[Trade] Markstrom (31.25% retained) traded to NJ for 2025 1st (top 10 protected) and Bahl

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Sheldon Kennedy, Todd Holt, Greg Gilhooly and probably others were assaulted by James and seemingly aren't bat##### crazy, Fleury made the whole case about him.

Tell me you know nothing about sexual abuse without telling me you know nothing about sexual abuse.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The difference is Fuhr has always been an ambassador for the Oilers and the league, all around nice human being and used his addiction to teach kids the dangers of drugs and still does.

With Fleury it's always the poor me, dissing the Flames and the league, crazy conspiracy crap and all around bad human being.

Yeah, the guy has literally saved people's lives by helping them out who have suffered from sexual abuse, what a terrible human being!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yeah, the guy has literally saved people's lives by helping them out who have suffered from sexual abuse, what a terrible human being!

But he said things online that people don't like! He's a monster!

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

When Brouwer signed he had never had a season with more than 43 points .

Amonte was coming off a season of 53 points.
Bertuzzi was coming off a season of 40 points
Morrison was coming off a season of 42 points.

If Brouwer was a high profile signing then all of those guys were as well. They were all equal or better players than Brouwer at the time of the signing.

Amonte and Morrison were 35 when they signed here - they were clearly at retirement age. Those two were also purely offensive guys, unlike Brouwer, so you can't just compare points. Neal and Brouwer were signed when they were 31 and should have been in their prime, although technically on the downswing of their prime. We signed Bertuzzi when he was 33 but given what he did and went through, he might as well have been 50. The guy was cooked.

Brouwer was not as high profile as Neal at the time but still more than those other guys.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Name me a GM, or any human being, who made his decisions in the moment with the benefit of hindsight.

It is not ‘excuses’ to point out that Treliving did not know in advance which players would be injured, which players would suddenly lose their touch, or which players would fail to pan out at all.

It’s literally his job to “know” - or at least evaluate and predict .

If it isn’t BTs fault for bringing in players who lose their touch or don’t pan out …. Who’s is it ?

BT is a GM of a NHL team that won 1 playoff round in his tenure and was left in a very bad spot . His tenure here was a complete failure

Any “reasoning “ for why it is a failure is 100% an excuse

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It’s literally his job to “know” - or at least evaluate and predict .

If it isn’t BTs fault for bringing in players who lose their touch or don’t pan out …. Who’s is it ?

BT is a GM of a NHL team that won 1 playoff round in his tenure and was left in a very bad spot . His tenure here was a complete failure

Any “reasoning “ for why it is a failure is 100% an excuse

Well Brad won two playoff series, he won with the team that Feaster left him. That was not an option really for Conroy this season.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It’s literally his job to “know” - or at least evaluate and predict .

If it isn’t BTs fault for bringing in players who lose their touch or don’t pan out …. Who’s is it ?

BT is a GM of a NHL team that won 1 playoff round in his tenure and was left in a very bad spot . His tenure here was a complete failure

Any “reasoning “ for why it is a failure is 100% an excuse

No this is absurd. Sure you can evaluate and predict but how the heck is anyone supposed to "know" or even "predict" that Huberdeau was going to turn into a pumpkin? Like do we know right now how Brzustewicz or the 29OA pick will turn out? And without knowing that, how can we truly know that Conroy made a good trade in dealing Lindholm? Yet it's fairly accepted that it was a great trade.

As to you second point/sentence, sometimes it's not anyone's fault. You do what you can given the information you have at the time and leave everything else to chance. Sometimes things don't work out. There are so many things that are out of our control. I see all the time people trying to assign blame whenever things don't go our way. My food is cold - it's the server's fault. My house purchase didn't close - it's my bank's fault. My marriage is broken - it's my wife's fault. I fell down rhe stairs - it's the architect's fault. The funny (and sad) thing is people will read that and completely agree it was their wife's fault, or their bank's fault, etc. Truth is, the only fault we have is our incessant need to assign fault to something much more complicated and nuanced. That's not an excuse.

Edit: I'm not absolving Tre of all fault. He did make many bad decisions - like I said, just as an example, the Hamonic trade was bad from the moment it was made an he should have used way better judgment. But in the end, I think Tre made some fairly shrewd moves and as a whole, made more good moves than bad.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

No this is absurd. Sure you can evaluate and predict but how the heck is anyone supposed to "know" or even "predict" that Huberdeau was going to turn into a pumpkin? Like do we know right now how Brzustewicz or the 29OA pick will turn out? And without knowing that, how can we truly know that Conroy made a good trade in dealing Lindholm? Yet it's fairly accepted that it was a great trade.

