Brad Treliving needs to go

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I honestly don’t care if Treliving stays or goes at this point. It’s Murray Edwards who needs to accept the idea of rebuilding. Maybe he doesn’t understand the NHL, but it should be a cyclical league.

You win for a while, then you lose for a while. Trying to constantly eek your way into the playoffs by any means necessary so you can make a couple of bucks isn’t how you build a contender.

You assume without evidence that Edwards (and the other owners) are actually trying to build a contender. The way it looks to me, most of the Canadian owners are just trying to do well enough to keep the seats filled and avoid going into negative cashflow. That's at least a realizable business plan, though not a very bold one. Canadians are not known for being a bold people.

It's the U.S. owners (and not all of those) who treat their clubs as an extension of their egos, and are willing to lose buckets of money while their arenas sit empty during scorched-earth rebuilds for the chance of eventually getting their names on the Stanley Cup.

Maybe Edwards understands the NHL just fine, and you just don't understand Edwards.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You assume without evidence that Edwards (and the other owners) are actually trying to build a contender. The way it looks to me, most of the Canadian owners are just trying to do well enough to keep the seats filled and avoid going into negative cashflow. That's at least a realizable business plan, though not a very bold one. Canadians are not known for being a bold people.

It's the U.S. owners (and not all of those) who treat their clubs as an extension of their egos, and are willing to lose buckets of money while their arenas sit empty during scorched-earth rebuilds for the chance of eventually getting their names on the Stanley Cup.

Maybe Edwards understands the NHL just fine, and you just don't understand Edwards.

They don’t need to spend $82M to avoid negative cash flow. They could emphasize building through the draft and developing their own talent.

They don’t. They spend to the cap every year, whether or not it makes sense.

They give out stupid contracts July 1 every year because they like the headlines, and because they’ve been historically quite poor at developing talent.

You could pay $80M for what the Flames get, or you could pay $60M for a few years, and then get 90 home games of playoff revenue over a 15 year period with Sid.

Nobody owns a sports team if they’re not fiercely competitive.

Murray’s problem is he’s competitive to a fault. He goes for it when he should punt, but he gets conservative in the red zone.

He wants Mark Stone and Jack Eichel, but he gets cold feet at the thought of overpaying, even though overpaying is exactly what it takes to keep a star in the market.

It’s why McDavid makes $12.5M, because when someone offers you $100M to play hockey, it doesn’t matter if it’s in Edmonton - you say “yes”.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They don’t need to spend $82M to avoid negative cash flow. They could emphasize building through the draft and developing their own talent.

Every team can do that. Don't act like the Flames would be the only ones who ever thought of it.

They don’t. They spend to the cap every year, whether or not it makes sense.

In this league, either you spend to the cap or you confess you're not even trying to make the playoffs. Budget teams routinely end up in the lottery, year after year. It's a natural consequence of playing with a hard cap.

Since all teams can build through the draft, and nearly all teams can spend to the cap, that is simply the minimum price of admission if you want to be competitive. If, like most of the Canadian owners, you want to avoid having an empty arena because you daren't risk losing that kind of money, it always makes sense to spend as close to the cap as you can manage.

They give out stupid contracts July 1 every year because they like the headlines, and because they’ve been historically quite poor at developing talent.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Flames' owners like the headlines at all. And it is certainly not the case that they give out ‘stupid contracts’ every year.

You could pay $80M for what the Flames get, or you could pay $60M for a few years, and then get 90 home games of playoff revenue over a 15 year period with Sid.

There's only one Crosby, and the team that got him didn't get him by tanking; they got him by a lottery in which all 30 teams participated – and they got him before a single game had been played under the cap system. Spending to the salary floor does not cause the league to award you the best player in the game.

Nobody owns a sports team if they’re not fiercely competitive.

The original owners of the Flames bought the team not because they were competitive, but because they wanted their community to have a big-league hockey team. Other owners, both in hockey and in other sports, have done the same. And of course there have been owners like Bill Wirtz and Harold Ballard, who were only in it for the money and didn't give a damn whether the team won or lost.

Murray’s problem is he’s competitive to a fault. He goes for it when he should punt, but he gets conservative in the red zone.

This requires support from other sources, which you do not provide. I don't pretend to know anything about Murray Edwards' personal character from the way that his employees run a relatively small business of which he is not even the majority owner. I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.

He wants Mark Stone and Jack Eichel, but he gets cold feet at the thought of overpaying, even though overpaying is exactly what it takes to keep a star in the market.

Every GM wants star players, and no GM wants to overpay for them. You make this sound like it's a bad thing, which it isn't; and then you blame it on a meddling owner, which you have no grounds for.

It’s why McDavid makes $12.5M, because when someone offers you $100M to play hockey, it doesn’t matter if it’s in Edmonton - you say “yes”.

This is such a baffling non sequitur that I have no idea what to say to it. It isn't related to any point in this whole discussion.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If people want Treliving gone for a general lack of success, fine. Decent argument to be made. But firing him for this particular event is not on.

