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

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I don’t insist he is terrible. Just very, very confused that Tre would stick his neck out on someone who looks like a lateral move.

This continues to puzzle me.
The ONLY rationale decision for him to make is to hire the guy he thinks it he best. Anything less than that would be strange.
So his neck is out there on that basis no matter if it is Bill Peters, Darryl Sutter or Dallas Eakins.
This whole narrative that he's taking a risk makes no sense.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Still wrong.

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

Brad can say whatever he wants thought? Do you honestly think he would come out and say "The ownership group has given me a dollar figure, and we're going to go with the best guy that fits our budget"

It would never happen, just like GM's never blast coaches and most coaches never blast player's by name.

The proof is in the Flames coaching history going back the last 15+ years.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This continues to puzzle me.
The ONLY rationale decision for him to make is to hire the guy he thinks it he best. Anything less than that would be strange.
So his neck is out there on that basis no matter if it is Bill Peters, Darryl Sutter or Dallas Eakins.
This whole narrative that he's taking a risk makes no sense.

I'm rather amused that "sticks his neck out" is the bone of contention for you rather than "lateral move".

Wouldn't it make sense for you to offer arguments on why Peters would be a good hire?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Still wrong.

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

Maybe, and hear me out here, Brad lied.

[Bingo]

To me this whole thing comes down to Treliving.

If you think Treliving is a smart man and a good GM, you trust him to make a call based on what he thinks is a good fit and see where it goes. If you don't think he's a great GM, and trust me I get that angst as I had it with Feaster, then you are worried as hell ... and I get that.

To date I think Treliving has been great on the trade front, very good on the draft front, sketchy on the free agent front, and 0/1 on his coaching choices.

Detractors can only hope that his recovery from Bouma to Colborne will be seen again in his recovery for picking a coach that fits the second time around.

The coaching choice is a very different animal and I get both sides.

I don't think you can just circle Corsi numbers and hire the highest corsi guy, there is way more to it than that.

However I also don't think you can just look up the coaching record on hockeydb.com and pick the guy with the highest win percentage.

Both are too superficial.

If it's Peters I hope to hell they dig into why the man has had great corsi numbers but terrible shooting percentages and determine what allotment of luck, personnel and the system are to blame for it.

As an aside, I just continue to shake my head at the growing mass of people on this site that are legitimately angry with those that disagree with them. You can see it in their posting style.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm rather amused that "sticks his neck out" is the bone of contention for you rather than "lateral move".

Wouldn't it make sense for you to offer arguments on why Peters would be a good hire?

I haven't said if he is a good hire or a bad hire.
I don't know enough about him. I've been trying to educate myself on what he is like but I don't feel like I have enough information to form a good opinion.
So I'm in the wait and see camp as opposed to forming a premature opinion with little facts to support either way.

[Toonage]

He didn't hire a fan favorite, so the fans are sour.

I'm on board (if it is Peters, and let's be honest its not done yet).

[Fischy13]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

The New England Patriots think exactly like your last sentence. There isn't a salary cap on coaching. You can spend to the sky to get the absolute best. You can hire 3 of the best head coaches to be assistants if they'd take the secondary role. This is the absolute best way to beat the "cap". They need to invest in the very best coaches around. Provided they are willing to come to Calgary I guess. A winning team would go a long way towards making Calgary desirable for coaches and FA's.

Completely agree, most important part. If you aren't limited on what you can spend, hire the best you can.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by 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

Vigneault signed an extension last year that reportedly doubled his salary to $4 million per year: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...019-20-season/

[Flames_F.T.W]

IF Peters is the guy....

It sounds like Tre likes the possession game we had under Gulutzan but not his player usage, lack of in game adjustments and ability to rally the troops for big games . It sounds like Peters is an improvement in those areas while keeping the same possession game.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

IF Peters is the guy....

It sounds like Tre likes the possession game we had under Gulutzan but not his player usage, lack of in game adjustments and ability to rally the troops for big games . It sounds like Peters is an improvement in those areas while keeping the same possession game.

Bang on.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I haven't said if he is a good hire or a bad hire.
I don't know enough about him. I've been trying to educate myself on what he is like but I don't feel like I have enough information to form a good opinion.
So I'm in the wait and see camp as opposed to forming a premature opinion with little facts to support either way.

I'm also in the wait and see camp, but I understand a lot of the anxiety. This feels eerily similar to when Gulutzan was hired. He was a coach low on the boards collective radar at the time. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm, but most took a wait and see approach and feel they got burned on it.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by getbak

And the Calgary Flames.

