[News] Flames Management Want to Create a "Black & Blue" Team

[868904]

Originally Posted by activeStick

People say Treliving wanted a possession game and Hartley wanted dump and chase which I disagree with... I didn't see Monahan and Gaudreau dump it in too often because again, that's not their game. But if you're expecting Stajan or Bouma to play keep away instead of dump it and chase it, you're going to be disappointed.

Hartleys system wasn't dump and chase, there were two general breakouts:

1) wait for an opposition turnover in the defensive end and then attack the other way with numbers;
2) long stretch pass to cherry picking winger, who either made a play or deflected it into the other end.

It was a system that failed 5 of 6 pro seasons (4 in nhl and 2 in the ahl), and the one successful season has been described by many as a fluke.

I really don't know why this move is surprising to any Flames fan who has been paying attention. Hartley built up a lot of goodwill from last year and his witty quotes.

[Rick M.]

If by "black and blue hockey" Burke means players who can win puck battles, I'm all for it. It doesn't rule out skill.

[troutman]

Ok, photoshop artists - who can insert Flames faces in this?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by heep223

Dallas and Nashville are not 'black and blue'.

Nor is Chicago.

Nashville has 10 players playing more than 60 regular season games making 1 or more hits /game. They have 1 60 game player making less than .5 hits/game. They won first round over Ana who had 9 over 1 and 1 under .5

The more B&B team won

Dallas has 9 players playing more than 60 regular season games making 1 or more hits /game. They have 4 60 game player making less than .5 hits/game They won the first round over Minn who had 8 over 1 and 5 under .5

St.L has 9 players playing more than 60 regular season games making 1 or more hits /game. They have 3 60 game player making less than .5 hits/game They won the first round over Chi who had 5 over 1 and 5 under .5

SJ has 8 players playing more than 60 regular season games making 1 or more hits /game. They have 3 60 game player making less than .5 hits/game They won the first round over LA who had 12 over 1 and 0 under .5

----

In the west the 3 more black and Blue team won 3 out of 4 first round series. San Jose beat LA ... San Jose has 8 players with > 1.0 and 3 with less than .5.... so they are pretty B&B..

Chicago is indeed a soft team with 5 above and 5 below...

Vancouver is softest with 3 > 1 and 5 <.5

Flames and Oilers are 6 >1 and 3 < .5.. Hudler didn't make the cutoff 60 games for the Flames.... But neither did Bouma

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by 868904

Hartleys system wasn't dump and chase, there were two general breakouts:

1) wait for an opposition turnover in the defensive end and then attack the other way with numbers;
2) long stretch pass to cherry picking winger, who either made a play or deflected it into the other end.

It was a system that failed 5 of 6 pro seasons (4 in nhl and 2 in the ahl), and the one successful season has been described by many as a fluke.

I really don't know why this move is surprising to any Flames fan who has been paying attention. Hartley built up a lot of goodwill from last year and his witty quotes.

Hartley's systems had a lot of "dump" in them even though he preferred more controlled carry-ins. Specifically when we're talking about line changes he was old school. It was "dump and change" as I described it which got really frustrating at times. Treliving wants a team that gets the puck, and then holds on to it long enough to make a change with possession, like a Babcock team, over a team that "gets pucks deep", like a lot of old school coaches. It's a small difference that could go a long way, even if you kept Hartley's stretch pass system.

[MarkGio]

Another really concerning thing about Burke's interview was the organization hierarchy and structure. Burke said the Flames are slow to make decisions because there's so many owners he has to report to when it comes to making a decision such as a coaching firing.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Another really concerning thing about Burke's interview was the organization hierarchy and structure. Burke said the Flames are slow to make decisions because there's so many owners he has to report to when it comes to making a decision such as a coaching firing.

No idea where you heard this but its not at all what's true from what I understand.

How it works is the hockey ops department (B Burke, Treliving, Conroy, Pascall, M Burke, Snow) all debate the subject at hand (in this case the release of Hartley), they all get to make it known what they would prefer, then Treliving/Burke have an owners meeting at which time he/they make a recommendation and the owners either accept it or don't.

I have no knowledge of them ever rejecting what was proposed to them in terms of hockey decisions but it may have occurred.

This does all take time to co-ordinate and get a majority of owners in the room at the same point, but it really isn't all that unusual. Its also a product of the restructuring of hierarchy that occurred and started when Brian Burke was hired.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Hartley's systems had a lot of "dump" in them even though he preferred more controlled carry-ins. Specifically when we're talking about line changes he was old school. It was "dump and change" as I described it which got really frustrating at times. Treliving wants a team that gets the puck, and then holds on to it long enough to make a change with possession, like a Babcock team, over a team that "gets pucks deep", like a lot of old school coaches. It's a small difference that could go a long way, even if you kept Hartley's stretch pass system.

Zone entry rundown:

http://flamesnation.ca/2016/5/7/the-...-entry-rundown

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No idea where you heard this but its not at all what's true from what I understand.

