View Poll Results: What will happen to Brad Treliving after the end of the season?
|
He should and will be fired
|
  
|
167 |
17.06% |
He should be fired, but will continue as the Flames GM
|
  
|
277 |
28.29% |
He should not and will not be fired
|
  
|
288 |
29.42% |
He should not but will be fired
|
  
|
27 |
2.76% |
Unsure if he should be, but he will be fired
|
  
|
37 |
3.78% |
Unsure if he should be, but he will not be fired
|
  
|
183 |
18.69% |
04-04-2021, 11:51 AM
|
#2221
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
I don’t think it’s unreasonabe to say Sam was the right pick at the time. A lot of key development happens in the draft plus 1 and 2 years which is why every draft would look different just a year later.
Saying Sam was a bad pick is a heap of hindsight management
|
I also still argue that drafting the player is only step 1.
Almost every step after that first step was a giant misstep by this organization.
- Rushed him into the league, despite losing a year to injury
- Rookie year played with strong players who provided guidance, and helped him develop
- Year 2 under a new coach he was fed to the wolves and played with horrible wingers as a first time centre at the NHL level, and kicked all around the line-up
- Year 3 he was fed to the wolves and played with horrible linemates as he was tossed to the wing, and kicked all around the line-up
Where/when was he supposed to develop? Outside of his rookie year, this team provided Bennett 0 stability. That’s Oilers-treatment of a prospect. I also think we’ve done it again with Valimaki. Why is he in the NHL this season? He has not looked good and he’s getting scratched again tonight.
Our 4th, 6th, and 6th overall picks were all rushed into the NHL out of need it seems. That 4th overall even lost his Draft+1 year to injury, yet we rushed him right into the line-up. Bennett and Monahan have flat out not developed into the players we needed them to, and I think a lot of that is due to organizational incompetence. Why was Monahan allowed to build into this one-way, poor even strength player? Where were the demands on this guy early in his career? I know a lot of people think Sutter is here to maximize the roster and win now, but I think it’s more about putting proper accountability on all players so we don’t end up developing a player with so much potential (Monahan) into what he has become.
I don’t think these missteps are entirely to be blamed for turning Bennett into the player he is today, but they certainly did not do a good job developing the player.
Last edited by ComixZone; 04-04-2021 at 11:58 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2021, 11:56 AM
|
#2222
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
Not a good metaphor at all.
A house does need a good foundation, but there are absolutely no unknowns as to what materials to use. Choosing 18-year-old hockey players is a completely different exercise fraught with unknowns.
As mentioned many times here, Sam Bennett is the perfect example of the right pick gone wrong; even with all signs pointing up, you still are not guaranteed a successful outcome.
Building a house is far more simple and straightforward.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
Not a good metaphor at all.
A house does need a good foundation, but there are absolutely no unknowns as to what materials to use. Choosing 18-year-old hockey players is a completely different exercise fraught with unknowns.
As mentioned many times here, Sam Bennett is the perfect example of the right pick gone wrong; even with all signs pointing up, you still are not guaranteed a successful outcome.
Building a house is far more simple and straightforward.
|
I’m not talking about the draft. I’m talking about who you decide to go forward with as part of your core and how you decided to slot them going forward. Draft picks have the potential to go bust as all hockey fans know, so a GM should definitely know that. You can’t watch Sam Bennett play wing for a playoff series and in an ok rookie season and just assume you’ve yourself an elite #1 center. That’s just pouring in the concrete and starting to build the house before the concrete sets.
I’ve said it a lot here already, Treliving rushed the rebuild. He took a fluke season filled with luck and assumed that the rebuild was over and then he traded for Hamilton, then Elliott, then added Brouwer, then traded for Hamonic, then added Neal and etc, etc. The Avalanche the season went through a similar situation the year prior that should’ve been used as a cautionary tale. They won the division, they thought they were close, they added an expensive UFA in Jarome Iginla and then they regressed.
They should’ve just continued to rebuild and add through the draft just like the Flames should’ve done. The Flames were never a Hamilton or an Elliott or a Hamonic away from contending. The saving grace for the Avs though was that they didn’t trade a lot of their picks away like the Flames did, so they’ve added Rantanen and Makar and Byram and now looked poised to be a Cup contenders for a while with a prime Nathan Mackinnon leading the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:02 PM
|
#2223
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
More words doesn’t make it more correct
Discussing reasons to justify keeping a GM with a mediocre body of work is rationalizing
|
It really isn’t unless you are being narrow minded about it
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:04 PM
|
#2224
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Dallas
|
The book Treliving used says build a core, add some UFA, add some TDL trades and make a run
He fumbled all 3, his core is below average, his UFA signings are horrendous, his TDL deals are irrelevant
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:05 PM
|
#2225
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Of course it is. What's weird is why anyone would be offended by that. What the heck else is it if not to justify, excuse, explain, defend.
|
You don't understand why someone would be offended by their position being minimized down to "rationalizing mediocrity"?
