[Rumour] Friedman: Treliving looking to add a 1st for 2018 draft. Coyotes won't sign Hickey.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Those are the kinds of players Burke likes. They are next to useless in today's NHL. Well whatever the case is any person with proxy in an NHL team that thinks those were actually good pickups needs their head checked.

Say, who re-upped Stajan anyhow?

And although people seem to be amused by Burke's dishevelled appearance, I see it as a sign of ill mental health.

Yes, Burke re-upped Stajan. When he was the acting GM. Four years ago. And he won't be coming back after his contract expires. So, again, you are, like Ashasx, trying to argue undue influence in 2018 based on moves made in 2014.

Lazar is fast and not all that truculent. Not exactly a Burke type.

Stewart, Glass, Bartkowski basically don't play.

And your opinion of Burke's alleged mental health issues are not relevant to the argument.

Neither of you has offered a significant challenge to my point: If Burke had undue influence over roster construction, you wouldn't be trying to pin your argument on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th guys on the roster.

Also, you'd probably want to add Matt Tkachuk to your list. Except he's good, so that doesn't fit your narrative. Does it?

[kukkudo]

Watch Treliving keep GG trade away Bennett for someone like Domi, trade Brodie for help on forward, revamp the bottom six and that's your off season.

[DJones]

Unless it's a top 10 pick, I don't see why you would trade Bennett for a first.

That's a gamble that might pay off in 3 years but more likely we lose. Even at his worst he's a middle six player.

Change coaches, get a top 6 winger, make room for Andersson. That's all I want to be done.

[SportsJunky]

Plans change. Hell, I changed my plan for today already. I was going to have a ham sandwich for lunch. I would have bet on it. Then I discovered that we are out of bread. Not my fault. Someone internally didn't live up to their end of the bargain. So I changed my plan. I took a swing at a ham sandwich but it didn't work out. Doesn't make me incompetent. It just means that my plan changed.

Onward and upward! Change can be a good thing. Those who don't expect plans to change in professional sports are in for some bad days. Personally, I want a GM that can adapt, not afraid to change. Life isn't fair and isn't predetermined. Neither is running an NHL club. So we deal with it. What's the alternative?

[colbym72]

I really think it would be a huge mistake to make drastic changes. I think the team needs a better coach, a little more forward depth, and their top guys to shoot closer to their career averages and they will return to form. Going nuts this offseason could be something they regret in the future. Hopefully flipping a defenseman and a prospect for a top 9 forward is the simple solution, along with buying out Brouwer and spending that money elsewhere

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, Burke re-upped Stajan. When he was the acting GM. Four years ago. And he won't be coming back after his contract expires. So, again, you are, like Ashasx, trying to argue undue influence in 2018 based on moves made in 2014.

Lazar is fast and not all that truculent. Not exactly a Burke type.

Stewart, Glass, Bartkowski basically don't play.

And your opinion of Burke's alleged mental health issues are not relevant to the argument.

Neither of you has offered a significant challenge to my point: If Burke had undue influence over roster construction, you wouldn't be trying to pin your argument on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th guys on the roster.

Also, you'd probably want to add Matt Tkachuk to your list. Except he's good, so that doesn't fit your narrative. Does it?

ROFL.

Picking high draft picks is brainless. Also, are you saying that Burke does in fact have influence, because he had a say on picking Tkachuk? Hey a broken clock is right twice a day.

What's undue influence? I would expect the POHO to have influence.

Like, what do you think he does all day?

Let me put it to you another way: I wouldn't be surprised if Burke interjects. The other choice is that Treliving just isn't that bright. Either scenario doesn't help the team.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the flames trade a core player as part of a component of getting back into the first round I think we can all safely assume there is no plan, there is no process and there is no hope for a competitive roster moving forward.

Considering I posted they would consider doing this just yesterday, I'm inclined towards there being no plan.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I get the despair and disappointment, but I'm always amazed how quickly people take things to the ditch.

Safely assume?

From your keyboard you can safely assume what is going on with the Flames GM and hockey operations based on the move of an unknown core player for a first round pick?

We can't safely assume anything.

First off that may not be true, or it might be true but part of a bigger conversation that has other GMs guessing and telling Friedman what they think.

However if part of the core is on the move.

The Flames as a group my have decided the time to move part of the defensive core to make room for the emerging core is now, so they're kicking tires on moving pieces (Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie, Hamonic) for forwards that can step in or futures, or packages that contain both.

