Brad Treliving needs to go

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Team is on a 6 game winning streak and best win % in the Pacific and this is the top thread on CP. There are some serious broken posters on here.

They've been in that position several times before under Treliving, and the end result has always been the same

[dino7c]

13 regulation losses in 45 games

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

They've been in that position several times before under Treliving, and the end result has always been the same

Must be fun to be a fan like this

At least save this for the offseason, again first place teams don't fire their GM. Calgary is also one of the hardest markets in the NHL to be a GM.

Brad's late round picked just dominated the game last night

How good is this team with Kadri, Stone, Brown. Brad would have had all those players in another market.

Some posters really struggling with the teams success, if you can't enjoy this season get a new hobby.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Team is on a 6 game winning streak and best win % in the Pacific and this is the top thread on CP. There are some serious broken posters on here.

Blue skies go unseen by cynics.

[Bingo]

In all fairness the latest bump on the topic from hell was done by someone supporting Treliving's moves.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by timbit

Blue skies go unseen by cynics.

And only a simpleton can’t enjoy a blue sky while also recognizing global warming as a problem.

[Iceman90]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Inability to land a top 6 natural RW is one thing, but his coaching hires have been downright unforgivable -- especially when you consider the options that were (and still are) available.

We don't know how much of that was him having his hands tied by ownership not wanting to spend the money for a good coach.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

And only a simpleton can’t enjoy a blue sky while also recognizing global warming as a problem.

Does a simpleton also think that’s a good metaphor?

[TheSquatch]

I think those of us who are reluctant to "jump on the bandwagon" if you will, reluctant to come out and say "Wow, this team is amazing." are that way because we've been burned season after season for a long long time here. The team has been inconsistent, has shown flashes of awesome, has a few times shown more than that, and the result has been a bad playoff performance or a near miss.

Yes, this team feels different. They've hardly lost at all, they had a poor chunk after Christmas Covid, and occassionally look lost against fast teams like the Leafs, but they've been winning. And winning games like the Leafs, VGK, Dallas, that probably they would have lost in the last few years.

So forgive us if we aren't jumping out of our seats at every game, we are once bitten twice shy. Or ten times bitten twice shy. AND we still see that this team has some major problems. The bottom 6 aren't great (Ruzicka might be the biggest thing to happen to this team this year, as big a deal as Kylington) and need improving. I'd keep Lewis but Pitlick, Ritchie, at this point Dube, sadly at this point Monahan, they're all expendable.

But goaltending is fine. Defense looking fine after a slightly wobbly start for a few guys. Tanev's brilliant, Gudbrandson reliable, Zadorov dangerous for both teams.... and the top line is simply great.

If "Second Half Backs" shows up, and it's looking like that... the team might make some noise, and I'm excited about it. But do I have etched-in-the-skin Flames-can-do-no-wrong mania? No.

A bad season here and BT was maybe toast. After this year the are having... probably not. I don't think it's easy being GM in a place people haven't been excited to come to. Maybe that's changing.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

But do I have etched-in-the-skin Flames-can-do-no-wrong mania? No.

There is a world of difference between that and ‘Treliving needs to go’. But some people keep banging on that drum and refuse to acknowledge anything positive.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

I think those of us who are reluctant to "jump on the bandwagon" if you will, reluctant to come out and say "Wow, this team is amazing." are that way because we've been burned season after season for a long long time here. The team has been inconsistent, has shown flashes of awesome, has a few times shown more than that, and the result has been a bad playoff performance or a near miss.

Yes, this team feels different. They've hardly lost at all, they had a poor chunk after Christmas Covid, and occassionally look lost against fast teams like the Leafs, but they've been winning. And winning games like the Leafs, VGK, Dallas, that probably they would have lost in the last few years.

So forgive us if we aren't jumping out of our seats at every game, we are once bitten twice shy. Or ten times bitten twice shy. AND we still see that this team has some major problems. The bottom 6 aren't great (Ruzicka might be the biggest thing to happen to this team this year, as big a deal as Kylington) and need improving. I'd keep Lewis but Pitlick, Ritchie, at this point Dube, sadly at this point Monahan, they're all expendable.

But goaltending is fine. Defense looking fine after a slightly wobbly start for a few guys. Tanev's brilliant, Gudbrandson reliable, Zadorov dangerous for both teams.... and the top line is simply great.

