Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Re: Gaudreau/Monahan - they are struggling. Monahan was shooting a bit last night but there for a few week he was passing up shots he would normally take which may mean an injury or loss of confidence.

I do think they need to be quicker on the draw to demote Ferland off the line though. He seems to need a kick in the pants every few weeks. Short term swaps with Jagr or Hathaway just wake them up a bit wouldn't hurt.

Agree with this and wouldn't mind guys like Hathaway taking a turn on that line. Not Jagr though. Way too slow and can't cover up for any defensive problems.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They are still among the Pens BEST players...which is what all this is about.

To say otherwise....well.

Look at it this way...who were the top 4 TOI guys that aren't on defense?

Not sure what you're getting at here. In the Caps series Crosby missed almost 2 games. Of course the top line forwards generally get the most minutes, but the Pens won a game without Crosby. Rust and Hornqvist scored the goals in game 7.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Well, under 1 measure: point production, he is ranked in the low 50s amongst other centers. So by that measure, he is actually not a great 2nd line center.

He gets the toughest match-ups and gets buried on defensive zone starts. He would put up more points in a different role. (Patrice Bergeron is a guy with a similar profile)

Also assuming you are using NHL.com positions, I'm sure there are a lot of non-centres listed as centres (Keller, Barzal, Marner, Eberle take very few face-offs for example)

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by tsquared1967

Monahan was not a gift for the Flames. If he went earlier then 6th, the Flames would have ended up with Lindholm or Jones. The Flames could have gone with Horvat or Ristolainen. 2013 draft was deep and that is why Feaster end up with 3 firsts.

Grandlund would be in the bottom 6 in the Flames lineup at a much lower cost then Brouwer.

The whole truculance thing with Burke and Treviling got them to pick Hunter Smith instead of Christian Dvorak and I am still shaking my head on that pick.

The GM and coach should start promoting players in the system instead of signing washed up players to fill a spot on this team every year and I am not talking about Jagr.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make but all I was saying is that Monahan fell to us and was the obvious selection just like Bennett fell to us and was the obvious selection. I'm not going to give praise or criticize a GM for making the obvious selection.

Granlund being cheaper is really irrelevant. My point is that Granlund is a bottom 6, fringe NHL player. His loss isn't changing the fortunes of this club. He is easily replaceable. Brouwer being a poor signing is an issue in itself. My point was that if we had Granlund in the lineup we would still be the same team. His loss isn't a big deal.

The Flames management gave every opportunity to guys to make the team. Did you not follow training camp? No one stepped up their level of play to take these jobs. I guess never given always earned only applies when convenient. It's easy to say a player like Hathaway should have been on the team but Hathaway had a poor training camp. If he played like he has recently obviously he would have been on the team. He's playing great now so maybe their strategy actually worked.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Glass, Hathaway, Bennett, Jankowski, Bartkowski, Kulak, lack, Rittich are all examples of the team not really knowing how to handle roster decisions.

Stajan and Brouwer still getting ice time night in and night out, is just another example.

Clearly the Flames are nothing more than a collection of morons. It's amazing they know how to start their cars in the morning.

Please, don't hold back. Share your infinite wisdom with us. Tell us exactly what you would have done and would do with the organizational structure.

How would you manage this team, and how do you know all your decisions would have turned out to be one brilliant move after another.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Clearly the Flames are nothing more than a collection of morons. It's amazing they know how to start their cars in the morning.

Please, don't hold back. Share your infinite wisdom with us. Tell us exactly what you would have done and would do with the organizational structure.

How would you manage this team, and how do you know all your decisions would have turned out to be one brilliant move after another.

Umm solid post bud....

Read the post you quoted for starters.

I'm not confessing to be smarter than anyone. Just posing my opinion about those who get paid the big bucks for doing a better job than they have thus far.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Umm solid post bud....

Read the post you quoted for starters.

I'm not confessing to be smarter than anyone. Just posing my opinion about those who get paid the big bucks for doing a better job than they have thus far.

What have I missed? The poster seems to suggest the Flames don't know what they're doing, or 'how to handle their roster decisions'.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by TOfan

What have I missed? The poster seems to suggest the Flames don't know what they're doing, or 'how to handle their roster decisions'.

The post suggests the flames have made some questionable roster decisions that many, even here on CP have clamoured about.

Jankowski not being here day 1.

Bartkowski over Kulak.

Bringing in lack.