Maybe they like Brodie for a 1st, Stone for a 3rd and promote Valimaki and Andersson.

But safely assume is such an over step based on literally nothing.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What's the plan then?

Trade 1st round pick for hamonic, keep core together, miss playoffs, deal core member to get 1st round pick back?

If that's the plan, does it sound like a good plan?

If that's not the plan, then I guess this season didn't go according to plan and they are changing things? Wouldn't that signify no plan?

I've seen this power struggle in other private businesses. So many plans there might as well not be one.

Afterall, this is what I said:



If the Plan from the start of the year has changed drastically by this point, to me that's an indication there is no plan. Otherwise, why not stick to it? Why not 'trust the process'? Process no good?

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well clearly they didn't plan to miss the playoffs, I guess you're being tongue in cheek.

I don't see much of a departure needed to get this rumour out there.

Adding Hamonic and Stone was always about fortifying d core one knowing full well that d core two was coming as well.

At some point they'd have to make room.

They may feel that that time is now, and are talking to teams at the GM meetings about current defensemen and in that the conversation has been around wingers, or forwards that can score and draft picks to replenish what they've moved.

I don't see moving veteran D as a sign of no plan as it was always the obvious plan to me, and hasn't really changed.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well now the conversation has changed from moving a core piece to moving some jabroni 3rd pairing defender.

Mark Stone doesn't get you a 1st round draft pick in my opinion, so if they are trading into the 1st round, they are moving a 'core' player to do it.

So are you saying they are considering moving brodie or giordano, the only other two vets besides stone and hamonic, and that that was part of the plan last summer when they added hamonic? Sounds pretty 4 dimensional chessy to me.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I didn't change the conversation at all.

I said adding Hamonic and Stone was about fortifying the current core, I didn't say Stone was the principal piece they're looking to move for a first, though Mark might get you a first if you can get the Senators to give you their return for trading him.

The plan would always have been to move veteran defenseman when it was time to make space for young defenders breaking in. I have no idea what defenseman is on the move or being talked about, but I would assume no GM would have that in stone a year ago.

How has this conversation changed exactly?

Originally Posted by the2bears

Maybe the plan is being modified and altered due to the season not working out.

Seriously, this thread starts on a rumour/suggestion Flames are looking to add a 1st. And now we're discussing how they've unraveled and have no plan? Or too many plans which is no plan?

Assumptions are being made on how the off-season goes. I'm going to wait and see what actually happens.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

so who was the veteran defenseman being moved out that was part of the plan?

Originally Posted by Bingo

Already answered that.

They didn't need to have a "player X will be traded in 11.4 months" memo that they all carried around in their brief case.

June 2017 they drafted Valimaki making it two right and two left shooting defenseman that were considered above average prospects.

None of them were ready to step in on a team that they felt was a playoff ready team.

But when they are they would make room or trade them for equivalent prospects up front.

A year later it looks like Andersson is ready, Kylington has taken steps and Valimaki is seeing his projection bumped up.

Now they kick tires on the value of their existing defenseman and see what is out there for options.

This seems unlikely to you?

So we've gone from unnamed core player to veteran defender (which could be an unnamed core player).

So they didn't plan to miss the playoffs (indication the plan wasn't good?)

So (new) plan is move veteran defender to get back into 1st round/make room for new young player. Trade Brodie? Trade Giordano? Trade Hamilton? Only veterans D on the roster other than stone and hamonic who were just acquired. Unless you think the plan was sign stone and trade for hamonic and then deal them 12 months later (doesn't sound very plausible or like a very good plan).

Are the flames going to be able to move a defender for the same value they spent on hamonic and stone? Do you get a 1st and 2x2nds for Brodie? If not, that's a net loss of assets in my mind for a season you don't make the playoffs. Good Plan? Sticking with the process?

I think not making the playoffs when the team has spend 1st, 3x2nds, 2x3rds, 1x5th, 1x7th in a calendar year is not a very good plan. In my opinion, it is so all over the place that it speaks to competing plans with competing priorities.

Re-aquiring some of the picks traded away would, in my opinion, indicate backtracking on that plan, further solidfying that it was indeed not a very good plan.

If they have changed plans over the course of a single season from going for it to moving veteran defenders, I'd argue that's no plan, just a series of reactions.

