Brad Treliving needs to go

[Jiri Hrdina]

Bau?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So who is doing this?

People that want to discuss why ownership seemed to have more input into this coaching hire than previous ones?

Or those that are looking for evidence that Treliving intended to hire Sutter in the summer and it's BAU?

People who are taking offhand comments by radio guys who admit they have no inside info and turning them into evidence about what ownership was doing.

How did ownership seem to have more input into this decision than others? Show me one concrete piece of info that this is the case.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Do you know of any interim coaches who went through an offseason and coach part of another season? I don't.

Why not? Ward only got a little over half a season to be the HC, what’s wrong with telling him we need to give him another year. If the plan was signing our interim HC to a two year deal and also having a deal in place with Sutter at the same time, only to can the one you just promised the HC position, then this organization isn’t going to give labeled as “employee-friendly”.

We were supposed to be good this season. At LEAST top 4. I don’t think we expected to be this bad, and management started to see that the core was the CORE problem. Which is why I feel they reached out to Sutter during the pitiful start to the season.

If we did reach out to him during the summer and just signed Ward anyway, then I feel terrible for doing Ward dirty.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

People who are taking offhand comments by radio guys who admit they have no inside info and turning them into evidence about what ownership was doing.

How did ownership seem to have more input into this decision than others? Show me one concrete piece of info that this is the case.

There have been some slip ups in the media referring to the owners decision to bring Darryl. I don't buy that Treliving ever wanted a strong personality like Darryl behind the bench but that's my opinion just as you have yours. All that matters really is what happens when the season is over. If Treliving is fired I think we will have our answer and if he's not then it will always remain speculative.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's great you thought it was true but that doesn't mean that others can't challenge that or have a different perspective. How and the degree to which ownership was involved remains an unknown.

I appreciate that it always will be for you

I am not sure what this “doesn’t mean others can’t challenge that or have a different perspective” is about. I certainly didn’t say others can’t do that

People can even have wrong opinions. That’s fine It happens all over the place

Like I said, Loubo prefaced his pontification saying ownership brought him in. Not that the GM brought him in. And it was not disputed

I am sure there were mechanics involving Treliving. But that really isn’t the point, nor is nitpicking the details.

It was the basic fundamental idea of who decided that Sutter would be brought in to the organization.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Honestly - people read too much into non-inside info. Was ownership involved? Of course. They at a minimum had to approve paying two head coaches at one time. Did they force the change? Probably not. Who chose Sutter? Based on all info Treliving and the owners would have been on the same page so it doesn’t matter.

Of course they'd have to be involved. They likely have dates circled in their calendars every year to expect a request from Brad to axe another coach that is taking the fall for his rosters woeful inadequacies.

I'd challenge anyone to find more than a few instances of a GM surviving this long with a franchise while having nothing even remotely close to any success to show for it (1 good regular season in 7 years is pretty bad and even then they limped into the playoffs destined for failure yet again).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

People who are taking offhand comments by radio guys who admit they have no inside info and turning them into evidence about what ownership was doing.

How did ownership seem to have more input into this decision than others? Show me one concrete piece of info that this is the case.

Really? I think we both know this to be the case. The 5th coach in 7 years, the fact that it was Sutter and his history with the organization, the teams' performance, Friedman's report when he was hired that it was a joint decision, the continuing offhand comments from local media about ownership involvement.

The question isn't whether they were involved more than other hires. The debate is how much more and what it means about their confidence in Treliving and how much rope, if any, he has left.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Of course they'd have to be involved. They likely have dates circled in their calendars every year to expect a request from Brad to axe another coach that is taking the fall for his rosters woeful inadequacies.

I'd challenge anyone to find more than a few instances of a GM surviving this long with a franchise while having nothing even remotely close to any success to show for it (1 good regular season in 7 years is pretty bad and even then they limped into the playoffs destined for failure yet again).

Benning has been around as long as Treliving and has worse results.

Poile has been in Nashville forever and they did nothing for a long time before their one run to the finals.

Chevy has been in Winnipeg for a decade they have 3 playoff appearances (soon to be 4)

Bergivan in Montreal has been around for close to a decade with it being years since they had any success.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Really? I think we both know this to be the case. The 5th coach in 7 years, the fact that it was Sutter and his history with the organization, the teams' performance, Friedman's report when he was hired that it was a joint decision, the continuing offhand comments from local media about ownership involvement.

The question isn't whether they were involved more than other hires. The debate is how much more and what it means about their confidence in Treliving and how much rope, if any, he has left.

Sutter's history with the org is decidedly mixed. He didn't leave on the best terms the first time. They mended fences.

