According to Coleman, Tkachuk wanted to stay

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That wasn't their only problem.

Button lost Phil Housley on waivers because he was stupid enough to pick up a $2.5-million defenceman who couldn't play. He traded Giguere because he was afraid the fans wouldn't let him risk losing Fred Brathwaite in an expansion draft. He gave away Marc Savard because he preferred to keep the coach instead of the player, and then fired the coach anyway. Those decisions were not motivated by a lack of cash.

Likewise, Risebrough didn't personally piss off Doug Gilmour to the point of quitting the team because his budget was too small. Nor did he manage to lose all four of his team's regular centres in one off-season because he had no money to keep any of them. He didn't trade Gilmour (plus four other good players) for Gary Leeman (plus four other bad players) to save money. And while he slightly repaired the damage from that trade by swapping Leeman for Brian Skrudland, it was his own stupidity that led him to expose Skrudland in an expansion draft, thinking that someone who had just spent tens of millions for an expansion team would balk at paying $700,000 for a top defensive forward.

Treliving made plenty of dumb moves, but he also made a lot of really good moves. Like most GMs, he couldn't figure out how to turn a promising team into a genuine contender. That doesn't even put him in the conversation for worst GM in franchise history.

Don't forget buying out Martin St. Louis!

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People seem to be underestimating how much continuity there is between management regimes in Calgary. Running a team in the modern NHL isn’t a one-man show. It’s a collaboration of 6-9 people. Owner, president, head of hockey operations, GM, assistant GMs, head of scouting, cap guy, analytics guys, etc. They all have their say in every important decision.

Most of the guys who were sitting around that table during Treliving’s tenure are still there. Edwards, Maloney, Pascall, Conroy, etc. The biggest difference between the management under Treliving and under Conroy is that Conroy has been given a green light to re-tool/set/build. He has a different strategic direction than Treliving had. And he didn’t make that call on his own.

While it is (supposed to be) a collaboration, by all reports Treliving often did go into silos and make calls on his own. Just the fact that's no longer happening is a plus.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Peters was good for 3/4 of a season, didn't have the Flames playing well entering the playoffs, and then a young and 'relatively' inexperienced Bednar absolutely schooled Peters. The next season, there was a lot of noise about firing Peters, until his past finally caught up with him and he was axed (or paid to go away).

Treliving screwed up when he hired Gulutzan. I wonder what one more year of Hartley would have done for a guy like Bennett, for instance, but I will believe Treliving that the team couldn't do another year of him.

Obviously Peters was a mistake as well, due to the playoffs (and of course, his past). I do remember at the time of hiring, there was some noise coming out how one of the owners wanted Sutter. Treliving got his guy in Peters though.

I will also believe Treliving wanted Sutter before he replaced Peters with Ward, but that Sutter wasn't interested at the time. Why would Treliving lie about that?

I can see why Treliving and Sutter butted heads, just like it was easy to see why Darryl and Brent butted heads from the 2010 season onwards. It happens when there is a lack of success.

Treliving is still by far not the worst GM Calgary has ever seen, but I also think he is overrated by many here as well. He is so polarizing. I just think I would plop him in the middle somewhere. This is my ranking:

Fletcher - Stanley Cup finals + Stanley Cup
Sutter - Stanley Cup finals (and it was in!)
Coates - took over at a difficult time and made the most of it, including Iginla!
Treliving - did fine - but I would argue that he will be forgettable over time
Button - brought in some key pieces for the 2004 run, but also made some disastrous trades
Feaster - turned the Flames into a laughing stock
Riseborough - sure, tough environment at the time when he took over, but boy was he bad

Conroy was only one year so it is unfair to judge him. Burke was really only here for 6 months as an acting GM. Maloney was acting GM for 1 month.

Maybe people will rank them differently, and that's fine. I am most concerned with playoff success, or notable achievements. Coates goes higher than Treliving for me because he had to manage during the worst period for Canadian franchises, while also doing a pretty good job at it in bringing his "little bit for today, a little bit for tomorrow" trades that seemed to really work out. I won't argue if people see Treliving higher than Coates. Treliving gets lowered in my mind because he had the benefit of a salary cap, but still wasn't much success, and I think he turned this organization into something of a laughing stock in the last year with everyone wanting to leave suddenly, including a star walking for nothing.