An example of a plan was Tre moving Glencross and Russell regardless of the playoff position the team was in. That's a plan, and it was a good one.

Moving a ####load of draft picks and missing the playoffs doesn't strike me as a plan, it strikes me as a relative disaster that requires a new plan to dig themselves out of the problems created by the old plan.

So, to get back to my original point you took umbrage with, I'd say trying to recoup draft picks by dealing veteran roster players following a season of missing the playoffs is such a bad plan it's indicative of no plan. It reads more like a reaction than a strategy.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, Burke re-upped Stajan. When he was the acting GM. Four years ago. And he won't be coming back after his contract expires. So, again, you are, like Ashasx, trying to argue undue influence in 2018 based on moves made in 2014.

Lazar is fast and not all that truculent. Not exactly a Burke type.

Stewart, Glass, Bartkowski basically don't play.

And your opinion of Burke's alleged mental health issues are not relevant to the argument.

Neither of you has offered a significant challenge to my point: If Burke had undue influence over roster construction, you wouldn't be trying to pin your argument on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th guys on the roster.

Also, you'd probably want to add Matt Tkachuk to your list. Except he's good, so that doesn't fit your narrative. Does it?

I'm not talking about simply truculent players.

Treliving has preached the importance of possession hockey in the past. He understands analytics and has expanded their role in the Flames' front office.

Yet when you look at a list of all Treliving's bad moves, they were bad then and they were bad now, and they contradict whatever message he had been preaching to Flames fans.

You can look at Brouwer, Hamonic, Bollig, Stone, waiving Byron, etc., whatever... all of these bad moves could have been predicted if he followed whatever strategy it was that he preached.

These moves so far contradict what Treliving says to the media, that either he's not following his own strategy or these moves are influenced by Burke.

My original post regarding this chain of posts was simply that Burke has influence in hockey operations. He is the President of it, after all. I didn't mean anything beyond that.

[Hank Hill]

ship Brodie to the Leafs for their 2018 1st

[Resolute 14]

Now you're arguing a false dichotomy, Asxhasx. Also, why is it because of Burke, eh? Why aren't you blaming Craig Conroy? Oh, wait. We like that guy. Why aren't you blaming the team's pro scouts? Oh, you have no idea who they are. But you know Burke. And you know you don't like him. Therefore, any move you dislike must have been driven by him. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Burke obviously has input. But lets face it. This team is put together by Treliving. You're basically trying to argue that Treliving, if left to his own devices, would be infallible. And that is just silly.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Plans change. Hell, I changed my plan for today already. I was going to have a ham sandwich for lunch. I would have bet on it. Then I discovered that we are out of bread. Not my fault. Someone internally didn't live up to their end of the bargain. So I changed my plan. I took a swing at a ham sandwich but it didn't work out. Doesn't make me incompetent.

I'm not entirely certain of that.

If you can't handle a ham sandwich, I'm not so sure what it is exactly you can accomplish.

I'm certainly not going to make you my latex salesman.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I disagree. I think Ferland is a must-trade in the offseason. I am almost 100% confident that his value will never be higher.

This team would be the softest in the NHL without Ferland.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

This team would be the softest in the NHL without Ferland.

Disagree, his grit level this year was as low as anyone elses. We haven't seen Vancouver series Ferland since....the Vancouver series.

And to be Frank, aside from his good two fiths of a season, he's been invisible even before his injury. And I HATE hid awareness on the ice.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So we've gone from unnamed core player to veteran defender (which could be an unnamed core player).

So they didn't plan to miss the playoffs (indication the plan wasn't good?)

So (new) plan is move veteran defender to get back into 1st round/make room for new young player. Trade Brodie? Trade Giordano? Trade Hamilton? Only veterans D on the roster other than stone and hamonic who were just acquired. Unless you think the plan was sign stone and trade for hamonic and then deal them 12 months later (doesn't sound very plausible or like a very good plan).

Are the flames going to be able to move a defender for the same value they spent on hamonic and stone? Do you get a 1st and 2x2nds for Brodie? If not, that's a net loss of assets in my mind for a season you don't make the playoffs. Good Plan? Sticking with the process?

I think not making the playoffs when the team has spend 1st, 3x2nds, 2x3rds, 1x5th, 1x7th in a calendar year is not a very good plan. In my opinion, it is so all over the place that it speaks to competing plans with competing priorities.