If "Second Half Backs" shows up, and it's looking like that... the team might make some noise, and I'm excited about it. But do I have etched-in-the-skin Flames-can-do-no-wrong mania? No.

A bad season here and BT was maybe toast. After this year the are having... probably not. I don't think it's easy being GM in a place people haven't been excited to come to. Maybe that's changing.

These are the good times and you refuse to enjoy them? I honestly feel sad for you.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... that was a book.

Look we don't know. You don't know. I don't know.

The story will unfold how it does. He either brings Gaudreau back or he doesn't. They either have a great season because he kept Gaudreau or they don't. We either find out what was offered and turned down both by the player and the team, and perhaps by other teams leading up to his no trade clause deadline.

But we don't know.

Without knowing how can anyone suggest it's either pin point perfect asset management or a complete failure?

That's my point. You don't have to write 1400 words to refute it as it's pretty straight forward.

Being on this situation is bad management in itself.

All Treliving has going for himself is Darryl Sutter getting the team to frankly overperform to an extent which hides the perilous situation we're in (but also partly creates it in that there's no possibility to be a seller).

He's got absolutely zero leverage on the two stars the team desperately need to both re-sign to have at least a chance to remain relevant, and none of this is surprising, and we desperately need to not lose our current stars, because we've been bleeding futures to create this mediocre roster to an extent that we probably need to enter a full rebuild if Tkachuk and Gaudreau don't sign.

Nothing about the situation we're in is particularly surprising, considering that Sutter is a great coach and the division was looking weak. We were very likely to look competitive anyway, even if current results are better than expected, and the contract situations were known for a long time know.

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

It's soon been 8 years with Treliving at the wheel with below average results for a team that consistently spends to the cap, and people are still going "well if THIS year is good, then that finally proves Treliving can build a contending team."

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Itse

Being on this situation is bad management in itself.

All Treliving has going for himself is Darryl Sutter getting the team to frankly overperform to an extent which hides the perilous situation we're in (but also partly creates it in that there's no possibility to be a seller).

He's got absolutely zero leverage on the two stars the team desperately need to both re-sign to have at least a chance to remain relevant, and none of this is surprising, and we desperately need to not lose our current stars, because we've been bleeding futures to create this mediocre roster to an extent that we probably need to enter a full rebuild if Tkachuk and Gaudreau don't sign.

Nothing about the situation we're in is particularly surprising, considering that Sutter is a great coach and the division was looking weak. We were very likely to look competitive anyway, even if current results are better than expected, and the contract situations were known for a long time know.

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

It's soon been 8 years with Treliving at the wheel with below average results for a team that consistently spends to the cap, and people are still going "well if THIS year is good, then that finally proves Treliving can build a contending team."

lol yeah

Markstrom, Tanev, Coleman, Gudbranson, Zadorov, Vladar, all recent Tre additions have nothing to do with the team being good

And what teams don't spend to the cap? almost the entire league does its not some big advantage

And how exactly is the Flames "weak" division the reason for their solid win percentage? They have dominated the East and barely played the Pacific

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In all fairness the latest bump on the topic from hell was done by someone supporting Treliving's moves.

keep reading

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Itse

Being on this situation is bad management in itself.

All Treliving has going for himself is Darryl Sutter getting the team to frankly overperform to an extent which hides the perilous situation we're in (but also partly creates it in that there's no possibility to be a seller).

He's got absolutely zero leverage on the two stars the team desperately need to both re-sign to have at least a chance to remain relevant, and none of this is surprising, and we desperately need to not lose our current stars, because we've been bleeding futures to create this mediocre roster to an extent that we probably need to enter a full rebuild if Tkachuk and Gaudreau don't sign.

Nothing about the situation we're in is particularly surprising, considering that Sutter is a great coach and the division was looking weak. We were very likely to look competitive anyway, even if current results are better than expected, and the contract situations were known for a long time know.

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

It's soon been 8 years with Treliving at the wheel with below average results for a team that consistently spends to the cap, and people are still going "well if THIS year is good, then that finally proves Treliving can build a contending team."

So even if Treliving gets a good Cup run and resigns stars you will still be unhappy. Got it.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Itse

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

Man, are you ever setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... that was a book.