[dissentowner]

In no universe was Jay Feaster worse than Craig Button. You could make argument for Riser but I would still say Button was worse. His idiocy set the club back for years.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Don't forget buying out Martin St. Louis!

He didn't buy out Martin St. Louis, he just wasn't offered a contract when his ended.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by jayswin

He didn't buy out Martin St. Louis, he just wasn't offered a contract when his ended.

The Flames exposed him in the 2000 NHL Expansion Draft, but after he went unselected, the team bought out his contract and made him an unrestricted free agent.[6]

That is according to wikipedia and saw that he was released on other websites also.

[jayswin]

Weird, I remember it just being a non contract offer rather than a buy out.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Funny, I thought this was before buyouts were a thing and he was simply released.

https://calgaryherald.com/sports/hoc...ay-from-flames

[CalgaryFan1988]

Curtis Brown holds the distinction of being the first NHL player bought out of his contract. Brown signed a four-year free agent contract with the @Chicago Blackhawks on July 2nd, 2004.

edit: I was wrong

[redmile04]

hmmm

He re-joined the NHL Flames part way through the 1999-2000 season and picked up three goals and 18 points in 56 games but the team bought out his contract at the end of that season, making him an unrestricted free agent.

https://www.hhof.com/induction_archi...8StLouis.shtml

[Jason14h]

Buyouts as they now exist are a CBA negotiated formula because of cap implications

Prior to the cap, a buyout was simply paying someone money to release both parties from their contract

So "releasing" Martin St.L would require the team to still pay him. However, you could negotiate to pay him some of the remaining contract for him to release the Flames from their contractual obligation

They could also had bought him out for the full value of the contract - hence "released"

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Buyouts as they now exist are a CBA negotiated formula because of cap implications

Prior to the cap, a buyout was simply paying someone money to release both parties from their contract

So "releasing" Martin St.L would require the team to still pay him. However, you could negotiate to pay him some of the remaining contract for him to release the Flames from their contractual obligation

They could also had bought him out for the full value of the contract - hence "released"

Thanks. I thought you could cut a player that wasn't living up to his contract prior to the lockout. I'm getting old and forgetful.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Peters was a good coach. He coached Gio to a Norris and got career years out of Tkachuk, Lindholm, Johnny and Monny.

The issue was the team was not prepared for the Avs and Makar obviously. They got steam rolled, but it was still a close series in the end. A glove save away from a 2-0 series lead going to Colorado.

The issue became that series made Peters and Treliving panic, and change how we play. A lot of the strong metrics the team had under Sutter in 2022 they had that under Peters just not the goaltending.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Peters was a good coach. He coached Gio to a Norris and got career years out of Tkachuk, Lindholm, Johnny and Monny. .

That was Sutter

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by BigThief

That was Sutter

They all had career years that year under Peters, some significant point increases.

The fact the team won 50 games with Mike Smith and his below .900 save % was something.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They got steam rolled, but it was still a close series in the end.

Was it close though? We lost 6-2 and 5-1 and the 3-2 OTL in Game 4, we were outshot 52-37

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They all had career years that year under Peters, some significant point increases.

The fact the team won 50 games with Mike Smith and his below .900 save % was something.

As big Thief said, Sutter was the coach that led them to the career years.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by redmile04

As big Thief said, Sutter was the coach that led them to the career years.

Yes they had better seasons after, but up until that point they all had their best seasons that year and most of them fell of a cliff after that year until Sutter came.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The issue became that series made Peters and Treliving panic, and change how we play. A lot of the strong metrics the team had under Sutter in 2022 they had that under Peters just not the goaltending.

Some years ago, I read a splendid article on ‘Over-controlling a Process’. It takes the research of W. Edward Deming on the subject and describes it for laypeople. You can find it posted here:

https://www.spcforexcel.com/knowledg...el-experiment/

Here's the money quote from Deming:

Originally Posted by W. Edward Deming

If anyone adjusts a stable process for a result that is undesirable, or for a result that is extra good, the output that follows will be worse than if he had left the process alone.

