[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[Toonage]

(To anyone also curious why no other coaches were interviewed): Its entirely possible that the only reason they decided to let Gulutzan go was because Peters became available. Weird as that may seem.

lol - Friedman just said the exact same thing

[Nelson]

I think Bill Peters would be a good choice as head coach. In 17-18, his team allowed around 200 less shots and got about 20 more shots than the Flames. Plus his team controlled around 53% of the shots from in close.
So I think his team was bad because of terrible goaltending and shooting ability. The teams that are right by the 17-18 Hurricanes on a chart of CF% and HDSC%? The TB Lightning and Boston Bruins. Therefore, I think Peters put his players in a good place to succeed. They just didn’t.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So he should take the most popular or biggest name and not the guy that he thinks is a better fit for his team in order to make sure that when he gets fired in two years he can get another job?

Context, Bingo. Jiri was challenging what difference it made for Treliving if he picked Peters and it doesn't work out.

Also, you are falling to the same faulty argument Textcritic did. "Biggest name" and "best fit" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Hmmm. Why not at least interview AV, Sutter, and some other candidates first? I could understand if they hired an accomplished guy like AV or Sutter without looking at other coaches because you know what you are getting but I don't know how you can target a guy like Peters and assume he's your man without talking to other candidates as there's some pretty established guys available.

Who's to say he hasn't? Treliving's regime has been notoriously tight-lipped. I suspect the reason we are hearing so much about Bill Peters is that the information is coming from the Carolina end. That doesn't mean Calgary isn't exploring all options. It just means that if they are we haven't heard about it.
Of course it's possible they aren't. We know they never interviewed Boudreau when he was available last time around...

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So he should take the most popular or biggest name and not the guy that he thinks is a better fit for his team in order to make sure that when he gets fired in two years he can get another job?

I agree with this statement. There is something to be said about getting a guy with experience and clout to help guide young players through difficult stretches. However, from a purely technical standpoint I see Treliving's logic. If you consider the following as the key areas to address (all of which Tre has raised in his most recent press conferences), then Peters is a fit:

Discipline: Substantial Improvement
PP: TBD - Assistant Coach
PK: TBD - Assistant Coach, Good based on past Peters teams.
NHL Experience: More than Gulutzan when he started
Emotional Management: TBD - Hard to Judge from the outside
Hard Working: Check
Someone that can "think the new NHL" with creativity: Check
Similar System to limit the learning curve: Check

I don't necessarily agree that Tre is using the same parameters that I would prefer him looking at, but I can definitely see his logic that Peters has the characteristics that he values. If this team had the right system and lost it between the ears, then this may be exactly the type of tweak that is required. If there is a fundamental issue with the style, then we will have a similar thread in 2-3 years with complaining about the coach basically from the day he is hired.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I really find the constant appeal to authority as a defence of Peters rather curious. I don't see the people in this thread arguing Treliving knows better or has more information rushing into the E=NG thread and saying the same when we bash Chiarelli's decisions. Because every missing data point we have with respect to the Flames decision making is true of the other 30 teams. So relying on it here is really nothing more than an effort to shut down criticism without responding to it.

We can see the results of Treliving's decisions, and we can judge based on that. We can see the results of Peters' tenure as a coach, and we can judge based on that. They might have more data to work with behind the scenes, but anything that is relevant is laid bare on the ice. And we can judge based on that

First, comparing how Flames fans treat Treliving vs how they treat Chiarelli in the E=NG thread is ridiculous. I think you missed the part where Chiarelli is the GM of our biggest rivals, who are just generally fun to criticise and laugh at (even if logic doesn’t always apply).

Second, I think the disagreement comes in your second point. Not everything that is relevant is laid bare on the ice, and unless you’ve watched every Carolina game you’re not even doing that, you’re looking at a stat sheet.

How someone’s stat sheet looks on one team is not the entirety of what’s relevant when considering how they WILL do on another. Does it provide some incidcation? Yeah. Does it provide enough? No. Is it fair to say that as fans of a team in a different conference, we haven’t a limited scope of information compared to the person whose job it is to have that information and insight? Yes.

It’s not an appeal to authority, I (maybe some are, but I’m not) am not saying Treliving knows best, but judging his decision before it plays out, or before it is even made given the entirely different levels of information available, is premature. Again, there is a reason why Peters is well regarded by those within the NHL. If you can’t figure out the reason, it’s probably because you don’t have enough relevant information. Seems fair.

[Toonage]

Friedman just said on 960 he thinks it gets done (Peters to the Flames)

[Royle9]

FWIW the guys on the fan this morning basically said the choice in Peter's is 2 fold:

1. He's from the area and he knows Brad - Literally when asked why they think he's the best fit that was sadly their only real answer. It didn't sound like any of them were sold that he was going to be the guy to turn it around.

2. Said Calgary would NEVER pay for a coach like AV/Trotz etc because they would command upwards of $4M a season and historically the flames just dont invest in coaching.


If it is Peters (and by all accounts it sounds like it will be) I'm not overly optimistic that he gets the job done. I'm not a stats guy, but the comparable's people have posted in this thread going back as far as 10+ years show he's not very successful at all.

I think what makes it sting more is that during Trelivings presser he specifically said 2 things: The first being "money wasn't an issue" when referring to hiring the next coach and two "We need a proven NHL winner"
One would assume that discredits Peter's from even being a candidate.

