[News] Flames and Treliving agree to part ways. Maloney promoted to PoHO and interim GM

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

^Again explain to me the Gio for nothing criticism.
Every team lost someone.
If they had traded Gio than another player, like Kylington, would have been picked.
I don't get that criticism.

For me it's the fact he was the captain and longest serving Flame.
I have a hard time believing the loyalty shown there and the lack of loyalty shown by players to the team are unrelated.

Losing Gio in itself was fine, but it set precedents about how connected the organization & its players are.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

So much praise for Treliving but he let Monohan( had to pay to get rid of him) GIO ( I know expansion draft but still) Brodie and Johnny hockey ...let go for nothing in return


I'd actually go as far to say if Feasters crew didn't go out and get JG and Vancouver didn't #### up and not take Tkachuk Brad would have been let go years ago.

Hea got a ok trade history. Lindholm hanifin in was ok...but the Hamonic trade was terrible....


Out side Frolik ( for a couple of good seasons and trevor lewis) his FA signings sucked.

Good riddance to bad milk.


If Feasters crew didn't snag Johnny and Vancouver didn't botch the Tkachuk pick. Treliving would not have looked so good. I believe he'd been gone years ago. He got lucky. He didn't do #### to get the best 2 players in a Flames uniform. He inherited on and another gm botched a pick. That's his only saving grace he has.

I was banging the drum to trade Brodie (and other guys before their final TDLs), but the bolded is such weird reasoning. You don't get nothing, you get a stretch run and hopefully a playoff run out of letting a player fulfill the entirety of their contract.

It's always nice to acquire assets, but the picks acquired at TDL rarely turn into foundational pieces.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I was banging the drum to trade Brodie (and other guys before their final TDLs), but the bolded is such weird reasoning. You don't get nothing, you get a stretch run and hopefully a playoff run out of letting a player fulfill the entirety of their contract.

It's always nice to acquire assets, but the picks acquired at TDL rarely turn into foundational pieces.

Treliving also wanted Brodie back and thought he would have time to get it done, but the Leafs moved too quickly. So the only complaint could be that Brodie was not high enough a priority - and getting a starting goalie shouldn't have been.

It's not like Brodie is an elite defenceman in Toronto anyway. He's largely doing the job he's paid to do - middle pairing, minutes eating. He's paid about what Tanev and Hanifin are, for roughly the same job. Treliving would have to have given him a million ro so more per year anyway.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you can insert any GM into the Flames and they will have the same issue.

If they're close they're not selling assets.

Now we heard they discussed moving assets at the deadline this year, but the price wasn't met. That could mean a change in thinking. Could also mean prices were set so high by Edwards that it was more than unlikely.

There were close teams that were honest and sold assets like the wild and prrds.

If the flames never want to rebuild they need to get much better at getting ahead of aging/deteriorating/leaving assets and selling high.

I dont think Tre did this very well.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

For me it's the fact he was the captain and longest serving Flame.
I have a hard time believing the loyalty shown there and the lack of loyalty shown by players to the team are unrelated.

Losing Gio in itself was fine, but it set precedents about how connected the organization & its players are.

Every team does this. The Blues just moved RoR their stanley cup winning champion.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by traptor

There were close teams that were honest and sold assets like the wild and prrds.

If the flames never want to rebuild they need to get much better at getting ahead of aging/deteriorating/leaving assets and selling high.

I dont think Tre did this very well.

You're missing my point.

Any GM in Calgary would likely do the same thing. Many hints that team ownership wants to make it bubble or not, and wouldn't move assets if they were close.

Anyone expecting that to change with a new GM will likely be disappointed.

But honestly hope I'm wrong!

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by traptor

There were close teams that were honest and sold assets like the wild and prrds.

If the flames never want to rebuild they need to get much better at getting ahead of aging/deteriorating/leaving assets and selling high.

I dont think Tre did this very well.

You’re assuming that was Treliving’s call.

I doubt, very much, Treliving was given license to sell. That’s an ownership decision. Clearly the Preds and others had that latitude.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Toonage

32 Thoughts Podcast

https://www.sportsnet.ca/podcasts/32-thoughts/

Looks like they start talking about this around the 50 minute mark...

Regarding the Bowman talk: The Commissioner's office must approve teams to talk to Bowman and Quenneville, and as of last Thursday, they have not granted any team permission to talk to either of them. Friedman expects that to change (or thinks it may have already changed over the weekend) and again says he heard Calgary and Pittsburgh were both interested in talking to Bowman, if Bettman grants them permission.


Onto the Flames: He has heard the Flames have begun interviewing GM candidates -- some with previous experience as NHL GMs, and some without. The team is trying to keep it quiet, but Elliotte speculates that Mark Hunter is on the radar. He has also heard multiple names of people who are currently working with teams who are still in the playoffs, like Tulsky, Peverley, and Botterill (although, these names sound like there is more general interest from many teams and not necessarily the Flames specifically).

Asked if Conroy is still among the top candidates, Friedman says he is until they decide otherwise.


----------

Basically, he says a lot but doesn't really say much. The way he talks about the Bowman situation sounds like it was fed to Elliotte by Bowman's camp more than anything concrete from the Flames.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

For me it's the fact he was the captain and longest serving Flame.
I have a hard time believing the loyalty shown there and the lack of loyalty shown by players to the team are unrelated.

