ferland (if not for injuries)

500ish?
BT - Dube**
JF - Kulak**
JF - Brossoit
DS - Prust (2004)


DS - Bouma
DS - Pardy (2004)
BT - Ruzicka**
BT - Kylington**
JF - Granlund


BT has 6 guys in 3-4 years (depending on how you view 2014/2017...); 4 of them seem likely to play a decade in the league in the top half(ish) of the roster.

JF found 3 in 3 years; a superstar, a backup goalie, and a #5 d-man (+ Granlund who was a decent asset)

DS - 5 in 8 years, really only 2-3 quality guys: Brodie, Ferland, and probably Prust. 2 more bottom pair/4th liner.


The Andersson, Mangi, and Dube stories are yet to be written, but it seems likely all will end up as more valuable players than Ferland or Prust.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by neo45

None of that is evidence


But yes it actually is a huge leap to think the President was circumventing the GM and scouting department to randomly drop in and make tall draft picks in the late second round.

The 2014 draft is a pretty noticeable outlier in Treliving's tenure. It doesn't strike me at all as a "huge leap" that the brand new, first time GM only a couple months into the job would defer to his famous boss with decades of experience on his first go-around.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by neo45

None of that is evidence


But yes it actually is a huge leap to think the President was circumventing the GM and scouting department to randomly drop in and make tall draft picks in the late second round.

Who said circumventing?

Teams work the full year on a draft. The GM with the head scout, the scouts with their staff.

You think it's more logical that a guy came in six weeks before the draft, completely took over and scrapped the year long plan when the guy selected pretty much exactly fits the draft history of the more experienced guy that hired him?

I'm feeling pretty good about my assumptions thanks.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Who said circumventing?

Teams work the full year on a draft. The GM with the head scout, the scouts with their staff.

You think it's more logical that a guy came in six weeks before the draft, completely took over and scrapped the year long plan when the guy selected pretty much exactly fits the draft history of the more experienced guy that hired him?

I'm feeling pretty good about my assumptions thanks.

To add to this, I believe Treliving has said the scouts develop their list, and they don’t deviate.

I have a hard time believing Treliving re-wrote the 2914 draft list in the, what, 6-8 weeks prior to the draft.

Since that draft he has been on record saying their philosophy is to prioritize players being able to think the game and competitiveness. The proof is in the pudding.