That was the detail required to explain my perspective. Others are "but six game wining streak = no problems derp, derp, derp." Yeah, remember when the Oilers were 9-1 to start the season and the parade was being planned? It didn't take a rocket surgeon to look at that roster and see the problems. Taking a look under the hood of that ####show exposed just how badly run that organization was/is. The longitudinal examination did not match the short-term success the team was experiencing, and when looking at futures does not paint a rosy picture. It's all about perspective.

Your perspective is "Look we don't know. You don't know. I don't know." about a situation that is very easy to distill and interpret. It may be beyond some people, but to others these situations are not difficult to understand as it is all about organizational measurables. I don't believe for a second that you don't understand this stuff. A futures trader with a predilection for tracking data, performance, and making inferences on given conditions? This is right in your wheelhouse. If you're not connecting the dots, that's maybe something to work on, because this is no different than evaluating the performance of a company and the CEO at the helm.

The story will unfold how it does. He either brings Gaudreau back or he doesn't. They either have a great season because he kept Gaudreau or they don't. We either find out what was offered and turned down both by the player and the team, and perhaps by other teams leading up to his no trade clause deadline.

And that is what is indicative of ####ty management. Treliving is paid to handle these things and know these things. It is his job to peer into the crystal ball and have a plan in place to deal with all situations when it comes to players and contracts. It is his job to keep this team chugging along and make appropriate corrections along the way so they don't fly off the rails and experience a massive crash.

But we don't know.

Without knowing how can anyone suggest it's either pin point perfect asset management or a complete failure?

Well, you can look at the contract situation of the players and see the house of cards that has been built. You can then refer back to the comments of the agents who represent these players and see their comments about forcing their way to free agency. These are indicators that you look for. Some are seeing them, some are ignoring them.

That's my point. You don't have to write 1400 words to refute it as it's pretty straight forward.

It's pretty straight forward that Treliving has mismanaged the contracts. At best he has over-played his hand and turned over control in every negotiation to the players. At worst he has set this team up for a massive implosion this summer as those players force his hand. This isn't difficult to see. We've been talking about it for over a year and could see this developing on the horizon. This is NOT a surprise thing.

Originally Posted by timbit

Blue skies go unseen by cynics.

And storm clouds are ignored by the ignorant and unprepared.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is a world of difference between that and ‘Treliving needs to go’. But some people keep banging on that drum and refuse to acknowledge anything positive.

I think there has been plenty of acknowledgement of things going well. This team has been surprisingly fun to watch and has come together to be a powerhouse. Heck, I think they are one more skilled player with finishing ability away from being a serious contender. There are a lot of great things that have come together to make this a fun season. No one is ignoring how much fun this season has been. The current success and enjoyment we are having is not exclusive from keeping an eye on tomorrow. We can be having a great party, but must recognize we have work tomorrow and we must be able to pay the bill.

Originally Posted by Itse

Being on this situation is bad management in itself.

Yes and no.

All Treliving has going for himself is Darryl Sutter getting the team to frankly overperform to an extent which hides the perilous situation we're in (but also partly creates it in that there's no possibility to be a seller).

There's a little more to it than that. Treliving did a really good job in bringing in some supporting players. Grabbing Vlader was smart move. Gudbransson and Zadorov were good pickups. The big bodied Sutter boys were also good pickups. But there were also problems there that people refuse to acknowledge.

Trading assets for Pitlick and Zadorov and only getting this season out of them seems like a mistake. He had control and leverage over Zadorov and only got a player friendly one-year contract out of him. That's one of those glaring things that make those that follow asset management shake their heads. It may seem like a small mistake, but combine a number of small mistakes together and they turn into a big problem.

He's got absolutely zero leverage on the two stars the team desperately need to both re-sign to have at least a chance to remain relevant, and none of this is surprising, and we desperately need to not lose our current stars, because we've been bleeding futures to create this mediocre roster to an extent that we probably need to enter a full rebuild if Tkachuk and Gaudreau don't sign.

You're also missing the Mangiapane and Kylington situations. One is minor, but the other one is another pretty significant challenge. There is a pattern of giving up the leverage to players when it comes to negotiating. Successful executives don't give up leverage, they create leverage. This is one of Treliving's biggest weaknesses, but all of that does not fall solely on him, as he has a team of people who help track and negotiate contracts. This is an organizational weakness, and that falls completely on Treliving's head.