How it works is the hockey ops department (B Burke, Treliving, Conroy, Pascall, M Burke, Snow) all debate the subject at hand (in this case the release of Hartley), they all get to make it known what they would prefer, then Treliving/Burke have an owners meeting at which time he/they make a recommendation and the owners either accept it or don't.

I have no knowledge of them ever rejecting what was proposed to them in terms of hockey decisions but it may have occurred.

This does all take time to co-ordinate and get a majority of owners in the room at the same point, but it really isn't all that unusual. Its also a product of the restructuring of hierarchy that occurred and started when Brian Burke was hired.

Burke explicitly was answering to a question about the timeliness of the firing, and even compared it to the Ducks who had one owner, whereas the Flame had many owners who he had to meet with. A guy like Murray Edwards probably sits in many different meetings a day, and the other owners probably travel a lot.

I never mentioned them rejecting decisions, but now that you bring it up, what if a minority stake holder wanted to keep Hartley? It's possible one owner liked what he saw from this Flames group and style. It obviously ties this up when there's too many cooks in the kitchen

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Burke explicitly was answering to a question about the timeliness of the firing, and even compared it to the Ducks who had one owner, whereas the Flame had many owners who he had to meet with. A guy like Murray Edwards probably sits in many different meetings a day, and the other owners probably travel a lot.

I never mentioned them rejecting decisions, but now that you bring it up, what if a minority stake holder wanted to keep Hartley? It's possible one owner liked what he saw from this Flames group and style. It obviously ties this up when there's too many cooks in the kitchen

Very doubtful that the owners would be blocking moves. That has always been unsubstantiated rumors that some of the owners are involved in day-to-day hockey decisions, but the last 2 or three management teams have continually shot that down.

Why it takes an ownership meeting - and why all the owners of any of the NHL clubs would also be included in a decision like this - is because of Hartley's remaining year. Teams have to get sign-off on terminating a guy with term (or get sign-off on signings/extensions).

Let's say in your scenario that there is a single minority owner who wants Hartley retained.. so what? He gets outvoted (if it would ever come to it in the first place). There aren't too many cooks in the kitchen.

There is Burke, Treliving, Conroy and Pascal all making the hockey decisions within their defined roles. Owners have their roles too - they pay the bills and those need signatures. Anything else, and it is just disregarding Feaster, King and Burke who have all stated emphatically that ownership doesn't influence the decisions one way or another - they neither block moves, nor do they force moves on the management team. Until I see a current or former GM (or President now) state that ownership has tied their hands or forced them to move players, or retain players, I will just take them at their word.

[Vulcan]

I'm not sure where I got this from but wasn't it rumoured that Darryl wanted to can Brent and take over the coaching job but instead Darryl got the boot, so that would be an example of the owners or King interfering with hockey decisions.

[MarkGio]

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Other than O'Brien and Dawes (both were cheap salaries), there hasn't been a buyout in modern Flames history that I'm aware of, even though the Flames have carried some pretty bad contracts. Sarich was benched a lot in his last two years. Past managers have been required to add bad contracts to deals, which devalues a deal (ie Reghre, Sarich).

The team currently carries bad contracts, some of which have been admitted by Burke in STH meetings as being bad contracts, such as Engelland and Stajan, but salary retention has never been exercised, even though we're seeing it more and more from other clubs because it makes sense to maximize value in a trade.

Lastly, there has been many years where players of salary get preferred over superior, cheaper players. Every interview I've heard has never refuted ownership approving or stamping or otherwise involved in player transactions, instead I've only ever heard managers say "ownership is not afraid to provide resources, spend money, etc". However, given the sum of events over the years, it would appear as if the financers are involved in a lot of the "cheque signing".

[Strange Brew]

Flames certainly spent to the cap under Sutter as GM, even burying Eriksson in the minors for an entire year.

I do agree with the general point. Don't judge the GM or President by what they say they want to do, or are willing to do. This is the NHL and the only thing that counts is what actually happens.

I would argue that buyouts are bad not because of the real money but because they leave you with dead money on the books after the original contract would have expired.

[bobbylouie]

deleted to save space of multiple jumbo pictures, see below

[bobbylouie]

deleted to save space of multiple jumbo pix, see below

[bobbylouie]

deleted to save space of multiple jumbo pix, see below

[bobbylouie]

I had no idea what I got myself into here. Goodnight.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not sure where I got this from but wasn't it rumoured that Darryl wanted to can Brent and take over the coaching job but instead Darryl got the boot, so that would be an example of the owners or King interfering with hockey decisions.

Or it was simply the 'final straw' for Ken King and the ownership group?

I remember when Feaster took over, and then got the 'acting' dropped from his GM title, he stated that he had the authority (as he said) to retain Brent or make a change, and he felt that Brent was the right coach. I would infer (and I am not saying I am correct) that KK and the ownership group didn't want a GM that they were probably already having internal discussions on terminating to make a coaching change.