The entire 4th line conundrum by subbing Brouwer, Stajan, Lazar, Hamilton and expecting anything different.

Bennett at center.

Heck, let's go back to last year and reminisce about Grossman.

I don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest the Flames have whiffed more than they've hit on many of these decisions.

Apologies if I offended you, as you seem quite peeved at my post.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Grossman played three games. The fact that it is used as some sort of evidence of poor management is an example of things being over stated

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Umm solid post bud....

Read the post you quoted for starters.

I'm not confessing to be smarter than anyone. Just posing my opinion about those who get paid the big bucks for doing a better job than they have thus far.

I think you're criticising those moves a bit unfairly though. You seriously think letting Rittich be your back up with no other option to start the season would have been a smart move? Lack may have not been the answer but the logic behind signing him was the right move. No way do you go with an unproven Rittich to start the year.

Bennett has been on a tear so ultimately it looks like they managed him correctly.

Kulak and Hathaway both had poor camps. They are both playing well now so it seems like they were handled correctly as well.

In the end all of these players are at the bottom of your line up where you can move them around as necessary. I'm not big on Stajan or Brouwer but its mainly because of their salary. We're paying them regardless though so I don't have a huge issue with them here. I think as vets they do bring more to the team than just their play. I also think its best for guys like Mangiapane to develop in the AHL rather than play on our bottom 6 right now.

[bubbsy]

^^Fair points.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

The post suggests the flames have made some questionable roster decisions that many, even here on CP have clamoured about.

Jankowski not being here day 1.

Bartkowski over Kulak.

Bringing in lack.

The entire 4th line conundrum by subbing Brouwer, Stajan, Lazar, Hamilton and expecting anything different.

Bennett at center.

Heck, let's go back to last year and reminisce about Grossman.

I don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest the Flames have whiffed more than they've hit on many of these decisions.

Apologies if I offended you, as you seem quite peeved at my post.

I feel like you're just looking for reasons to criticize. You realize Lack has started 2 games? Bennett at center is a coaching decision. How much of an impact on the season do you really think Kulak starting over Bartkowski would have had?

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

The post suggests the flames have made some questionable roster decisions that many, even here on CP have clamoured about.

Jankowski not being here day 1.

Bartkowski over Kulak.

Bringing in lack.

The entire 4th line conundrum by subbing Brouwer, Stajan, Lazar, Hamilton and expecting anything different.

Bennett at center.

Heck, let's go back to last year and reminisce about Grossman.

I don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest the Flames have whiffed more than they've hit on many of these decisions.

Apologies if I offended you, as you seem quite peeved at my post.

Sure. Fair points. No team is perfect in their decision making. Fact is, none of us know what the internal discussions were about any of those points you raise.

It's awefully to sit on the sidelines and point to the questionable decisions made. Never the less here we are; Jankowski is a regular and told to get a house, same with Kulak. Lack is in Stockton, I would imagine that the people who are paid to make roster decisions felt Rittich/Gillies weren't a sure thing for reg NHL duty, or would be better served playing more in the A. The Flames obviously wanted Bennett to succeed at C and were willing to stick with it as long as they could. Further his move to the wing meant Jankowski could come up and play meaningful minutes, not 4th line.

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you will see similar decisions made in probably every team in the league.

Think the Flames have done anything correctly, or do we just ignore that?

[TOfan]

If someone is going to criticize a GM, at least consider what the thinking was at the time the decisions were made.

On the Brouwer issue; he was coming off of 8 years in a row of scoring 17 or more goals a year. He had just come off a strong playoff performance & had a reputation of being a solid 'dressing room' guy. You can bet Brouwer had other options. The Flames were thin on the right side & im certain they considered other options via trade or UFA, would you rather they out bid Edmonton for Lucic?? Unfortunately Treliving's crystal ball wasn't working that day. The rationale behind that player acquisition was sound. Blame the player, not Treliving.

On the granlund discussion, this one is laughable. Reminds me of fans who were loosing their minds when the Flames dealt Dustin Boyd away. I specifically remember postersaying Boyd was going to be a perennial 20 goal scorer...

[Ashasx]

Sorry, Brouwer was as obvious a miss on July 1 as any other signing in history.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by TOfan

If someone is going to criticize a GM, at least consider what the thinking was at the time the decisions were made.