The on-ice performance is one part of the evaluation. It hasn't been good enough. So now let's for look for reasons why including the GM's role in that. Did he make rationale decisions that one can understand? What was his performance across key parts of the job (drafting, trades, RFAs, UFAs, coaching decisions, etc).
There's lots to it. And some have taken the time to spell out their rationale for why he should be retained. Which of course can be disagreed with. But those reasons go beyond "rationalizing mediocrity".
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:06 PM
|
#2226
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
I’m not talking about the draft. I’m talking about who you decide to go forward with as part of your core and how you decided to slot them going forward. Draft picks have the potential to go bust as all hockey fans know, so a GM should definitely know that. You can’t watch Sam Bennett play wing for a playoff series and in an ok rookie season and just assume you’ve yourself an elite #1 center. That’s just pouring in the concrete and starting to build the house before the concrete sets.
I’ve said it a lot here already, Treliving rushed the rebuild. He took a fluke season filled with luck and assumed that the rebuild was over and then he traded for Hamilton, then Elliott, then added Brouwer, then traded for Hamonic, then added Neal and etc, etc. The Avalanche the season went through a similar situation the year prior that should’ve been used as a cautionary tale. They won the division, they thought they were close, they added an expensive UFA in Jarome Iginla and then they regressed.
They should’ve just continued to rebuild and add through the draft just like the Flames should’ve done. The Flames were never a Hamilton or an Elliott or a Hamonic away from contending. The saving grace for the Avs though was that they didn’t trade a lot of their picks away like the Flames did, so they’ve added Rantanen and Makar and Byram and now looked poised to be a Cup contenders for a while with a prime Nathan Mackinnon leading the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Yep, I agree with most of this. I do think the Hamilton trade was strong though - and it fit well within the rebuild. He was the right age and we had drafted two forwards high in the draft prior to that, making him a nice key piece...but everything since that Hamilton trade was WAY too focused on rushing things forward.
Elliott, Hamonic, Brouwer, Neal - these are significant missteps and derailed the entire rebuild. That’s a 1st round pick, three 2nd round picks, $4.5M/season for a player that actively hurts his linemates, and then $5.75M/season for a player that again actively hurts his linemates plus $1.5M in buyout penalties for the previous anchor that they had to buyout to add this “prize”. Just awful.
Last edited by ComixZone; 04-04-2021 at 12:08 PM.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:08 PM
|
#2227
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
How would you determine whether he "actually should be"? This is an opinion poll after all (at least one of the two questions).
There is some revisionist history going on for sure. But I'm also seeing a healthy amount of rationalizing his performance, which from an on ice perspective has been mediocre or worse. Not dissimilar from how some rationalize Gaudreau's performance based on linemates etc.
Like you said earlier, the ownership may not meddle but they certainly would be setting expectations. In thinking about that, I'd say my expectations from that point have not been met. If ownership was looking for a club that consistently made the playoffs they aren't getting that either.
|
The ownership expectations are important because they would significantly influence the approach taken.
For instance of the owners said "you can re-build but we expect to be in the playoffs 1 year from now" then it puts a great deal of restraint around the approach and incentivizes the precise behaviors that we saw from the management team.
The degree to which a management group is incentivized by short-term thinking v. long-term thinking is critical to make sure the right balance is achieved.
Time and time again this franchise has shown itself to be largely short-term in its approach. Seems reasonable to ask why.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:12 PM
|
#2228
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesfan05
I never said they always pick a winner
I am arguing that Bennett was a bad pick. They were wrong and it’s not just bad luck
|
There was a clear top four...it wasn't at all like your examples. Every team in the NHL would have take him there. Of all things this is not the hill to die on.
Not the first player to bust and won't be the last
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:16 PM
|
#2229
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Dallas
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
There was a clear top four...it wasn't at all like your examples. Every team in the NHL would have take him there. Of all things this is not the hill to die on.
Not the first player to bust and won't be the last
|
Yes, he was a default pick. Everyone was fooled.