As to you second point/sentence, sometimes it's not anyone's fault. You do what you can given the information you have at the time and leave everything else to chance. Sometimes things don't work out. There are so many things that are out of our control. I see all the time people trying to assign blame whenever things don't go our way. My food is cold - it's the server's fault. My house purchase didn't close - it's my bank's fault. My marriage is broken - it's my wife's fault. I fell down rhe stairs - it's the architect's fault. The funny (and sad) thing is people will read that and completely agree it was their wife's fault, or their bank's fault, etc. Truth is, the only fault we have is our incessant need to assign fault to something much more complicated and nuanced. That's not an excuse.

Edit: I'm not absolving Tre of all fault. He did make many bad decisions - like I said, just as an example, the Hamonic trade was bad from the moment it was made an he should have used way better judgment. But in the end, I think Tre made some fairly shrewd moves and as a whole, made more good moves than bad.

It did not take a rocket scientist to see that Brad’s addiction to trading first three round picks was not going to work out.

2015 - Calgary’s first and second.
2016 - Calgary’s second.
2017 - Calgary’s second and third round picks
2018 - Calgary’s first round pick, Calgary’s 2nd round pick, Calgary’s third round pick
2019 - Calgary’s 2nd round pick
2020 - Calgary’s 3rd round pick
2021 - none moved (presumably because COVID made it harder that year to fire sale picks in trades for bodies
2022 - 1st round pick, 3rd round pick

Out of 27 picks in the first 3 rounds he traded 12 (44.4%). And that included a year where almost no trades were made for bodies during the season otherwise it may have been higher. I suspect we may never see again a GM trade that high of a percentage of their picks in the first 3 rounds over a 9 year period, likely a record that will never be broken.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It’s literally his job to “know” - or at least evaluate and predict .

Evaluations aren't perfect. Predictions are usually wrong – his, mine, yours, everybody's. Blaming him for getting his predictions wrong is stupid.

If it isn’t BTs fault for bringing in players who lose their touch or don’t pan out …. Who’s is it ?

Nobody's. The future is unpredictable. Not everything has to be somebody's fault, and where there is fault, it doesn't always have to be just one person.

Huberdeau had the biggest drop in point production from season to season in NHL history. How was anybody supposed to predict something that had literally never happened before? Yet you blame Treliving entirely for this (and I notice that leaves no blame at all for the player himself).

BT is a GM of a NHL team that won 1 playoff round in his tenure and was left in a very bad spot . His tenure here was a complete failure

Tell that to the Leafs, who have won a total of one playoff round in the salary cap era.

Any “reasoning “ for why it is a failure is 100% an excuse

No.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It did not take a rocket scientist to see that Brad’s addiction to trading first three round picks was not going to work out.

2015 - Calgary’s first and second.
2016 - Calgary’s second.
2017 - Calgary’s second and third round picks
2018 - Calgary’s first round pick, Calgary’s 2nd round pick, Calgary’s third round pick
2019 - Calgary’s 2nd round pick
2020 - Calgary’s 3rd round pick
2021 - none moved (presumably because COVID made it harder that year to fire sale picks in trades for bodies
2022 - 1st round pick, 3rd round pick

Out of 27 picks in the first 3 rounds he traded 12 (44.4%). And that included a year where almost no trades were made for bodies during the season otherwise it may have been higher. I suspect we may never see again a GM trade that high of a percentage of their picks in the first 3 rounds over a 9 year period, likely a record that will never be broken.

Competing teams trade picks. Rebuilding teams acquire picks. That's not rocket science either. We were in a stage under Tre where we were trying to compete, whether through ownership mandate or through Tre's own. Look at Tampa's pick situation (on capfriendly while you still can haha). Look at Boston, Vegas, Dallas, Toronto. Some of those teams won cups by trading picks. Most of them didn't. That's chance, but they all traded picks.

We traded a 1st for Toffoli at a time when we were clearly looking at making a run. It was a pretty decent trade that helped with one of the best runs we had in the Tkachuk/Gaudreau era. Going further back, we traded picks to get Hamilton. The Hamilton trade tree in it's entirety actually looks very good for us today. But you've lumped those trades under the notion that we were wasting picks.

Trading 1sts will always look good when you win a cup and will a lot of the times look bad when you don't, but you always have to pay the price of admission to have a chance.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Tell that to the Leafs, who have won a total of one playoff round in the salary cap era.

Amazing

So Tre isn’t actually a downgrade for them lol

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

I bet Treliving put out lot of those rumors to put the blames on the ownership

Dude had free range and messed up royally but there are people refusing it’s his faults

What did this guy do to you and your family.

Becoming a little irrational don't you think?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Competing teams trade picks. Rebuilding teams acquire picks. That's not rocket science either. We were in a stage under Tre where we were trying to compete, whether through ownership mandate or through Tre's own. Look at Tampa's pick situation (on capfriendly while you still can haha). Look at Boston, Vegas, Dallas, Toronto. Some of those teams won cups by trading picks. Most of them didn't. That's chance, but they all traded picks.