The article shows four patterns that can result from repeatedly adjusting a process in response to (noisy or random) short-term variations. Pattern #3 produces a series of violent pendulum swings, increasing in amplitude as time goes on. This pattern neatly describes the results the Flames get when they keep replacing coaches.

Pattern:

1. The team is playing loosey-goosey. Fans and media talk about a ‘country club’. Players get to pad their stats, but defence suffers and so do overall results. (Some of this is due to random variation, but management can't tell how much and the pundits aren't even interested.)

2. The team says, ‘We need a hard-ass coach who will drill some defensive discipline into these guys.’ They hire such a coach.

3. The pendulum swings to the opposite end. Goals against go down, but scoring suffers, and results are still suboptimal. The strict defensive system is extremely demanding, physically and mentally. Players are exhausted by the end of the season and have no extra gear left for the playoffs. The first year they go along with it, but at some point it stops working as well (random variation again). Not seeing the results for so much hard work, they rebel against the coach who forced them to play this way.

4. The team says, ‘We need a players' coach who won't stifle our talented players.’ They hire such a coach.

5. The pendulum swings right back to the first extreme, and the cycle repeats.

Every time they hire a coach and implement a system, they are less concerned with getting it right, and more concerned with avoiding the particular mistake they made last time. They focus on hiring a coach who is sharply different from the last guy, when they should focus on just hiring a good coach.

One good thing about the Huska hire is that they didn't really get a chance to do that. I don't think there was any chance of hiring an established coach, because ownership was tired of paying big money to coaches who had already been fired. So they went with what they had – and that helped to stop the pendulum and break the cycle. Huska doesn't have a mandate to coach in a particular way; he just has to do the best he can. This is progress.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Some years ago, I read a splendid article on ‘Over-controlling a Process’. It takes the research of W. Edward Deming on the subject and describes it for laypeople. You can find it posted here:

https://www.spcforexcel.com/knowledg...el-experiment/

Here's the money quote from Deming:



The article shows four patterns that can result from repeatedly adjusting a process in response to (noisy or random) short-term variations. Pattern #3 produces a series of violent pendulum swings, increasing in amplitude as time goes on. This pattern neatly describes the results the Flames get when they keep replacing coaches.

Pattern:

1. The team is playing loosey-goosey. Fans and media talk about a ‘country club’. Players get to pad their stats, but defence suffers and so do overall results. (Some of this is due to random variation, but management can't tell how much and the pundits aren't even interested.)

2. The team says, ‘We need a hard-ass coach who will drill some defensive discipline into these guys.’ They hire such a coach.

3. The pendulum swings to the opposite end. Goals against go down, but scoring suffers, and results are still suboptimal. The strict defensive system is extremely demanding, physically and mentally. Players are exhausted by the end of the season and have no extra gear left for the playoffs. The first year they go along with it, but at some point it stops working as well (random variation again). Not seeing the results for so much hard work, they rebel against the coach who forced them to play this way.

4. The team says, ‘We need a players' coach who won't stifle our talented players.’ They hire such a coach.

5. The pendulum swings right back to the first extreme, and the cycle repeats.

Every time they hire a coach and implement a system, they are less concerned with getting it right, and more concerned with avoiding the particular mistake they made last time. They focus on hiring a coach who is sharply different from the last guy, when they should focus on just hiring a good coach.

One good thing about the Huska hire is that they didn't really get a chance to do that. I don't think there was any chance of hiring an established coach, because ownership was tired of paying big money to coaches who had already been fired. So they went with what they had – and that helped to stop the pendulum and break the cycle. Huska doesn't have a mandate to coach in a particular way; he just has to do the best he can. This is progress.

Huska seems alright. Good coaches adapt to their roster as well, not force a system on a roster. If you have skilled players let them make plays, but if they turn it over have that trust that they will be battle hard to get the puck back.

Only thing that worries me is did he stifle Savard and the offensive scheme. Everything he talked about we didn't do, and some of that comes down to the players we had/have.