Brad Treliving needs to go

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

And what is this?

Another one? That is lumping people into a group and pointing the finger at the people in that group.

Are you actually going to blame people for being sarcastic considering the 7 years under Tre? If anything is wrong with this fanbase it's them being too patient.

You made a cheeky comment that was sarcastic.

I said "another one" as in another comment that isn't actually discussing an issue but posting a drive by.

Calling the post what it was.

You see that the same? I'll say it again ... come on.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You made a cheeky comment that was sarcastic.

Which comment was that?

[1qqaaz]

I think Treliving's biggest apparent weaknesses have been:
-Bad coaching hires
-Bad free agent signings
-Trading away draft picks

Some things have gone pretty well:
-Drafting has been pretty good
-The Flames have actually managed to develop defensemen
-The trades have been pretty good in terms of value

I'm not sure if any of these weaknesses can definitively be credited to Treliving. What if Treliving couldn't hire big name coaches because ownership didn't give him the budget to? Maybe that's why coaches like Boudreau were never even interviewed - Treliving knew he was too expensive.

What if the Flames signed free agents like Brouwer and Neal because ownership wanted the Flames to compete ASAP? What if he was basically instructed to spend to the cap so that the team could be competitive? You could argue that the Flames should have then signed someone else, but big contracts to older UFAs are always risky. What if Treliving traded away picks because he was told that the Flames should try to compete?

I guess what I'm saying is, it's possible that many of Treliving's weaknesses could be a result of bad directions from ownership. If that's the case, we can probably still say that Treliving isn't the best at using pro scouts. Other than that, it's possible that a lot can be blamed on ownership. They may have been setting unrealistic goals.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Bingo

All you have to do is read man. Read what others are saying.

From mid season on I've had a pretty constant view and I have no issues laying it out again.

I think Treliving has been excellent at drafting, and at contract negotiations. I think he wins more trades than he loses. I think he's had his wobbles in the UFA market and with coaching decisions, but then even there the only one I fully hang on him is Gulutzan.

He went in on Monahan and Gaudreau as top line talents and was wrong for whatever reason. They're not that good ... Monahan injuries ... who knows.

I didn't see the Gaudreau and Monahan five on five collapse so I'm not going to act like a genius in hindsight.

So you have a bet on something I agreed on, and the rest showing a guy that is building a foundation in my mind. I get from the guy that he learns with mistakes and is a different manager now than he was when he was hired.

So I think you keep him, because his strengths line up with the market - better to draft well in a city that doesn't draw talent. It's the biggest key.

Add to that the fear of the unknown ... his replacement ... and I say stay the course.

Or is that just the rumblings of a beaten down low self esteem hockey fan?

That's where we have to disagree. I think he is at most above average in contract negotiation. The Flames' players had mostly been getting fair contracts.

For example take the 2016 RFA's:

Gaudreau - 78P, 0.99P/GP - 6.75M x 6, Age at the time 22

Kucherov - 66P, 0.86P/GP - 4.77M x 3, Age 23

Forsberg - 64P, 0.78P/GP - 6M x 6, Age 21

Manahan - 63P, 0.78P/GP - 6.38M x 7, Age 21

Scheifele - 61P, 0.86P/GP - 6.13M x 8, Age 23

Hoffman - 59P, 0.76P/GP - 5.19M x 4, Age 26

Barkov - 59P, 0.89P/GP - 5.9M x 6, Age 20
Schenn - 59P, 0.74P/GP - 5.13M x 4, Age 24
Palmieri - 57P, 0.7P/GP - 4.65 x 5, Age 25
Trocheck - 53P, 0.7P/GP - 4.75M x 6, Age 22
MacKinnon - 52P, 0.72P/PG - 6.3M x 7, Age 20



Capfriendly



The same comparison can be made with Tkachuk. I do think Brad got a little lucky with Gio, because most analysts expected a regression in his game to happen sooner. The Backlund contract doesn't wow me either. Mangiapane is a bridge contract, and is paid accordingly. I think it is a little too early to tell on the Anderson and Hanifin contracts, so far they are fair value.



Now we are left with his big win in Lindholm. That contract is amazing, but Lindholm signed it after 44P in 81 game with Carolina. His last 4 seasons were (44, 45, 39, 39 Points). Now it is definitely a part of Brad's accomplishment to see the potential in him, and lock him up long term, but it was far from a sure thing at the time of signing.



As far as the draft, I agree that the Flames have been drafting much better than under either Feaster or Sutter. I see a lot of value picks, especially at the later rounds. However, I don't see any real game changers that were drafted outside of Mathew Tkachuk(6th overall), and Fox who hasn't played one game for this organization. The drafting has been good, but far from great. There are many reasons like lack of picks, picking later in the first round and so on. However, the Flames have not found a game breaker to play for them outside of one 6th overall draft pick. Mangiapane could turn into one, so could Dube, Valimaki, or one of the later drafted prospects, but for now it is lacking.


My bottom line is that I'm unsure about Treliving. He is a better GM than the last several GM's the Flames have had. I know that the next GM can be a lot worse. That said, I still think that this team with Tre at the helm is going nowhere.

[1qqaaz]

I also think that a lot of the alleged Treliving apologists are critiquing these get-fixed-quick solutions that CP posters are suggesting. They aren't necessarily defending Treliving's performance as GM.