We traded a 1st for Toffoli at a time when we were clearly looking at making a run. It was a pretty decent trade that helped with one of the best runs we had in the Tkachuk/Gaudreau era. Going further back, we traded picks to get Hamilton. The Hamilton trade tree in it's entirety actually looks very good for us today. But you've lumped those trades under the notion that we were wasting picks.

Trading 1sts will always look good when you win a cup and will a lot of the times look bad when you don't, but you always have to pay the price of admission to have a chance.

Let’s look at Tampa’s situation (because like the Flames some would say they were a competing team between 2015-22). They traded 8 picks in the first 3 rounds over that period of time. Tampa is a little different too because during that time they traded players for first rounders as well (got a first for JT Miller). Brad never did that, it was just a constant exodus of picks.

So to compare, two competitive teams between 15-22, the Tampa Bay Lightning who made 4 Cup Finals in that period of time, 6 Conference Finals in that period of time and the Calgary Flames under Brad Treliving who participated in the NHL.

Tampa - traded 8 picks out of the first three rounds to compete

Calgary - traded 12 picks out of the first three rounds to compete. I actually did the math wrong in my first post, it was half of the picks (50%) that Brad traded out not 44%.

My point is that Brad had a unique approach, one almost never taken in the NHL and likely to be never taken again where he took a burn the boats approach to future assets every year and traded out picks virtually every year. My comment is not about whether it looks good or not, just that the Flames did it every single year and did more of it than any team in NHL history over a 8 year period.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Evaluations aren't perfect. Predictions are usually wrong – his, mine, yours, everybody's. Blaming him for getting his predictions wrong is stupid.



Nobody's. The future is unpredictable. Not everything has to be somebody's fault, and where there is fault, it doesn't always have to be just one person.

Huberdeau had the biggest drop in point production from season to season in NHL history. How was anybody supposed to predict something that had literally never happened before? Yet you blame Treliving entirely for this (and I notice that leaves no blame at all for the player himself).



Tell that to the Leafs, who have won a total of one playoff round in the salary cap era.



No.

I disagree.



You and I building a team? Sure, we can raise your hands up and proclaim this as impossible to guess the future.


Treliving (or any other GM)? Absolutely not an excuse here. They hire assistant GMs, pro scouts, analytic teams to find these answers. They can make calls and get at information that we can't have - background checks, word of mouth, rumours, etc., that we in the public don't really have access to either. They have years of hands-on experience and training (usually), have almost always have been devoting their entire career to the game.


They are paid to make the best decisions possible. When they don't, the team isn't successful, and they eventually get fired. When the team is successful, they get lavish praise. That's how it works.


Treliving did good things and bad things. However, not being able to judge his body of work because of attributing his failures (or successes) to just luck or 'the future is always unknown' is not a reasonable ground to stand on.



So no, it is not stupid to criticize Treliving. it is stupid to make things up about the man, with the intent of making him look worse than he was, and it is as stupid in my opinion to pass the buck somewhere else and claim he failed because of matters not of his control. He was the GM for many years. He hired his staff. He drafted/signed/re-signed/traded for the players. Of course we can go back and review his body of work, and assign a grade.



Saying that we can't judge Treliving because he can't predict the future would then blanket-cover every other GM in the game, and in the history of the game. I guess I can't arrive at the conclusion that Cliff Fletcher wast he greatest GM that the Flames have had, nor can I think that Doug Riseborough was the worst.


It is not stupid to criticize a GM, a coach, a player, or whomever, at least when there is a body of work to base it on. Yes, if there is no information on what someone does, then I would 100% agree with your take. I think it is very damn hard to grade Sigalet, at least when he was the goalie coach only, because we have no idea if he was a poor goalie coach, or if the Flames didn't trade for good goalies, or what the deal really was. However, it is easy to assign the blame for poor goalies to Treliving, because he either hired the wrong goalie coach, or didn't acquire the right goalies, or both.



We can't just dismiss criticism. We can argue about it being fair or unfair at times, given the extremes that people defend or attack Treliving with.



I base my opinion of him purely on the bottom line of playoff success. There was very little to speak of, so personally I am very glad that he is gone and wanted him gone for a number of years because of that. To say that I can't think poorly of Treliving because he couldn't predict the future is not an argument.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I disagree.



You and I building a team? Sure, we can raise your hands up and proclaim this as impossible to guess the future.


Treliving (or any other GM)? Absolutely not an excuse here. They hire assistant GMs, pro scouts, analytic teams to find these answers. They can make calls and get at information that we can't have - background checks, word of mouth, rumours, etc., that we in the public don't really have access to either. They have years of hands-on experience and training (usually), have almost always have been devoting their entire career to the game.


