Brad Treliving needs to go

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You need the other team to cooperate even there. Is Detroit trading Larkin for Monahan? Is Columbus trading Laine for Monahan? Maybe Calgary should just "change for change sake" and trade Monahan for Skinner and hope Skinner rebounds after 2 crap seasons.

You need two to tango in every transaction. 31 trade partners in the league.

Change for sake of change?
Stand pat because of fear of failure?

Equally impotent approaches, although at least the first is likely to yield higher variance outcomes.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by saillias

To those who follow analytics and the Jfresh style of charts and their predecessors. People were noticing that Monahan's game really dropped off in the 2nd half of that season.

There's this ongoing argument in the fandom where people say "oh but you had no idea Monahan was going to decline after the 82 point season." That's not really true, this information is out there but I understand some don't like to follow it & think it's lacking and that's certainly your right.

But a GM should be AHEAD of the curve with this kind of information, not behind some hobbyists on twitter with patreons.

There was going to some reversion to mean though and it was expected and happened. I don't think any one could have confidently said that Monahan was going to suck as much as did the following season without the benefit of hindsight.

Even if don't buy that and think that a GM should have known and been proactive then every GM would know that Monahan was going to regress and value for him was not going to be worthwhile enough in a trade on a non-rebuilding team.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You need two to tango in every transaction. 31 trade partners in the league.

Change for sake of change?
Stand pat because of fear of failure?

Equally impotent approaches, although at least the first is likely to yield higher variance outcomes.

Right, but it's pretty hard to imagine a trade that is (a) feasible and (b) people would like, when the board thinks Monahan sucks and should be traded (for someone better, presumably).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Right, but it's pretty hard to imagine a trade that is (a) feasible and (b) people would like, when the board thinks Monahan sucks and should be traded (for someone better, presumably).

Sure you can focus on Monahan and his trade value today. What could he have gotten at the draft last year? I said at that time he should be moved for picks which you could use later. Maybe that wouldn't have worked IDK.

Fundamentally it's much bigger than trading Sean Monahan. I believe the core of the the team has stagnated which has led to a lot of the underperformance. In fact, not sure the core was ever all that great outside of a 60 game stretch. I put much of that responsibility on the individual charged with building the team. Others feel differently.

There are thousands of scenarios that could have unfurled. Some want to argue he's incompetent at every turn. Others want to tell you all the possible reasons why he might not have made a deal.

Here we are.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sure you can focus on Monahan and his trade value today. What could he have gotten at the draft last year? I said at that time he should be moved for picks which you could use later. Maybe that wouldn't have worked IDK.

Fundamentally it's much bigger than trading Sean Monahan. I believe the core of the the team has stagnated which has led to a lot of the underperformance. In fact, not sure the core was ever all that great outside of a 60 game stretch. I put much of that responsibility on the individual charged with building the team. Others feel differently.

There are thousands of scenarios that could have unfurled. Some want to argue he's incompetent at every turn. Others want to tell you all the possible reasons why he might not have made a deal.

Here we are.

Yes, I agree with this point. I much prefer to stick to actual individual criticisms. And not trading Monahan at the TDL may be one, depending on his health at the time (it seems clear he was playing injured for much of the season).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Most of the discussion on this board isn't backed 100% by facts.

I just don't get the "sit on your hands in perpetuity" crowd who just excuses away the continual stagnation of this club with "maybe maybe maybe". Are people wanting a 100% slam dunk body of evidence before doing something? Because that's exceedingly rare.

This is two eras now, essentially back to back, where the Flames handcuff themselves with indecision and refusal to accept the reality on the ice while asset value erodes.

I've wanted change to the core from the beginning, I honestly don't see anyone saying do nothing or don't make change.

I'm just not willing to just assume that there were some fantastic deals available that Calgary's GM either didn't recognize, or got scared and didn't pursue.

That's unlikely as hell.

The anti-Cgy Mgmt group seems to be assuming something along those lines. Laziness? Not trying? Getting an offer that's good but not taking it?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

If they're making any trades for now, I agree, it's a mistake. Any further spending of assets for this group is the wrong choice. It's over. Hiring Sutter is emblematic of the issue they have with acceptance. The problem clearly doesn't stop at the GM office.

I don't know what's "fair" value for someone like Monahan, but I can hypothesize, based on trajectory, that the value in two years is pretty unlikely to be better.

And I disagree that no GM would have traded him after that season. Fans had the ability to see what happened, a really hot start to the season and then total implosion after the all-star break. They went right back to their typical selves after an aberration. It wasn't hindsight two years later, it was discussion immediately after getting dumped in the playoffs. There's no reason GMs can't see the same thing.

So if I search back to the summer of 2019 I'll find you suggesting they should trade Monahan?

If so then I agree ... full credit. And a huge turning point ... calling the Flames core or major core of Gaudreau and Monahan topping out at that 2018-19 season would have been a brilliant piece of asset management.

I guess their wonky playoff in '19 might have affected their market value too though.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So if I search back to the summer of 2019 I'll find you suggesting they should trade Monahan?

If so then I agree ... full credit. And a huge turning point ... calling the Flames core or major core of Gaudreau and Monahan topping out at that 2018-19 season would have been a brilliant piece of asset management.

I guess their wonky playoff in '19 might have affected their market value too though.