Losing Gio in itself was fine, but it set precedents about how connected the organization & its players are.

Show me a top player that is loyal to his longstanding team when it comes to getting paid. Lou L was a top GM for his whole career. Tavares F'd off when he got a chance. Players almost always chase the dollars and when they don't it's because they think a handful of teams are contenders now, or they want to live on a beach. There may be some counterexamples but they are few and far between.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by traptor

Every team does this. The Blues just moved RoR their stanley cup winning champion.

That must be the worst possible comparable.
Trading your captain to a contender because you're rebuilding is nothing like giving him to an expansion team expected to be the worst team in the league, when your team is in your competitive window.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That must be the worst possible comparable.
Trading your captain to a contender because you're rebuilding is nothing like giving him to an expansion team expected to be the worst team in the league, when your team is in your competitive window.

Except Gio was that low on the depth charts legitimately. I'm not sure what the C has to do with it, really. There were really not a lot of options short of paying Seattle a lot of money to keep an expensive Gio for a single year.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're missing my point.

Any GM in Calgary would likely do the same thing. Many hints that team ownership wants to make it bubble or not, and wouldn't move assets if they were close.

Anyone expecting that to change with a new GM will likely be disappointed.

But honestly hope I'm wrong!

Originally Posted by TOfan

You’re assuming that was Treliving’s call.

I doubt, very much, Treliving was given license to sell. That’s an ownership decision. Clearly the Preds and others had that latitude.

Yeah I get what you guys are saying and I tend to agree. I really hope that's not the reality though.

If that's the case it doesn't matter what GM we bring in because they're just a puppet anyways.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That must be the worst possible comparable.
Trading your captain to a contender because you're rebuilding is nothing like giving him to an expansion team expected to be the worst team in the league, when your team is in your competitive window.

After VGK, was the expectation really for SEA to be terrible? Maybe after the draft and summer where SEA didn't manage to do much, but then again they are still playing now without too many changes.

Regardless, losing final year - the 38 year old year - of a 6 year contract in the ED is about as good of a scenario as you could ever hope for.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're missing my point.

Any GM in Calgary would likely do the same thing. Many hints that team ownership wants to make it bubble or not, and wouldn't move assets if they were close.

Anyone expecting that to change with a new GM will likely be disappointed.

But honestly hope I'm wrong!

Yeah...hearing more and more now that Treliving is gone that Edwards plays a way more active role with this team than I think most people believe.

One I heard this weekend that's still a bit unconfirmed was that Edwards was also the one that really pushed for James Neal when he went unsigned after day 1 of free agency in 2018.

Treliving was keeping some salary free for the deadline / Tkachuk extension but Edwards really liked Neal's play for Vegas that season and pushed Treliving to make it happen and get the deal done.

I honestly think when people like Bean say a re-build is not an option that's probably the truth. Edwards wants this team to push for the playoffs every season. And honestly Florida and Seattle both potentially going on runs is not going to help that mindset.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1655641166753435648

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

After VGK, was the expectation really for SEA to be terrible? Maybe after the draft and summer where SEA didn't manage to do much, but then again they are still playing now without too many changes.

Regardless, losing final year - the 38 year old year - of a 6 year contract in the ED is about as good of a scenario as you could ever hope for.

I think people did expect it moreso because they figured GMs felt foolish about Vegas and wouldn't pull stupid moves like Florida.

[FlamesAddiction]

Regarding how much Edwards sets the agenda, I think it's impossible to know exactly how active he. There is so much rumour, but very little to substantiate it. It often just come off as just giving Treliving a get out of jail free card for every mistake that is made for people were supportive of Treliving's reign.

We also don't know the context. For all we know, when Treliving was interviewed and hired, he may have sold Edwards on this very agenda, of never rebuilding, just try to make the playoffs and anything can happen. After years of sunk cost to build a team like that, the only direction was forward. Now that a new GM is coming in, that person may be able to sell a new agenda to Edwards.

I still think Bean's comment during the presser when he said that there was a "rebuilding" type of trade on the table, and that they were willing to take it. It sounds like Treliving did have a choice and chose to take the other deal. That suggests to me that the idea of rebuilding isn't as taboo as some think. I know Bean also said that he isn't allowed to say the word, but that sounded like a joke, considering that right after that, he said rebuilds are not always off the table.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except Gio was that low on the depth charts legitimately. I'm not sure what the C has to do with it, really. There were really not a lot of options short of paying Seattle a lot of money to keep an expensive Gio for a single year.

I don't have a problem that Gio was let go.
I'm only suggesting the optics of exposing the captain like that may have upset some people in the dressing room.

And there was not a lot of options because BT had backed himself into that corner, as he always seemed to do.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I don't have a problem that Gio was let go.
I'm only suggesting the optics of exposing the captain like that may have upset some people in the dressing room.

And there was not a lot of options because BT had backed himself into that corner, as he always seemed to do.

Backed himself into a corner how exactly? By having a super deep defence corps? Or are you saying they should have traded the captain earlier? But wasn't the point that captains are special and shouldn't be moved?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I don't have a problem that Gio was let go.
I'm only suggesting the optics of exposing the captain like that may have upset some people in the dressing room.

And there was not a lot of options because BT had backed himself into that corner, as he always seemed to do.

Can you outline what he should have done instead?