The ownership is always asked when they spend more money than budgeted. Which is the case whenever a coach is fired.

In this case, the fact Ward was only given 2 years means they were half-expecting to fire him. So sure, this was a discussion even before the season. I don't think it's a case of Sutter being forced on Treliving, though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Benning has been around as long as Treliving and has worse results.

Poile has been in Nashville forever and they did nothing for a long time before their one run to the finals.

Chevy has been in Winnipeg for a decade they have 3 playoff appearances (soon to be 4)

Bergivan in Montreal has been around for close to a decade with it being years since they had any success.

Lombardi in SJ was pretty much first round exit every year. A couple seconds (one in only 5 games and one in 7). He did not go through coaches though.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Bau?

I think it’s Business As Usual

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Benning has been around as long as Treliving and has worse results.

Poile has been in Nashville forever and they did nothing for a long time before their one run to the finals.

Chevy has been in Winnipeg for a decade they have 3 playoff appearances (soon to be 4)

Bergivan in Montreal has been around for close to a decade with it being years since they had any success.

I would take a third round appearance like Jets and Habs fans have had in the past 8 years at this point. That would be good enough for me..

[InternationalVillager]

If Treliving is not willing to tear this roster down and rebuild - he should be let go.

Just ask the man a simple question: What is your 5 year plan?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I would take a third round appearance like Jets and Habs fans have had in the past 8 years at this point. That would be good enough for me..

The Jets future is still pretty bright, too.

MTL is a bit weird, but SuZuki and Kontka offer some hope...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

If Treliving is not willing to tear this roster down and rebuild - he should be let go.

Just ask the man a simple question: What is your 5 year plan?

What if Treliving proposes a tear-down to ownership and they say no?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What if Treliving proposes a tear-down to ownership and they say no?

As an owner, I'd be comparing that to what he had been telling me up to that point.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What if Treliving proposes a tear-down to ownership and they say no?

What if the owners propose a tear-down and Brad says no?

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What if Treliving proposes a tear-down to ownership and they say no?

This is why I find it hard to criticize Treliving for the general strategic direction of the team.

Didn't Feaster want to tear it down, but he wasn't allowed to until Iginla forced it by asking for a trade?

We don't blame Feaster for not starting a rebuild sooner. And I'm not sure we can blame Brad for that either.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

What if the owners propose a tear-down and Brad says no?

They fire him. Pretty simple.

[InternationalVillager]

The biggest problem with this organization is that the fans have no idea what the direction or vision of the Flames organization is. We are the ones who pay our hard-earned money to pay for season tickets, merchandise and food/drinks when we go to the games. I believe we're the significant revenue driver of the Flames business model. Yet - we have no clue what the direction of the organization is. This is likely going to be the leading cause of fans stopping to care about the Flames.

The Flames need to release an open letter clearly dictating what the plan is. At that point, if I feel my views align with that of the organization, I can continue to stay on board. Otherwise, my family has already started to spend less on the Flames by passing on our season tickets to a friend. That's truly what a relationship is in a capitalist business model. Tell me what I am getting for my dollar. If I agree with you, I will continue to give you that money otherwise I will take my money elsewhere.

It's a joke. The Flames organization hasn't even given their fans even that. The information needed to make up their own mind. This is not how you run a successful business/organization in a free market. Where's the accountability? There is none.

From all my years as a STH, this is what I truly believe the target of the ownership group has been:

Try to be consistently competitive to the degree that we have a chance to make the playoffs or stay in the race long enough that keeps the fans interested. This ensures that they lose as little money as possible or even make money. In turn, it gives the fans a hope that if the team makes the playoffs, something "could" happen so they keep on hoping. Sports fans mentality also is very "cult-like" (Sorry - couldn't find another term) and a lot of fans forget that this is a business and there is an ownership group that needs to be held accountable.

The goal of the organization is not to win a Stanley Cup. The goal of the organization is to make the playoffs and see what happens. There's a major difference.

One more item --

Look over at the game thread and the other games before vs Habs. There is still a strong cohort of fans who simply want to make the playoffs. Why is that OK? Shouldn't the organization/team be built strong enough that making the playoffs annually is not much of an achievement? Teams that consistently strive to "just make the playoffs" are the ones who seem to be in this never-ending cycle of mediocrity.

Why - as a fan base - are we OK with that? Then I wonder maybe its not the fault of the owners for this sense of direction. If I take their point of view, if I have enough of the fan base willing to pay up money for me to make a profit by just attempting to make the playoffs every year then why (as an owner) should I be OK with losses for 3-5 years as my team undergoes a full rebuild? I doubt the ownership group could even name most of the lineup in todays game or in most of the games this season. Or even some of our top prospects etc.