On the Brouwer issue; he was coming off of 8 years in a row of scoring 17 or more goals a year. He had just come off a strong playoff performance & had a reputation of being a solid 'dressing room' guy. You can bet Brouwer had other options. The Flames were thin on the right side & im certain they considered other options via trade or UFA, would you rather they out bid Edmonton for Lucic?? Unfortunately Treliving's crystal ball wasn't working that day. The rationale behind that player acquisition was sound. Blame the player, not Treliving.

On the granlund discussion, this one is laughable. Reminds me of fans who were loosing their minds when the Flames dealt Dustin Boyd away. I specifically remember postersaying Boyd was going to be a perennial 20 goal scorer...

So how do you view the hamonic deal, in conjunction with the team results thus far?

[curves2000]

A few recent examples of a few situations that have raised my eyebrow a little and the rationale for them given by management when fans said the same thing BEFORE it all unraveled.

1) Nik Grossman: Everybody could tell that he was slow, a defensive liability and that the game has past him by. I understand the need for the Smid LTIR move but when they played him 3 games, he got smoked out of the water due to foot speed and coughed up the puck they decide to terminate his contract. Rationale given was, and I paraphrase here "He's a big body with a physical presence but those older legs take a while to get going" It was evident to everybody the previous season with him and in the pre-season.

2) Eddie Lack: They wanted to shore up the backup position with a more cost-effective player who would give the teams the needed wins in order to preserve a 35 year old starter like Smith. They rode a hot start by Smith and then only used Lack in a few bits and pieces. When they sent him down the rationale by Tre was "The schedule allowed us to use Smitty more than we liked and for Eddie, who's a quality goaltender and a good NHL player, it's tough for a player like him to go in after a few weeks off"

So is this a coaches decision issue? A management issue for a trade? An AHL call-up issue allowing Rittich to start the year in Stockton? Is this an NHL schedule maker issue? If the issue was the wide open schedule and the fact that Eddie Lack was going in cold after a few weeks, than why did we not use him more to start? If he wasn't what we needed, why did we trade for him? Those points that we lost out on will be valuable in April 100%

3) Bouma/Brower: I understand that perhaps Bouma's time with the team may have been over due to rumored off ice issues and the fact that Hathaway could model his game for a lot less than Bouma So they buy out Bouma, don't bring up Hathaway to start and than plug Brower, who's earning double the salary onto the 4th line. The irony is that Bouma's play in Chicago hasn't been poor and we are still stuck with his minor cap hit next season for what appears to be little reason.

Sorry about long post but a few decisions leave a lot of people scratching their heads.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Sorry, Brouwer was as obvious a miss on July 1 as any other signing in history.

Frolik?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Frolik?

Frolik was and continues to be a fantastic signing.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by curves2000

A few recent examples of a few situations that have raised my eyebrow a little and the rationale for them given by management when fans said the same thing BEFORE it all unraveled.

1) Nik Grossman: Everybody could tell that he was slow, a defensive liability and that the game has past him by. I understand the need for the Smid LTIR move but when they played him 3 games, he got smoked out of the water due to foot speed and coughed up the puck they decide to terminate his contract. Rationale given was, and I paraphrase here "He's a big body with a physical presence but those older legs take a while to get going" It was evident to everybody the previous season with him and in the pre-season.

2) Eddie Lack: They wanted to shore up the backup position with a more cost-effective player who would give the teams the needed wins in order to preserve a 35 year old starter like Smith. They rode a hot start by Smith and then only used Lack in a few bits and pieces. When they sent him down the rationale by Tre was "The schedule allowed us to use Smitty more than we liked and for Eddie, who's a quality goaltender and a good NHL player, it's tough for a player like him to go in after a few weeks off"

So is this a coaches decision issue? A management issue for a trade? An AHL call-up issue allowing Rittich to start the year in Stockton? Is this an NHL schedule maker issue? If the issue was the wide open schedule and the fact that Eddie Lack was going in cold after a few weeks, than why did we not use him more to start? If he wasn't what we needed, why did we trade for him? Those points that we lost out on will be valuable in April 100%

3) Bouma/Brower: I understand that perhaps Bouma's time with the team may have been over due to rumored off ice issues and the fact that Hathaway could model his game for a lot less than Bouma So they buy out Bouma, don't bring up Hathaway to start and than plug Brower, who's earning double the salary onto the 4th line. The irony is that Bouma's play in Chicago hasn't been poor and we are still stuck with his minor cap hit next season for what appears to be little reason.

Sorry about long post but a few decisions leave a lot of people scratching their heads.

Your post has me scratching my head.