Brad Treliving needs to go

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cobra

So in your mind an 'attempted' trade that does not happen makes him a good GM.
Cant stop laughing....hey boss I tried to make our company money but it did not work out....sorry about that.

If only he said that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cobra

So in your mind an 'attempted' trade that does not happen makes him a good GM.
Cant stop laughing....hey boss I tried to make our company money but it did not work out....sorry about that.

No, in my mind, the fact Treliving made a trade involving Brodie that didn’t pan out means he was willing to trade a major piece. Try reading what I said a little more carefully.

[Cobra]

Problem is he did not make the trade.
A trend with aTre that no one can deny.
Making trades that dont pan out is pure fantasy.
I would think Lawyers in Springbank would have a hard time telling their bosses they almost made a deal???

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Problem is he did not make the trade.
A trend with aTre that no one can deny.
Making trades that dont pan out is pure fantasy.
I would think Lawyers in Springbank would have a hard time telling their bosses they almost made a deal???

Try to keep up. Someone said that the team wasn’t willing to trade a core piece. Treliving was willing to do it. That’s the only point that was being made in this discussion. Do you understand this?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Problem is he did not make the trade.
A trend with aTre that no one can deny.
Making trades that dont pan out is pure fantasy.
I would think Lawyers in Springbank would have a hard time telling their bosses they almost made a deal???

The Kadri deal you mean?

Well yes, as a matter of fact he did complete that trade.

It was only after the deal was agreed to that Kadri decided to say no. This wasn't leaked "they were close" stuff, the trade was agreed to by BT and Kyle Dubas.

"So what happened is they had a deal in place and they wanted me to move my no-trade clause," Kadri said. "But you know, obviously, for me, it was no disrespect to Calgary or the Flames organization. I love their team and I love the direction they're headed. I just figured that had I declined, I would have had a better opportunity of being a Maple Leaf next year and that's really what it came down to. I wanted to play for the Leafs next year. I wanted to be a part of that. In declining that trade I had aspirations of being a Leaf and we know clearly that didn't happen."

https://www.nhl.com/news/nazem-kadri...do/c-308242330

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ That’s not complete.

It’s a conditional trade and the condition wasn’t met

And it was a failure for this organization, who ended up empty handed due to Tre’s misread and mismanagement

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ That’s not complete.

It’s a conditional trade and the condition wasn’t met

And it was a failure for this organization, who ended up empty handed due to Tre’s misread and mismanagement

Exactly

[Cobra]

In pro sports trying to make your team better counts.
Winning organization think this way.

[Cobra]

Because your team is awful, constantly leak to the media how close you were to making your team better.
Tre is a beauty.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Because your team is awful, constantly leak to the media how close you were to making your team better.
Tre is a beauty.

Its truly like you dont even read what people write.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Because your team is awful, constantly leak to the media how close you were to making your team better.
Tre is a beauty.

Have the Flames under Treliving been willing to trade a significant player? Yes or no?

[Flamesfan05]

Not sure what to argue

7 yrs after Treliving took over, the team is in no better shape

How much more time does he deserve?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, in my mind, the fact Treliving made a trade involving Brodie that didn’t pan out means he was willing to trade a major piece. Try reading what I said a little more carefully.

That’s true but why did he give up and let him walk for nothing after that?

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Have the Flames under Treliving been willing to trade a significant player? Yes or no?

Has Tre actually made that trade.
No.

You can rehash Hamilton trade and both teams did well.
I like Lindholm and Hanifin but Carolina looks just fine without them.

Keep defending....your right.....when he gets fired his dismal record will be a fact

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Has Tre actually made that trade.
No.

You can rehash Hamilton trade and both teams did well.
I like Lindholm and Hanifin but Carolina looks just fine without them.

Keep defending....your right.....when he gets fired his dismal record will be a fact

LOL. So you are just ignoring the question. And you don’t even know what was being discussed. The fact you think I’m defending Treliving is funny, too. I voted that he should be fired.

One more time: Did the Flames under Treliving refuse to trade important players? Yes or No.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

That’s true but why did he give up and let him walk for nothing after that?

Because he was busy changing his UFA goalie. But that wasn’t what I was discussing. Can none of you read prior posts?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

That’s true but why did he give up and let him walk for nothing after that?

Injuries and a short-sited/futile mandate from ownership.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

LOL. So you are just ignoring the question. And you don’t even know what was being discussed. The fact you think I’m defending Treliving is funny, too. I voted that he should be fired.

One more time: Did the Flames under Treliving refuse to trade important players? Yes or No.

Regardless of how you voted there are literally hundreds of posts here where you have defended Treliving.

Does it really matter whether he’s “willing” to trade a significant player?

I don’t understand all the back and forth on all this since I can’t think of many people who have presented an argument that the organization is on the right track. There are a few though who believe the GM will right the ship this summer. Sure hope they’re right.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Regardless of how you voted there are literally hundreds of posts here where you have defended Treliving.

Does it really matter whether he’s “willing” to trade a significant player?

I don’t understand all the back and forth on all this since I can’t think of many people who have presented an argument that the organization is on the right track. There are a few though who believe the GM will right the ship this summer. Sure hope they’re right.

Should you change the captain of a leaking ship in the midst of a storm?

The proprietors of the ship encouraged him to sail a ship that looked a little shoddy. Most of the passengers (fans) thought the ship looked fine, and the captain seems to have thought so, too. Nobody expected a storm of this nature (COVID/flat cap).

Even if we can get a brilliant and experienced captain aboard, will he know enough about this particular ship to prioritize the right repairs? Or perhaps should we let Treliving steer the ship through the off-season and re-assess how it's looking after another half season in less turbulent water?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Regardless of how you voted there are literally hundreds of posts here where you have defended Treliving.

Does it really matter whether he’s “willing” to trade a significant player?

I don’t understand all the back and forth on all this since I can’t think of many people who have presented an argument that the organization is on the right track. There are a few though who believe the GM will right the ship this summer. Sure hope they’re right.

I’m not talking about whether Treliving is a good GM or not. I’m simply arguing about a false narrative about the team being unwilling to make such trades in general. That’s why willingness matters. I wish people would follow the discussion before chiming in with irrelevant points.

I don’t defend Treliving. I argue against things that I believe are incorrect or unfair criticisms. I agree with correct or fair criticisms. Treliving has made enough mistakes, and the team has not progressed enough under him where I think he gets to keep his job. It’s a results business.