I feel like it is very hard to separate what actually happened versus what the right decision was at the time with imperfect info. It is very easy to look back and say oh #### that was such an obvious trade or position to take. You work with what you know at the moment and adjust as you go. I can get more behind the thought of trading Monahan at the end of the 2019/2020 season to shake things up but the return would have been lower than fans would have liked.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So if I search back to the summer of 2019 I'll find you suggesting they should trade Monahan?

If so then I agree ... full credit. And a huge turning point ... calling the Flames core or major core of Gaudreau and Monahan topping out at that 2018-19 season would have been a brilliant piece of asset management.

I guess their wonky playoff in '19 might have affected their market value too though.

This actually felt quite obvious at that time.
I think if you search back you'll find many posters suggesting that was time to make changes.
And even more coming around to that after the next season.

Today's trade options look bad and will not return good value, but the idea that no one should have saw this situation unfolding is completely untrue.
The GM allowed the situation to fester to this point and backed the team into this corner.

[dino7c]

Some posters want to trade everyone always though

No NHL team is going to blow it up after finishing 2nd overall

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Some posters want to trade everyone always though

No NHL team is going to blow it up after finishing 2nd overall

Some posters never want to do anything

Moving a piece ≠ blowing it up

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Some posters never want to do anything

Moving a piece ≠ blowing it up

Who are these people that don't want any change at all that people keep referring to?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So if I search back to the summer of 2019 I'll find you suggesting they should trade Monahan?

If so then I agree ... full credit. And a huge turning point ... calling the Flames core or major core of Gaudreau and Monahan topping out at that 2018-19 season would have been a brilliant piece of asset management.

I guess their wonky playoff in '19 might have affected their market value too though.

Why are we solely focused on 2019? The Flames core, namely Gaudreau and Monahan had a body of work in the playoffs (and lack of playoffs) well before then as well. What happened during the Gulutzan years?

Just because they finished 2nd overall that regular season doesn't erase everything that preceded it.

And if it did that looks even worse on Treliving.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Why are we solely focused on 2019? The Flames core, namely Gaudreau and Monahan had a body of work in the playoffs well before then as well. What happened during the Gulutzan years?

Just because they finished 2nd overall that regular season doesn't erase everything that preceded it.

And if it did that looks even worse on Treliving.

So you were calling for a move before the Avalanche series then?

Because like I said above, that would have been a huge asset management move at the time (the way it worked out).

Can only speak for me, but I felt the team had 2/3 of a solid top line, and then added Lindholm and Tkachuk while retaining Backlund and hope for Bennett.

Seemed like the "plan" was coming along.

I didn't see the Monahan injury woes and falling off the face of the planet thing coming at all.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you were calling for a move before the Avalanche series then?

Because like I said above, that would have been a huge asset management move at the time (the way it worked out).

Can only speak for me, but I felt the team had 2/3 of a solid top line, and then added Lindholm and Tkachuk while retaining Backlund and hope for Bennett.

Seemed like the "plan" was coming along.

I didn't see the Monahan injury woes and falling off the face of the planet thing coming at all.

No I wanted a change after the Colorado series, because at that point to me it seemed like more of the same in the playoffs. But I was looking at much more than just the 2nd overall finish as the overall body of work with the group. This project has been in development for many years.

And the fact that since then we've had another crash out of the first round, then a completely disasterous last season and that formula in the core forward group still hasn't been changed -- really seems like lunacy.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you were calling for a move before the Avalanche series then?

Because like I said above, that would have been a huge asset management move at the time (the way it worked out).

Can only speak for me, but I felt the team had 2/3 of a solid top line, and then added Lindholm and Tkachuk while retaining Backlund and hope for Bennett.

Seemed like the "plan" was coming along.

I didn't see the Monahan injury woes and falling off the face of the planet thing coming at all.

But in another post you said you wanted changes to the core since the beginning? Do you mean this offseason?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

But in another post you said you wanted changes to the core since the beginning? Do you mean this offseason?

Yeah the top line's inability to do anything against Dallas in the bubble had me looking for change ever since.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah the top line's inability to do anything against Dallas in the bubble had me looking for change ever since.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, and that was the season before last. I just don't get how management isn't responsible for where the Flames are with the makeup of the core. There are always reasons not to get something done.

How will you feel about the GM post if the upcoming season is also an early playoff exit or even a playoff miss?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, and that was the season before last. I just don't get how management isn't responsible for where the Flames are with the makeup of the core. There are always reasons not to get something done.

How will you feel about the GM post if the upcoming season is also an early playoff exit or even a playoff miss?

I just personally think Treliving is a pretty bright, hard working guy.

I think he's had two off seasons of chaos since the Dallas series in a flat cap, pandemic world trying to peddle players that are coming off declining seasons (and injuries).

If he's assessing poor market value vs the possibility of a rebound and going the rebound route vs the offers he's getting, I'd rather see that than a guy that has decided to move player X regardless and take whatever offer at pennies of the dollar that's available.

But I've said 100s of times that there are plenty of reasons to want Treliving gone, some of which I even support so I'm not trying to get anyone else to my way of thinking. But when every single move is spun to Treliving screwed up it gets a little old.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How will you feel about the GM post if the upcoming season is also an early playoff exit or even a playoff miss?

Personally I view the makeup of this Flames team as a bubble team

Might make the playoffs or they may just miss the playoffs.

Not a contender, if they make it... a 1st round exit

As for the GM, I would vote the same way again if a poll was placed.