The sad thing is, going back as far as our last deep run (2004) I believe Darryl was the last coach we paid a "premium" for and the results kind of reflect that to some extent.

[Toonage]

I feel sort of vindicated that we are hearing the "Calgary won't pay for a coach" thing in the media now. I (and a bunch of others) were shot down for even suggesting this was a thing and I was talking about it back when they hired Gulutzan if not before.

So, yeah. Told you so.

[Table 5]

Well that's reassuring.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Nelson

The teams that are right by the 17-18 Hurricanes on a chart of CF% and HDSC%? The TB Lightning and Boston Bruins.

And the Calgary Flames.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

First, comparing how Flames fans treat Treliving vs how they treat Chiarelli in the E=NG thread is ridiculous. I think you missed the part where Chiarelli is the GM of our biggest rivals, who are just generally fun to criticise and laugh at (even if logic doesn’t always apply).

I didn't actually. And you really only reinforced my point. You don't rush into that thread with these arguments because you like bashing Chiarelli. But more to the point, you think he's a bad GM. And you're right to think that. Even though you lack all of the data lies behind the decisions he makes.

Second, I think the disagreement comes in your second point. Not everything that is relevant is laid bare on the ice,

I disagree. Results on the ice are the only outcome that matters. Anything that isn't affecting that is not relevant.

...and unless you’ve watched every Carolina game you’re not even doing that, you’re looking at a stat sheet.

How someone’s stat sheet looks on one team is not the entirety of what’s relevant when considering how they WILL do on another. Does it provide some incidcation? Yeah. Does it provide enough? No. Is it fair to say that as fans of a team in a different conference, we haven’t a limited scope of information compared to the person whose job it is to have that information and insight? Yes.

You mean to say that it takes more than a spreadsheet to judge a player, coach or team? Blasphemy!

It’s not an appeal to authority, I (maybe some are, but I’m not) am not saying Treliving knows best, but judging his decision before it plays out, or before it is even made given the entirely different levels of information available, is premature. Again, there is a reason why Peters is well regarded by those within the NHL. If you can’t figure out the reason, it’s probably because you don’t have enough relevant information. Seems fair.

Yes, it very much is an appeal to authority.

Red's question was "what magic beans is Peters selling?"

Your response was "Treliving knows more than you."

Rather than offer arguments in favour of Peters, you just tried to shut Red down by telling him he doesn't know as much as Treliving, so be quiet.

What he - and others - are looking for are arguments in favour of this potential hire. And at least a few people have tried to provide some of that. In the post that I replied to, you did not.

[Racki]

Well, Treliving is about to hitch his wagon to Bill Peters. I'm not brimming with optimism but Tre must have a strong feeling about the hire if he's willing to stake his job on this guy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Who's to say he hasn't? Treliving's regime has been notoriously tight-lipped. I suspect the reason we are hearing so much about Bill Peters is that the information is coming from the Carolina end. That doesn't mean Calgary isn't exploring all options. It just means that if they are we haven't heard about it.
Of course it's possible they aren't. We know they never interviewed Boudreau when he was available last time around...

Because Gulutzan was fired on Tuesday so if there's been any interviews they have been conducted in the past two days. The Flames are tight lipped when it comes to trades and player transaction but not when it comes to coaching interviews as they were all in the open a couple of years ago as Treliving interviewed a lot of guys. I'm pretty sure if Treliving has interviewed anyone in the past two days it would have been in the media as agents usually leak this stuff and right now it appears Peters is the only coach they have been in talks with. If they called Darryl and he said he wasn't interested that may not make it into the media but I find it unlikely AV would turn down an opportunity to interview with the Flames.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Royle9

2. Said Calgary would NEVER pay for a coach like AV/Trotz etc because they would command upwards of $4M a season and historically the flames just dont invest in coaching.

Personally, I'd rather have an internal salary cap that was $4 million (or whatever the difference is) lower, than try to scrimp on a coach. He's one of the most crucial elements of a team.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Royle9

2. Said Calgary would NEVER pay for a coach like AV/Trotz etc because they would command upwards of $4M a season and historically the flames just dont invest in coaching.

That reason alone is why the Flames won't ever get into cup contender status. They're too damn cheap to go out and get a proven head coach that has success in the league when its literally right in front of them.

[Pipty]

Jeez the hurricane's are hoping this guy will go on his own and we want to pick him up.... Think about that....4 years of nothing but losing and we think he can do much different with this roster? Tre must be on crack if he thinks so...wont be any different than GG

[Royle9]

Looks like AV was making 2M a season for the NYR according to Capfriendly.
Of course.. it doesn't show what GG or Peter's were making, but I believe based on what's been said in the media is that Peter's was around 1.6M a season.

As the old saying goes - You get what you pay for

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I feel sort of vindicated that we are hearing the "Calgary won't pay for a coach" thing in the media now. I (and a bunch of others) were shot down for even suggesting this was a thing and I was talking about it back when they hired Gulutzan if not before.

So, yeah. Told you so.

Still wrong.

Brad went on record to say that they can spend whatever they want on a coach.

[kukkudo]

I don't think Peters will be GG 2.0 more like Brent Sutter 2.0.