They are paid to make the best decisions possible. When they don't, the team isn't successful, and they eventually get fired. When the team is successful, they get lavish praise. That's how it works.


Treliving did good things and bad things. However, not being able to judge his body of work because of attributing his failures (or successes) to just luck or 'the future is always unknown' is not a reasonable ground to stand on.



So no, it is not stupid to criticize Treliving. it is stupid to make things up about the man, with the intent of making him look worse than he was, and it is as stupid in my opinion to pass the buck somewhere else and claim he failed because of matters not of his control. He was the GM for many years. He hired his staff. He drafted/signed/re-signed/traded for the players. Of course we can go back and review his body of work, and assign a grade.



Saying that we can't judge Treliving because he can't predict the future would then blanket-cover every other GM in the game, and in the history of the game. I guess I can't arrive at the conclusion that Cliff Fletcher wast he greatest GM that the Flames have had, nor can I think that Doug Riseborough was the worst.


It is not stupid to criticize a GM, a coach, a player, or whomever, at least when there is a body of work to base it on. Yes, if there is no information on what someone does, then I would 100% agree with your take. I think it is very damn hard to grade Sigalet, at least when he was the goalie coach only, because we have no idea if he was a poor goalie coach, or if the Flames didn't trade for good goalies, or what the deal really was. However, it is easy to assign the blame for poor goalies to Treliving, because he either hired the wrong goalie coach, or didn't acquire the right goalies, or both.



We can't just dismiss criticism. We can argue about it being fair or unfair at times, given the extremes that people defend or attack Treliving with.



I base my opinion of him purely on the bottom line of playoff success. There was very little to speak of, so personally I am very glad that he is gone and wanted him gone for a number of years because of that. To say that I can't think poorly of Treliving because he couldn't predict the future is not an argument.

I just hope that for every GM hiring in the future if the guy says he has a 9 year plan to trade half of the picks in the first 3 rounds for older assets that the Flames say "thanks but not thanks we tried that already". It was a unique approach but it did not work, I think it is best if the Flames do not do that again (and I doubt any other teams will ever try it).

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I just hope that for every GM hiring in the future if the guy says he has a 9 year plan to trade half of the picks in the first 3 rounds for older assets that the Flames say "thanks but not thanks we tried that already". It was a unique approach but it did not work, I think it is best if the Flames do not do that again (and I doubt any other teams will ever try it).

If you're going to deal picks, you should be dealing for top of the roster guys that as a result of landing on your team slot current players further down the lineup.

Colorado did this perfectly the year the won the Cup. Lehkkonen and Manson arrived and pushed guys out of their top 6 and into the bottom of the roster, making their team extremely deep, and it cost them the same amount of picks Treliving spent on Joel Edmundson and Lyubushkin this season.

Vegas did this as well by acquiring Hanifin and Hertl. It didn't work out for them this season but those players are there long term and they can try for multiple years with a talented top 6 forward and top 4 defensemen.

[Bonded]

The real turd sandwich that Treliving dropped was the Monahan and Kadri sequence.

[Ped]

So you take that time frame, and ignoring trading of guys after they were draft, and the Flames had 48 picks With no trades, they would have 56.


The Lightning, over the same time frame, had 61. The Leafs, who traded a lot of 1sts for failed playoff runs, had 60.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by saillias

It's not put to bed if you listen to the insiders. Seravalli picked a fight on Rusic and Rose over rebuilding just this past week. He is adamant it's not his opinion, it's the Flames - they don't believe in tanking and they want to try to win always.

How honest or realistic that is I'm not sure. It seems like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth a lot.

Well, if the goal is making the playoffs, then trading established players for picks and prospects deserves the low scores in The Athletic

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Competing teams trade picks. Rebuilding teams acquire picks. That's not rocket science either. We were in a stage under Tre where we were trying to compete, whether through ownership mandate or through Tre's own. Look at Tampa's pick situation (on capfriendly while you still can haha). Look at Boston, Vegas, Dallas, Toronto. Some of those teams won cups by trading picks. Most of them didn't. That's chance, but they all traded picks.

We traded a 1st for Toffoli at a time when we were clearly looking at making a run. It was a pretty decent trade that helped with one of the best runs we had in the Tkachuk/Gaudreau era. Going further back, we traded picks to get Hamilton. The Hamilton trade tree in it's entirety actually looks very good for us today. But you've lumped those trades under the notion that we were wasting picks.

Trading 1sts will always look good when you win a cup and will a lot of the times look bad when you don't, but you always have to pay the price of admission to have a chance.

As far as i was concerned they were a year minimum for being legit. Thats a failure in ownership and tre. 3/4 of the fan base would have nixed the hamonic trade without blinking twice.