I agree with you here, but I don't think anyone calling for Treliving's head is doing it just because of what happened with Gaudreau.


However, if they were, I would understand it. One of the top players in the history of this franchise, and also very likeable too, exciting to watch, and a really good 'clean cut hero' for the kids to look up to. Whatever way you slice this, it is a huge loss for this organization.


I also think Treliving needs to be better with his asset management lately. Calgary simply isn't New York, or Vegas, or a California team, etc., that is a destination that players want to be in. Flames got lucky with Brodie in having Tanev wanting to sign here - but the smarter move would have been to keep both, or to have traded Brodie away in the previous off-season if he wasn't extended.


To not get Gaudreau to a contract extension before his NTC kicked-in (to not have one worked out and agreed upon, ready to sign), was a mistake. Sure, Gaudreau's value was lower then than it is today, but Calgary got zero today. How much last off-season? A 1st? 1st + prospect? Imagine having another Pelletier, or another Coronato in the system.



That's the issue for me. You are the GM of Calgary - a franchise that does not attract the top talent as UFAs. You can't risk losing your elite player for nothing when you have a hard time to find elite player willing to sign without a substantial overpay. We see overpays for most UFAs, but Calgary has been overpaying for middling UFAs mostly too, which gets them in trouble.



I totally get that this is the straw that breaks some people's backs. Kelly McCrimmon, Chris Drury, etc., get to play by different rules, even with the cap. They don't have to manage their assets quite as tight as Treliving does, and IMO, yes, Treliving has bungled this high value asset. Should he get fired for this? Nope, I don't think so. However, should he be retained after reviewing the overall body of work in the last 8 seasons? I don't think so, but I doubt the Flames will make a move.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

To not get Gaudreau to a contract extension before his NTC kicked-in (to not have one worked out and agreed upon, ready to sign), was a mistake. Sure, Gaudreau's value was lower then than it is today, but Calgary got zero today. How much last off-season? A 1st? 1st + prospect? Imagine having another Pelletier, or another Coronato in the system.

And all at the price of having a bubble team for a year, instead of the best season the franchise has had in nearly two decades.

I swear, Calgary seems to be full of fans who think the object of hockey is to collect all the trading cards, and the actual games are only a distraction.

That's the issue for me. You are the GM of Calgary - a franchise that does not attract the top talent as UFAs. You can't risk losing your elite player for nothing when you have a hard time to find elite player willing to sign without a substantial overpay.

Every player goes to UFA sooner or later. If GMs routinely tried to trade them all ahead of time, nobody would be buying and you would get nothing for them.

Some poster or other (it's been a long day) said you should never let players go to UFA, because even a kid playing NHL 22 knows that. Well, this isn't NHL 22. Your particular favourite team isn't the only one run by a human being, and the other 31 teams are not run by a poorly coded AI that is not only stupid, but stupid in predictable and exploitable ways. A game will pay to take your garbage off your hands if it's programmed to do so. Human beings won't, because they don't want garbage any more than you do.

People keep saying that Gaudreau wasn't worth keeping, and then turn around and say that some other team would have given up a big pile of assets to acquire him. The sheer illogic makes my head hurt.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

...The one time he actually tried to cut bait on a player, he got Lindholm and Hanifin, so you’d think he’d see the value in selling some pieces while they have surplus value around the league...

Maybe the nugget of truth in here will help you to realise that you do not understand the business of hockey nearly as well as you think you do.

But, probably not.

[bubbsy]

I can't be upset with treliving or the flames (or gaudreau), it wasn't going to be.

That being said, the next steps the team makes will be crucial. Trying to find a stop gap to fill gaudreau's shoes will be a major disappointment in my opinion.

I would love to see the flames try to move some guys out and maximize the asset return for a change

[flames_fan_down_under]

I don't really see what BT could have done differently in this case. He got pretty great value for Gaudreau for his first 8 years. He tried to nail a deal down in the previous off-season, got close, likely Gaudreau didn't want to make the difficult decision and postponed it to the following off-season. Gaudreau likely really wanted to stay, otherwise I don't see why he would have dragged it out this long, he obviously battled with the decision and landed with his choice. It was JG's choice to make, all BT could have done is made their best offer which apparently he did.

[Goriders]

Quite a gut punch for sure. But I guess we wait and see what plan B is.

Depth scoring with a bigger tougher lineup might be a better playoff recipe.

Either way still a kick in the nuts. Guessing Zadorov will be gone too as that is his M.O.

[Monahammer]

I got full view of plan a. No confidence at all that plan b will be successful. When they made the first presentation to Johnny he wasn't even in the room, they came in too low, and they focused on legacy instead of convincing Johnny they were building a better team. Bull####. Firing time.