Nothing about the situation we're in is particularly surprising, considering that Sutter is a great coach and the division was looking weak. We were very likely to look competitive anyway, even if current results are better than expected, and the contract situations were known for a long time know.

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

That's why I look at the Bergivin situation and see some pretty good contrasts between what happened there and what could happen here. Short-term success does not hide the house of cards from sight, it only provides more time for the house to be blown over. Structurally, this organization is weak. If someone were looking to invest money in this enterprise, and they were looking at indicators of potential success, they would run in another direction and invest elsewhere. Too many huge question marks and not many indicators of potential long-term success.

It's soon been 8 years with Treliving at the wheel with below average results for a team that consistently spends to the cap, and people are still going "well if THIS year is good, then that finally proves Treliving can build a contending team."

That's the bottom line here. One surprising season does not change the underlying structure of the organization. This short-term success will buy Treliving more time, but how he tries to fortify the house of cards that he's built will ultimately decide how much longer he is with the Flames and in hockey.

Originally Posted by Yoho

So even if Treliving gets a good Cup run and resigns stars you will still be unhappy. Got it.

If those things happen, everyone will be happy. Hell, we'll be demanding they erect a statue of Treliving in front of the new arena! Oh, wait... ! The challenge is that it does not appear that it is possible to sign the star players. Something has to give. One of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, or Mangiapane have to go, because the salary structure can't support them long term. If he can pull this rabbit out of his hat, and keep all three on long-term contracts, everyone will be happy. If he signs Gaudreau to a huge contract, then is forced to sign Tkachuk and Mangiapane to one year deals, then it will be major failure. If he loses Gaudreau for nothing and has the two other players sign those one year deals, it's a disaster film in the making.

[GioforPM]

^^ This takes a whole lot of assumption on how negotiations have gone - that there were great deals on the table that Treliving and player agents just missed, great opportunities for long term deals that he passed up. That he purposely gave up leverage (which is funny because other posters are claiming he was too hard on RFA negotiations).

The usual assumption for me is that when a player agent and a GM agree to a deal after a negotiation, it’s the best deal that could be reached for both sides after exploring all long and short term options. It’s pretty silly to imagine that, for example, Mangiapane wasn’t offered some sort of long term deal - that it never occurred to Treliving to offer it. Isn’t it more probably that they discussed that and it wasn’t acceptable at a decent price so they went for what they ended up signing?

[Lanny_McDonald]

^^^ To have that consistently happen seems like a problem. If you're not getting beneficial deals done, there's something wrong.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Being on this situation is bad management in itself.

All Treliving has going for himself is Darryl Sutter getting the team to frankly overperform to an extent which hides the perilous situation we're in (but also partly creates it in that there's no possibility to be a seller).

He's got absolutely zero leverage on the two stars the team desperately need to both re-sign to have at least a chance to remain relevant, and none of this is surprising, and we desperately need to not lose our current stars, because we've been bleeding futures to create this mediocre roster to an extent that we probably need to enter a full rebuild if Tkachuk and Gaudreau don't sign.

Nothing about the situation we're in is particularly surprising, considering that Sutter is a great coach and the division was looking weak. We were very likely to look competitive anyway, even if current results are better than expected, and the contract situations were known for a long time know.

Even if Sutter saves Trelivings butt by getting a legit cup run out of this roster, and even if Tkachuk and Gaudreau decide to stay for a reasonable price and thus save the near-future of the team, none of that is because Treliving is a good GM.

It's soon been 8 years with Treliving at the wheel with below average results for a team that consistently spends to the cap, and people are still going "well if THIS year is good, then that finally proves Treliving can build a contending team."

I get it. You have picked a side and you won't budge.

That is totally fine to me.

But every team has players come up for UFA and have to make decisions. You can't even extend them until they are a year away from expiry, and that's exactly what he tried to do this summer.

The Tkachuk contract was given out across the league as a way to get more leverage to many clients, it wasn't a Calgary born contract plan.

Are you not blaming him for not taking whatever Gaudreau demanded last summer, while also blaming for taking what Tkachuk's agent demanded?

I'm fine with wanting Treliving gone but not sure the star player angle is something to point at.