Last season was fun. But I care more about building a team that will be a championship challenger for a number of seasons, not one and done. That was the exactly what was setup. Gaudreau and Tkachuk walk for nothing and it will be a distant memory before we see a repeat. You need to keep succession planning at the top of your to-do list as a manager in professional sports. You have to recoup assets where possible and bring in the quality players where possible. This has been a failing of this team for some time.
It's extremely difficult, especially with the new draft rules, to just build that perennial championship team.
And the issue with both Gaudreau and Tkachuk (and a lot of other players) is convincing them to stay with the Flames. The best ways to do that are to show you are committed to the players and winning. The Flames had no choice but to go all in.
If Gaudreau and/or Tkachuk walk it will be because they didn't want to play in Calgary and specifically wanted to play somewhere else. Not sure how you can plan around Gaudreau/Tkachuk as human beings.
We all want a team that repeatedly challenges for championships...easier said than done, and there's probably 2-3 teams that are legit contenders at any one time.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
The problem with not getting this done last year is exactly what is playing out now and it very well could end up with Johnny and Tkachuk gone in the same year, after a pretty successful season. Could it have been avoided altogether? We will likely never know who ultimately squashed those discussions or laid this foundation but it's looking increasingly like it may not end well.
The big concern now is that Gaudreau and his camp will come back at the 11th hour next week with a take it or leave it offer to avoid walking and a substantially higher cap hit than the 9.5 that hamstrings the team.
It is what it is, but it has the appearance of pretty sloppy management by Treliving and coupled with the bad term he got out of Tkachuk, the whole thing just feels like something an inexperienced GM might walk into, but not something a guy that has been on the job for nearly a decade should.
So you don't think Treliving kept his ownership in the loop? You don't think the owners wondered or asked what was going on?
Sure looks like an organizational decision to not deal Gaudreau when they once again as an organization believed they shouldn't or couldn't sign him last summer.
Exactly. I feel like no one is acknowledging this. What would we have gotten for Johnny at the beginning of last year? He's got one season left on his contract, he just came off 2 down years and has not won anything of significance in this league yet. 1 year of an elite Johnny Gaudreau performance is probably more valuable than anything you could've gotten for him at that time.
So, for those who are saying Treliving bungled this, what would you have done?
People are forgetting that back then Treliving wouldn't have been trading 110 point Johnny. He was trading a guy who scored at a 68 and 71 point pace the previous two seasons. Who some were saying was not a PO performer, and the league had figured out. Who was just about to have a 3 team LNTC kick in so the acquiring team would be limited in that asset as well. What kind of return do you get for that guy? Who was interested in that trade. Treliving would have roasted for the return (especially if Johnny had the season he just had but with another team).
Plus Johnny was obviously still telling Treliving he was prepared to listen to deals to stay in Calgary at the very least. If he was set on going east, that would have changed things.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
It was a general statement in response to another.
A little bit of both? It looks like Treliving ignored the invocation of the limited NTC, believing he would have leverage over the player and be able to get a deal done. He gave up the only point of leverage he had over the player and handed all control over to the player and his representatives. When you give up those control factors you lose most negotiations. Tactical error on the part of the GM. The contract issue should have been resolved before the limited NTC kicked in as that was when all control was lost. With the successful season the player now has even more control as there is interest from a much larger number of suitors.
No, I think he put into play a faulty strategy that did not address the larger risk and maintain control over the team's future. Worse, he did not consider this outcome and pushed in as many chips as he could at the deadline. There was obviously a disconnect between what Treliving thought and what his coach thought about the team's chances based on actions and commentary of each. Going rogue? No. Just not having a well thought out strategy to keep the team competitive long term.
This isn't negative nor drama. It's the reality that managers have to understand and have plans in place for all possible outcomes. Allowing your best player to get to the point of walking for nothing, and another player able to force his way to UFA status just by accepting a qualifying number you negotiated, is just brutal management. He set up a possible worst outcome for the team and it is coming to fruition. It's awesome that he's talking tough to the usual "insiders" and giving the impression they are intent on signing both players, but the team has zero control over what is about to take place. That is just bad management.
I don't buy this "kept ownership apprised at all times" narrative. Ownership hired Treliving to do a job and gave him the budget to surround himself with capable hockey people. If the owners are on speed dial for every decision that has to be made, that is indicative of them NOT having faith in Treliving's judgment. I think they have their regular communications sessions with ownership for updates, but I don't believe they are involved in every facet of contract negotiations. The team would be extremely difunctional if that were the case.
I think Treliving has a pretty good idea just how well he painted himself into a corner. He's now standing there and realizing just how much paint he put down and now is left with the only option he has, which is to wait for the paint to dry because he has no other course of action. He has no other control mechanisms at his disposal.