The Flames were about -1.2% CF% and +2.16% HDSC% compared to the Hurricanes. But this is a good point. Both teams have good underlying numbers.

It makes me think the real problem with the 17-18 Flames and 17-18 Hurricanes was an inability to score because of bad luck and a lack of shooting ability.

If you look at the HDSC% rankings it’s Penguins, Predators, Sharks, Leafs, Hurricanes, Canadiens, Bruins, Devils, Jets, Flames, Lightning, Stars, and Wild (the best). Obviously the stat is not perfect in terms of correlating with success.

What I think it means is that players are getting chances to score in close, a lot of that is playmaking but a lot is systems too. But the team still has to score. The coach cannot shoot the puck. What really separates the best from the worst is the ability to score.

I think Peters would be a fine choice because his players consistently get chances to score a lot. However, that will be completely irrelevant if the team doesn’t improve its forwards, particularly with respect to shooters.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

That’s not an appeal to authority, that’s an indisputable basic fact. Read the post again before you comment. To say that Treliving knows more, or, as I said, that what appears to be “magic beans” is not actually “magic beans” to people with inside knowledge of professional hockey like Treliving, is not an appeal to authority. Would it be if I said his decision is right because he’s the GM? Yes, but I didn’t say that.

If you want to argue that there’s nothing relevant that Treliving knows that you don’t, then you’re just being obtuse about it. Obviously he knows more than you. That doesn’t mean he’ll make the right decision, it just means he’s better equipped to make a decision.

I didn’t tell Red to be quiet, and if you think anytime someone points out that a professional employed at the top level of an industry has access to more information than you is trying to tell you to “be quiet,” then I don’t know how to help you. These are facts.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

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

Data point, he’s the GM of the Oilers. The only one most people need.

Again, you’re missing the point. Results on the ice ARE the only outcome that matters, but by suggesting only what has been seen at the fan level, in a four-season sample size on a mis-managed team, is all that is relevant? Or that nothing outside what we have seen in the what, maybe 5-10 Carolina games any of us actually watched over the past four years affects the outcome?

That’s just hilarious. lol

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe, and hear me out here, Brad lied.

Maybe, but he's never flat out lied to the media before. Why would he lie now?

You are basing your opinion on a feeling, and I'm basing my opinion on what the boss actually said on record. So yeah.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

IF Peters is the guy....

It sounds like Tre likes the possession game we had under Gulutzan but not his player usage, lack of in game adjustments and ability to rally the troops for big games . It sounds like Peters is an improvement in those areas while keeping the same possession game.

Bang on. This, and his spectacular failure at Special Teams.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Maybe, but he's never flat out lied to the media before. Why would he lie now?

You are basing your opinion on a feeling, and I'm basing my opinion on what the boss actually said on record. So yeah.

Sure he has. Remember how sought after Drew Shore was? How many GMs would snap him up if they put him on waivers? Sure, tiny lie, but he's done it. Every GM lies.

He was put on the spot with a last second question and threw out a quick answer.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You say this, and yet at every turn have strongly resisted the dozens of perfectly competent rationalizations other posers have had to offer. If you are still confused, that's on you.

In the end, I suppose we are given choice as to what we will choose to believe: IF Treliving ends up hiring Bill Peters each of us must conclude that either...

1. He is sticking his neck out on this hire because Peters has impressed him as a candidate and he is convinced of his ability to turn this group into a perennial playoff performer.

or...

2. He is sticking his neck out foolishly on this hire because deep down he does not know what he is doing, and can't see and understand the situation with his team nearly as clearly as many posters here on CP.

I will say it again. I trust Treliving's judgment in hockey matters a hell of a lot more than I trust anyone's here.

Elliotte Friedman was asked this morning why Tre is looking at Peters. The only reason he could come up with is that he knows him and you hire people you know.
What other reasons are there to suggest he is a better choice than AV or Sutter?

His teams don't take penalties?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Maybe, and hear me out here, Brad lied.

Or the guys on the radio have to fill a 4 hour programming block and are speculating about stuff they don't really know about. Also, it's better for ratings to take a position that is the most controversial. This is the strategy Eric Francis seems to follow in every thing he writes.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by getbak

Or the guys on the radio have to fill a 4 hour programming block and are speculating about stuff they don't really know about. Also, it's better for ratings to take a position that is the most controversial. This is the strategy Eric Francis seems to follow in every thing he writes.

Fair point.