Still a bad pick.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:33 PM
|
#2230
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
You don't understand why someone would be offended by their position being minimized down to "rationalizing mediocrity"?
|
No, because:
Quote:
The on-ice performance is one part of the evaluation
|
After 7 years no it isn't, talking about Treliving in nebulous terms at this point is rationalizing failure.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:35 PM
|
#2231
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kamloops
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
I’m not talking about the draft. I’m talking about who you decide to go forward with as part of your core and how you decided to slot them going forward. Draft picks have the potential to go bust as all hockey fans know, so a GM should definitely know that. You can’t watch Sam Bennett play wing for a playoff series and in an ok rookie season and just assume you’ve yourself an elite #1 center. That’s just pouring in the concrete and starting to build the house before the concrete sets.
I’ve said it a lot here already, Treliving rushed the rebuild. He took a fluke season filled with luck and assumed that the rebuild was over and then he traded for Hamilton, then Elliott, then added Brouwer, then traded for Hamonic, then added Neal and etc, etc. The Avalanche the season went through a similar situation the year prior that should’ve been used as a cautionary tale. They won the division, they thought they were close, they added an expensive UFA in Jarome Iginla and then they regressed.
They should’ve just continued to rebuild and add through the draft just like the Flames should’ve done. The Flames were never a Hamilton or an Elliott or a Hamonic away from contending. The saving grace for the Avs though was that they didn’t trade a lot of their picks away like the Flames did, so they’ve added Rantanen and Makar and Byram and now looked poised to be a Cup contenders for a while with a prime Nathan Mackinnon leading the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
I get what you are saying, I just think you've jumped the shark with the metaphor about house building.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to blender For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:35 PM
|
#2232
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
So do you you think it’s just bad luck that the Flames have had a succession of GMs unwilling to adopt this patient strategy? Do you think it’s unreasonable to surmise that ownership played some role in refusing a team strategy that involves a virtual guarantee of missing the playoffs for 3-6 seasons?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
So do you you think it’s just bad luck that the Flames have had a succession of GMs unwilling to adopt this patient strategy? Do you think it’s unreasonable to surmise that ownership played some role in refusing a team strategy that involves a virtual guarantee of missing the playoffs for 3-6 seasons?
|
Well what exactly were the owners expecting after trading Jarome Iginla and Kipper retiring? They didn’t request any huge trades or massive UFA signings in 2013 or in 2014 to try to recoup the franchise players they had lost. There’s no evidence that suggests any shortsightedness on ownership‘s part. What I see is an ambitious general manager who went in with the wrong philosophy. He traded major pieces for defense and goaltending because he thought the team was closer then they were and his philosophy of building from the net out rather then from the center position.
This team at certain times during Treliving’s tenure has been loaded on wing and on defense, yet this team cannot seem to get over the hump. They changed up the goaltender and the coach year after year and that hasn’t helped. Treliving once said that it’s important for your team to get the puck out, that’s why he builds on defense. But in my opinion, the most important position that can transition from defense to offense is at center. That’s the glue, that’s the glue that marries the 2 together and unfortunately, that’s the position that has stayed the most static throughout his time here. He thought change wasn’t needed when it most certainly did.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:36 PM
|
#2233
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
The ownership expectations are important because they would significantly influence the approach taken.
For instance of the owners said "you can re-build but we expect to be in the playoffs 1 year from now" then it puts a great deal of restraint around the approach and incentivizes the precise behaviors that we saw from the management team.
The degree to which a management group is incentivized by short-term thinking v. long-term thinking is critical to make sure the right balance is achieved.
Time and time again this franchise has shown itself to be largely short-term in its approach. Seems reasonable to ask why.
|
IMO this is overstated. We have seen our GM's make poor short term decisions but I'm not convinced it's because the businesspeople running things don't understand the concept of long term success. What exactly is your hypothesis here?
If we really want to believe ownership pressed the GM to prioritize short term success, he didn't accomplish much there either. The poor moves, and lack of good ones, have been enunciated here ad nauseum.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:38 PM
|
#2234
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
No, because:
After 7 years no it isn't, talking about Treliving in nebulous terms at this point is rationalizing failure.
|
I was nicer, considering that there were some positives along the way, and called it mediocrity
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 12:38 PM
|
#2235
|
Franchise Player
|
My hypothesis is that they put a timeline on the rebuild that incentivized the management to try and kick open the contention window early
Which is the biggest mistake made
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2021, 01:03 PM
|
#2236
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
I don’t think it’s unreasonabe to say Sam was the right pick at the time. A lot of key development happens in the draft plus 1 and 2 years which is why every draft would look different just a year later.