[Aarongavey]

Brad’s fans will be doing double time today. But calm and steady and staying with Brad always wins the day. Blame Murray, it is his fault. Tod Button blew this past draft, maybe it is his fault. Who hired all those coaches over the past 8 years, blame that guy. But not Brad. Guy absolutely has to go. Even Feaster would not let a stud like Johnny go for nothing.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe the nugget of truth in here will help you to realise that you do not understand the business of hockey nearly as well as you think you do.

But, probably not.

Please explain the business of hockey to us losers oh guru

[Joborule]

Treliving is building a legacy of wasting high quality assets with nothing to show for it. That includes players and early draft picks.

Is Tkachuck next? Without Johnny, I'm not sure a slow skating winger should be the centerpiece of your roster.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Is it time to fire Brad Treliving? Try and remove the emotion of the past week's events and try and consider that question the way evaluations take place. Evaluating an executive officer is not done with an eye on any single event, unless completely egregious in action. Evaluating the performance of these guys is based on a longitudinal evaluation and weighed against organizational goals. The most import questions to ask are; has the organization achieved goals set over the years?; has the organization improved from when the individual started?; is the organization positioned to achieve success in the future based on the moves of this individual? These determine if the guy is earning his keep, and whether he should be keeping his job.

The most important thing to consider is the overall health of the organization. Is the team prepared for the future? Has the GM made the right moves to fortify the team and make it better year-to-year? I contend that you have to look at the system holistically and make that determination, not focus on the results of one measure.

What does the cap situation look like? Was it managed well? Is it well balanced? Have we overpaid too many players? Do we have key players under long-term contracts or are we facing flight risks? Can we move players for value? Are we going to lose players for nothing, and how important are those players to the team's success (huge measure here)?

How does the development system look? Do we have enough quality prospects in the pipeline that can replace players as they move on from the NHL team or out of the system? Have holes in the system been properly addressed? Do we have organizational depth at all positions? Are we properly developing talent in the minors to fill gaps on the roster?

How is asset management working out (another big measure)? Are we staying on the positive side of managing our assets? Are we in a position where we are able to make deals without carving big holes in the system? Are our assets even of interest to other teams if we try to make deals?

How is confidence in the team by the people that matter the most? The paying customers - the fans.

By these measures, yes, it's time to Fire Brad Treliving.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Brad’s fans will be doing double time today. But calm and steady and staying with Brad always wins the day. Blame Murray, it is his fault. Tod Button blew this past draft, maybe it is his fault. Who hired all those coaches over the past 8 years, blame that guy. But not Brad. Guy absolutely has to go. Even Feaster would not let a stud like Johnny go for nothing.

Every Gm in the league would do the same. A contending team doesn't dump their star player. Doesn't throw them under the bus or use an arbitrary deadline, but instead works through the 11th hour to try to get a deal done.

Lots of reasons to dislike Treliving, lots of reasons to try a different guy, but this is not one.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Every Gm in the league would do the same. A contending team doesn't dump their star player. Doesn't throw them under the bus or use an arbitrary deadline, but instead works through the 11th hour to try to get a deal done.

Lots of reasons to dislike Treliving, lots of reasons to try a different guy, but this is not one.

Most GM’s get their studs locked up the summer before the final year of the contract. That is why it is so rare to have a Gaudreau or Panarin situation.

[Angelino]

Treliving has had enough time as GM. Time for the organization to move on. I don’t think he will be fired since “nothing is his fault”. Zero confidence he can lead a rebuild. Great regular season last year but Calgary will be what Treliving makes them to be, an NHL afterthought.

We do have cool jerseys though!

[Jason14h]

Look at St.L locking up Thomas for 8 years at high dollars. If he regresses they have a Monahan on their hands for the end of the contract which is always a risk, but he won't hit UFA until his 13th season at age 31.

This seems to be an overwhelming trend in the NHL to take the long term risk with guaranteeing you fully control your team/assets

Flames went another way. And it's looks to have bitten us in the rear, twice

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CGY12

Yes it does. I don't understand the love for this guy. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like he hasn't done some good, but results matter and as the 6th longest tenured GM in the league he's produced little. Now the org and the fan based are backed into a corner because of his handling of Johnny, this combined with his results, it is certainly the cherry on top to move on IMO.

His handling? He made a good offer last summer and Gaudreau didn’t want to negotiate a new contract given his mediocre numbers. After that they had a great season and Treliving made a huge offer which will be more money than any other team can match. Gaudreau decided to go play out east and save travel time and be close to relatives.

People who say he should have locked him up are forgetting basic contract principles. You need two willing parties, not just one.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Look at St.L locking up Thomas for 8 years at high dollars. If he regresses they have a Monahan on their hands for the end of the contract which is always a risk, but he won't hit UFA until his 13th season at age 31.

This seems to be an overwhelming trend in the NHL to take the long term risk with guaranteeing you fully control your team/assets

Flames went another way. And it's looks to have bitten us in the rear, twice

This isn’t entirely true
There are several examples of high end players now getting both very high AAV and a short run way to ufa status
It uses to be you get one or the other
Now top players are getting both