[Rumour] G.Gulutzan front-runner for Flames HC - UPD: Hasn't been officially offered contract

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You never know what's going on behind the scenes but if any thing I've seen, read or witnessed from Gaudreau and Monahan has any bearing then I consider it highly unlikely that they quit on a coach, insisted he be let go, or threatened to change contract terms because of Hartley.

Doesn't add up to me at all.

Agreed.

Bob was fired for one primary reason - his systems.

At the end of 2014-15 Treliving said during the year end press conference (i'm paraphrasing) "next year we're going to have to have some changes to our systems, along with some personnel changes so that we're holding on to the puck way more and our defensemen can rest at the offensive blue line")

Treliving held up his end of that statement (acquiring Frolik, Hamilton, even Nakladal).
Hartley however did not make any significant changes to the system. This was evident during game 1 where the Canucks gameplanned for beating us and no adjustments were made over 60 minutes.

The only people who might have "lost" Hartley were not the younger players but rather Matt Stajan and company, the C-tier vets.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Weren't they looking for improvement in special teams and what not? Wasn't GG below average in those departments?

Or is it expected the assistants will be running them?

My understanding is GG ran the Canucks Pk and someone else ran the PP. They had split duties which is odd but thats what I have been told from a diehard Canucks fan. I have not personally verified it.

Canucks have had a notable PK last few years.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Then why did he extend Hartley and go out of his way to credit Hartley at every press conference? That doesn't add up

Because Hartley went and made the playoffs and won coach of the year. At that point, his guy or not, it's a hard option to let him walk.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Because Hartley went and made the playoffs and won coach of the year. At that point, his guy or not, it's a hard option to let him walk.

They knew that ahead of time? He was signed to the extension in December of 2014

[rollie619]

Hard to make wholesale changes mid season

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They knew that ahead of time? He was signed to the extension in December of 2014

I think as an incoming GM you should always keep the coach that is in place. If it means extending him midseason I think you do it. You can always fire him later.

With the next coaching hire, if the team doesn't rebound quickly the heat will be on treliving as it will be HIS guy.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

My understanding is GG ran the Canucks Pk and someone else ran the PP. They had split duties which is odd but thats what I have been told from a diehard Canucks fan. I have not personally verified it.

Canucks have had a notable PK last few years.

It's not that odd to have a defensive coach run the PK and an offensive coach run the PP. It kind of only makes sense.

Why would you want a defensive specialist designing your PP. Or an offensive specialist designing your PK?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Then why did he extend Hartley and go out of his way to credit Hartley at every press conference? That doesn't add up

Uh oh ... now I have to defend a theory.

He didn't extend him three years which to me was key. He had to extend him or let him go, and the guy was heading to the playoffs.

I think a two year extension was the least Hartley would take but they had to extend him with the team doing so well.

Lame duck coach and coach that gets Calgary back to the playoffs are rarely the same guy.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Uh oh ... now I have to defend a theory.

He didn't extend him three years which to me was key. He had to extend him or let him go, and the guy was heading to the playoffs.

I think a two year extension was the least Hartley would take but they had to extend him with the team doing so well.

Lame duck coach and coach that gets Calgary back to the playoffs are rarely the same guy.

That's fair, but they way Treliving went out of his way at every turn to say "first and foremost Bob is responsible for where we are"

I don't think Monahan or Gaudreau "quit" on Hartley or campaigned against him either. To me, the most reasonable guess is they were honest with Treliving in the season ending interviews about how they didn't feel he was getting the best out of them, or he was too hard on them, etc. It didn't need to be coordinated or premeditated. It could be as simple as most employee engagement surveys. Then Treliving decided he had some decisions to make and boom here we are

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

My understanding is GG ran the Canucks Pk and someone else ran the PP. They had split duties which is odd but thats what I have been told from a diehard Canucks fan. I have not personally verified it.

Canucks have had a notable PK last few years.

Tippett's talk at the Sask coaching symposium, he asked Gully who ran the Van PP and it was Gully

[Inglewood Jack]

ya, I don't know why the only two options for player opinion of the coach are either "unquestioningly go through a wall and die for him" or "sound the trumpets of rebellion". I envision the core players saying that they didn't feel their style and systems were that effective, and they can still say that while still respecting or liking Bob.

yesterday's pushback comment is probably just players voicing their concerns about how their talents are being used, particularly compared to the opposition they ran into that were much more prepared for them than the previous year.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Then why did he extend Hartley and go out of his way to credit Hartley at every press conference? That doesn't add up

I expect that Treliving had a change of heart last year in the light of impressive results, but this didn't do much to lengthen the leash for Hartley. To be sure, it would be practically unprecedented to dismiss a Jack Adams nominee who had just won a playoff round for a team that had not done so for more than a decade. This was as much a politician's maneuver as it was a managerial decision.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's fair, but they way Treliving went out of his way at every turn to say "first and foremost Bob is responsible for where we are"

I don't think Monahan or Gaudreau "quit" on Hartley or campaigned against him either. To me, the most reasonable guess is they were honest with Treliving in the season ending interviews about how they didn't feel he was getting the best out of them, or he was too hard on them, etc. It didn't need to be coordinated or premeditated. It could be as simple as most employee engagement surveys. Then Treliving decided he had some decisions to make and boom here we are

This. The kids didn't have to have attitude problems or throw Hartley under the bus. If Treliving is a good interviewer, he could gather what he needed with decent questions.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Weren't they looking for improvement in special teams and what not? Wasn't GG below average in those departments?

Or is it expected the assistants will be running them?

It has been pointed out a number of times here that the Flames had serious problems with their penalty killing this past season, and less issues with the power play. Someone broke down the numbers to show that the PP was actually operating at around a 20% clip for the last 2/3 of the season, but was so bad in the first quarter that it completely tanked the season average.

The biggest problem with the Flames penalty kill was poor goaltending. Certainly, there was room for improvement made through adjustments, but I think management probably recognises that the most significant correction to the problem will come by way of better goaltending, and not a coaching change.

[sureLoss]

Steinberg says they are expecting the announcement tomorrow (Friday). No guarantee... but claims all signs point that way.

[DionTheDman]

Maybe they need to have time for Todd Reirden to fly in as well for his introduction as associate coach.

[Toonage]

With all the secrecy surrounding this I half expect them to sneak the new coach into the arena with a mask, only to be removed at the start of the presser.

[TheScorpion]

Haha, nothing has changed in years. The secrecy is in full swing!

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Then why did he extend Hartley and go out of his way to credit Hartley at every press conference? That doesn't add up

I don't agree that Treliving was hoping for a dissaterous 2014/15, but I'm willing everyone in the org., despite what they said, was expecting to be in the bottom 5. Lots of the other roster moves point to the management filling in holes with stop gaps as a rebuilding team.

But I also don't think he was banking on it to fire Hartley, as you point out, why extend him. I doubt Tree was ever sold on Hartley being his guy, but was willing to give him a shot (and if that's the case you kind of have to extend him so he's not a sitting duck) and I also think Treliving probably thought the team needed some stability in the coaching ranks for the first couple of years more than they needed the perfect coach (in Tree's mind).

[puckedoff]

Heard they will also be releasing an update on CalgaryNEXT when they announce the new coach