Re-aquiring some of the picks traded away would, in my opinion, indicate backtracking on that plan, further solidfying that it was indeed not a very good plan.

If they have changed plans over the course of a single season from going for it to moving veteran defenders, I'd argue that's no plan, just a series of reactions.

An example of a plan was Tre moving Glencross and Russell regardless of the playoff position the team was in. That's a plan, and it was a good one.

Moving a ####load of draft picks and missing the playoffs doesn't strike me as a plan, it strikes me as a relative disaster that requires a new plan to dig themselves out of the problems created by the old plan.

So, to get back to my original point you took umbrage with, I'd say trying to recoup draft picks by dealing veteran roster players following a season of missing the playoffs is such a bad plan it's indicative of no plan. It reads more like a reaction than a strategy.

Well I think you're fundamentally saying that regardless of the plan, or how many times it changes, you have no confidence in the people putting said plan together.

I mean if you realize your plan is flawed, you change it. I have no problem with that. Recoup some draft picks? You bet. They never should have traded so many away in the first place. But if you're just going to trade them all away again at the first inkling of success, then yeah why bother.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Now you're arguing a false dichotomy, Asxhasx. Also, why is it because of Burke, eh? Why aren't you blaming Craig Conroy? Oh, wait. We like that guy. Why aren't you blaming the team's pro scouts? Oh, you have no idea who they are. But you know Burke. And you know you don't like him. Therefore, any move you dislike must have been driven by him. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Burke obviously has input. But lets face it. This team is put together by Treliving. You're basically trying to argue that Treliving, if left to his own devices, would be infallible. And that is just silly.

So wait, you accuse me of a false dichotomy and then state that I am essentially saying "that Treliving, if left to his own devices, would be infallible"? Why are you doing this?

I mention Burke because:

1) He is the President. He is at the top. He sets the culture. He is the one ultimately responsible.
2) We have a history of Burke's transactions as a manager for prior teams. We saw him trade two 1st round picks to try and make the playoffs before his team was ready, we've seen him overvalue character, we've seen him undervalue skill.

I've never said that Treliving isn't at fault. I never said that Conroy isn't at fault. I have scolded this team's pro scouting in the recent past (if you scout the Wild for months and determine Stewart is a worthwhile acquisition, you are bad at your job).

You are reading too much into what I'm really trying to say. I simply believe Burke is a bad influence on this team. I have no evidence short of these anecdotes and I'm not trying to state anything beyond that.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Disagree, his grit level this year was as low as anyone elses. We haven't seen Vancouver series Ferland since....the Vancouver series.

Still, without him, we are soft. Who answered Reaves for his hit on Brodie? We need someone- like Ferland can-to deliver hits like that and not really get challenged- and score a few goals.
(I do agree, though. Ferland has dropped off physically.)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So, to get back to my original point you took umbrage with, I'd say trying to recoup draft picks by dealing veteran roster players following a season of missing the playoffs is such a bad plan it's indicative of no plan. It reads more like a reaction than a strategy.

Jesus why re-quote everything? ... what a mess.

I thought soon after they traded for Hamonic and retained Stone that the plan was to ensure the roster was ready now (wasn't as it turned out) without rushing the young defenseman.

But when they were ready you could move veteran defenseman for picks to build a core further down the road.

I said it on the site many times.

Missing the playoffs, wasn't the plan, but you know that, not sure why you keep bring it up.

The 2015-17 drafts went well. That has given them a lot of prospect depth. When that happens you have a greater ability to move picks for the now, which they did.

So no I don't see it as a change in plans, I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. I've consistently thought this is what they had in mind, and if they exerecize the plan that I've imagined it isn't a retraction nor would I "safely assume" they have no plan at all.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

Still, without him, we are soft. Who answered Reaves for his hit on Brodie? We need someone- like Ferland can-to deliver hits like that and not really get challenged- and score a few goals.
(I do agree, though. Ferland has dropped off physically.)

Did Ferland respond to Reaves? He didn't.

[flamesfever]

Please trade Hamilton for a top 5 pick.

[Samonadreau]

Only 2 scenarios I can think of if the flames are actually trying to recoup a 1st.

1. They are looking to flip it for the acquisition of a player in a position of need. Ie) trade Brodie and flip it for a right shot winger.
2. There is a specific player or two they really like that should still be available by the end of the first. I haven't been following the draft so I'm not sure who all is projected to go late first that fit the bill.