Which is pretty bad management IMO. The future of the team is not within their control.
Agree to disagree for the 11,000 time then I guess.
I see the franchise player being an ownership decision with the GM laying out the options.
"we could sign him for this"
"we could trade him for that"
"we could sit on it, go for it this year, and see what happens next summer"
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Last season was fun. But I care more about building a team that will be a championship challenger for a number of seasons, not one and done. That was the exactly what was setup. Gaudreau and Tkachuk walk for nothing and it will be a distant memory before we see a repeat. You need to keep succession planning at the top of your to-do list as a manager in professional sports. You have to recoup assets where possible and bring in the quality players where possible. This has been a failing of this team for some time.
Sure, but like it or not, this iteration of the Flames still had at least another year of contention with their best player on the team. If the point is ultimately to win, why would you cut that contention window short by 1 year for a marginal return? That doesn't make sense and is poor asset management. You start the rebuild when it's time to start the rebuild. Last year was certainly not the time to start one... Players have the freedom to walk as UFAs, that is the whole point - it isn't anyone's fault.
I still like this approach. All in to keep two elite players. For this team to compete both must be re-signed.
...if one leaves though, I want to see a hard pivot in how this team is built/being built.
I think it depends who leaves.
If Gaudreau stays and Tkachuk doesn't want to re-sign then I think you can probably use the cap space and assets from dealing Tkachuk to remain strong.
If Gaudreau goes for nothing, and then Tkachuk is on the fence I think the best path is to tear it down.
If both stay...then you have some work to do to clear out cap space to keep key pieces around them.
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
Just so everybody's clear, the only place we're spending our calories right now is trying to get both these players signed to long-term commitments. We'll continue down the path until told otherwise.
Only place they are expending energy. His words. If that ain't the case, that's bad messaging.
Jesus seriously?
Were you spawned yesterday? It's GM speak for liking their players and wanting to bring them back.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
It's extremely difficult, especially with the new draft rules, to just build that perennial championship team.
And the issue with both Gaudreau and Tkachuk (and a lot of other players) is convincing them to stay with the Flames. The best ways to do that are to show you are committed to the players and winning. The Flames had no choice but to go all in.
If Gaudreau and/or Tkachuk walk it will be because they didn't want to play in Calgary and specifically wanted to play somewhere else. Not sure how you can plan around Gaudreau/Tkachuk as human beings.
We all want a team that repeatedly challenges for championships...easier said than done, and there's probably 2-3 teams that are legit contenders at any one time.
"Easier said than done" is an understatement. Lanny's perspective is fine, but it's just as much a recipe for a perpetual bottom feeder to mid-pack and back team like Arizona as it is for a perennial contender team.
When you have good players on contract that indicate they're willing to stay, you keep them. When they put in career performances and you're at the top of the league, you go for it. If you're just constantly focused on shipping out top guys near the end of their contract and standing pat when your cards are looking good, you just as likely end up spinning your wheels.
Succession planning is what you do for when your top players are aging out. You back fill with draft picks and ship out deteriorating assets. Exposing Gio in the expansion draft was a perfect example of how to do this right. Succession planning isn't shipping out your prime-aged stars in your contention window.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
If Gaudreau stays and Tkachuk doesn't want to re-sign then I think you can probably use the cap space and assets from dealing Tkachuk to remain strong.
If Gaudreau goes for nothing, and then Tkachuk is on the fence I think the best path is to tear it down.
If both stay...then you have some work to do to clear out cap space to keep key pieces around them.
Yes, I think you can deal with Tkachuk going, especially since I think he's going to be slightly overpaid either way. Gaudreau going cripples the team and I think you have to start over.
People are forgetting that back then Treliving wouldn't have been trading 110 point Johnny. He was trading a guy who scored at a 68 and 71 point pace the previous two seasons. Who some were saying was not a PO performer, and the league had figured out. Who was just about to have a 3 team LNTC kick in so the acquiring team would be limited in that asset as well. What kind of return do you get for that guy? Who was interested in that trade. Treliving would have roasted for the return (especially if Johnny had the season he just had but with another team).
Plus Johnny was obviously still telling Treliving he was prepared to listen to deals to stay in Calgary at the very least. If he was set on going east, that would have changed things.
I'm interested in learning more about the bolded. Was there a contract Gaudreau was willing to sign last year?
Not sure you can come to a conclusion about anything from a statement like that. Basically just saying they're still trying to sign both. I'm sure they have a Plan B and C.
Lanny is a blowhard. He only posts on here so he can re-read his terrible opinions and congratulate himself on how amazing he thinks he sounds.
If Gaudreau’s rights are moved, does the acquiring team have the ability to sign him to a 8 year contract, or does he have to have played for the team in order to get the 8th year.