Saying Sam was a bad pick is a heap of hindsight management
|
3 other teams did pass up on him though, so maybe they weren’t all fawning over him like CSS was. I’ll say this though and it’ll sound like I’m tooting my own horn so I’ll apologize in advanced, but there were definite signs that had me weary on his potential. I was never enamored with his hockey IQ, he’d do a couple of little things on the ice with and without the puck that had me scratching my head. The way he processed the game wasn’t up to NHL standards for centers either, your centers probably need to be the smartest players on the ice because pressure points can come from any direction and Bennett takes forever to make decisions. Even to this day, it’s still there at times, you can see him coral the puck while looking down, not pushing with enough pace, has no idea that a backcheck is hot on his tail, he has no awareness of where his wingers are or how the play is developing and next thing you know, turnover, or play killed on his stick. His hockey IQ ultimately holds him back the most and his raw tools aren’t elite enough to compensate. It’s very unfortunate.
Finally, another sign that we should’ve been weary of Bennett was when he was getting outplayed by Andrew Mangiapane in the prospects games in Penticton. I watched those games specifically to see him play and the only player who managed to impress me was the Bread. When a 6th round pick is outshining the 4th overall pick every shift, that’s not a goos sign. I brushed it off at the time, but in hindsight, maybe it was a sign of things to come.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 01:19 PM
|
#2237
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
My hypothesis is that they put a timeline on the rebuild that incentivized the management to try and kick open the contention window early
Which is the biggest mistake made
|
You would think the owners would want what SJ had. You think that was what we have been trying to do? Just doing it poorly?
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 01:31 PM
|
#2238
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
My hypothesis is that they put a timeline on the rebuild that incentivized the management to try and kick open the contention window early
Which is the biggest mistake made
|
Even if this was the case, then Treliving dropped the ball on the execution side of things. His philosophy is built around the net out and defensemen contributing greatly to the offense. That’s why he chased these 2 positions year after year, trading big pieces, arguably mortgaging the future to nab those franchise defensemen or stop gap goaltenders.
I’m not sure he put the same effort into trying to solve the problem at center. I would ask Treliving this question: if he expects the defense to be very active and constantly join the rush, how can that be accomplished when your best playmakers and primary puck distributors are your wingers and they’re usually so far up on the play that the defensemen can’t join in on the rush because they’re still heading up the ice?
That’s why your center has to be the driver. They’re the glue that can control the pace of play, navigate through forechecks and backchecks, identify where the pressures points are and allow the defensemen enough time to head up ice and join the attack. Tre’s philosophy is flawed and that’s the biggest reason why I think his vision failed. It was never about finding the right goaltender, or the right defenseman or to a lesser extent, the right wingers, it was about finding the right centers and he ignored this position for too long and now it’s too late to pivot. Too many holes and the foundation has collapsed.
|
|
|
04-04-2021, 01:31 PM
|
#2239
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesfan05
Sorry, they are well paid professional scout. They made a pick that turned out to be bad. They were wrong. It's not bad luck. The fact that there were others that were wrong does not make it bad luck.
Bad luck is to draw a bad ball from a bag.
|
I think the Bennett result is closer to drawing a bad ball from a bag than bad scouting.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-04-2021, 01:37 PM
|
#2240
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper
Even if this was the case, then Treliving dropped the ball on the execution side of things. His philosophy is built around the net out and defensemen contributing greatly to the offense. That’s why he chased these 2 positions year after year, trading big pieces, arguably mortgaging the future to nab those franchise defensemen or stop gap goaltenders.
I’m not sure he put the same effort into trying to solve the problem at center. I would ask Treliving this question: if he expects the defense to be very active and constantly join the rush, how can that be accomplished when your best playmakers and primary puck distributors are your wingers and they’re usually so far up on the play that the defensemen can’t join in on the rush because they’re still heading up the ice?
That’s why your center has to be the driver. They’re the glue that can control the pace of play, navigate through forechecks and backchecks, identify where the pressures points are and allow the defensemen enough time to head up ice and join the attack. Tre’s philosophy is flawed and that’s the biggest reason why I think his vision failed. It was never about finding the right goaltender, or the right defenseman or to a lesser extent, the right wingers, it was about finding the right centers and he ignored this position for too long and now it’s too late to pivot. Too many holes and the foundation has collapsed.
|
I don’t know that he ignored the centre issue, though it’s huge, like you say. IMO Lindholm was an attempt to deal with it. But the Neal failure put him on RW. And I don’t know that there were any opportunities to corral a better C than Lindholm ever. What better Cs have moved? Tavares (no shot), then nothing until PLD this year.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.
|
|