They aren't evaluating Treliving's performance in a vacuum. There are other things to consider, like whether other GMs are even available. Or the value of continuity in the GM position. Or the suggestion that Treliving, as a younger GM, might improve and learn from his mistakes.

Others CP are simply acting as devil's advocates. Either way, I guess it can make for good discussion.

[Stanley]

I would love to see what Mike Futa could do

[TOfan]

On the topic of a clear upgrade; I'll go out on a limb and say our GM took the hockey hall of fame GM up north to the woodshed on the Neal-Lucic deal. No GM bats 1.000. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should expect that every single time from Treliving, or any GM for that matter, but clearly he has the ability to win trades and even under difficult circumstances.

I'll echo Bingo on this, if there is a clearly better candidate out there, then sure the discussion should be had. Otherwise I am sticking with the guy who knows this team and organization better than any outsider.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

Which comment was that?

Use that little red arrow icon in my post, it will take you back to your previous post, then to mine and so on.

Pretty obvious which one I'm taking about ... hell I even quoted it specifically twice (once with CP reply, once using actual quotes)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I also think that a lot of the alleged Treliving apologists are critiquing these get-fixed-quick solutions that CP posters are suggesting. They aren't necessarily defending Treliving's performance as GM.

They aren't evaluating Treliving's performance in a vacuum. There are other things to consider, like whether other GMs are even available. Or the value of continuity in the GM position. Or the suggestion that Treliving, as a younger GM, might improve and learn from his mistakes.

Others CP are simply acting as devil's advocates. Either way, I guess it can make for good discussion.

I'm all for an honest debate about Treliving and I'm one who thinks he should be let go, based mainly of a lack of results, and not particular errors (though there are two major ones I believe he made).

What I do that casts me as some sort of defender is that I dislike incorrect arguments or false narratives. this isn't, as someone suggested, just because I like to argue. It's more that, if you are replacing a guy you should at least be honest about why you are doing so, or else you are going to get the same result next time.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Use that little red arrow icon in my post, it will take you back to your previous post, then to mine and so on.

Pretty obvious which one I'm taking about ... hell I even quoted it specifically twice (once with CP reply, once using actual quotes)

Thanks for your genuine effort to help, I'm still getting the hang of this forum platform thing. I wasn't being sarcastic in the post you are referring to. Now I have the answer, I think.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's natural that a new GM would have a feeling out period that would take time for sure ... I haven't leaned on that one personally, but it's true to an extent.

The big issue for me is the assurance that the new GM is an upgrade.

There isn't a GM in hockey that I wouldn't dump if you could guarantee the next guy would be better. But given the fact that no one can give out such a guarantee I'd say my confidence in what Treliving does well and what he's learned and concern that it won't be an upgrade is enough to keep me happy with brining him back.

What is the worst thing a bad GM could do? Tank the team so we start fresh with picks?

I guess trade picks and tank the team would be THE WORST, but really - Can the Flames be in a much worse position with a new GM?

[Erick Estrada]

I believe the team's record since Treliving has taken over is in the range of 20th place in the league? It's not like this is a top 10 organization where the wrong GM hire could take the team from an elite to mediocre/bad. The reality is that Flames are closer to the Sabres than they are the Avalanche as this is a team that was actually trying to compete for the cup that's drafting near the top 10. The Flames are actually trying to win and being bad about it in the process. Not a lot to be fearful of IMO unless you are content with where the Flames are today because year 8 isn't going to be a lot different than years 1-7.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

What is the worst thing a bad GM could do? Tank the team so we start fresh with picks?

I guess trade picks and tank the team would be THE WORST, but really - Can the Flames be in a much worse position with a new GM?

Yes. Definitely worse. Think Oilers circa 2017–19, or the Minnesota Wild gongshow under Paul Fenton.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I believe the team's record since Treliving has taken over is in the range of 20th place in the league? It's not like this is a top 10 organization where the wrong GM hire could take the team from an elite to mediocre/bad. The reality is that Flames are closer to the Sabres than they are the Avalanche as this is a team that was actually trying to compete for the cup drafting near the top 10. The Flames are actually trying to win and being bad about it in the process. Not a lot to be fear IMO unless you are perfectly fine with mediocrity.

So, for all the flack that posters who do not support replacing the current GM receive for "settling for mediocrity" this "what's the worst that could happen?" counter-response is just lazy.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Honestly can't believe you don't have the filter to keep yourself from hitting send on a post like this.

But congratulations you may have found a new low for having to demean others that don't agree with your point.

We should meet for a beer sometime, so I can make it really clear how little I struggle with self confidence while being on the side of supporting Treliving.

There are literally posters here posting the equivalent of "I don't think the Flames will find a better GM, so might as well stay with Treliving."

As such, the not wanting to leave a job analogy seems apt.

If that's demeaning, then maybe posters shouldn't openly express their doubts that the Flames can do any better than the mediocrity on the display the past seven years?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, for all the flack that posters who do not support replacing the current GM receive for "settling for mediocrity" this "what's the worst that could happen?" counter-response is just lazy.

It's not lazy at all. The Flames were trying to win a cup and missed the playoffs. What's worse than a team thinking they had a cup contender on their hands and finishing with a record no better than a rebuilding Ottawa Senators? Rebuilding and missing the playoffs isn't worse as I guarantee Senators fans feel better about their season than Flames fans feel about this season. Being a tire fire is worse but that is how most elite teams today build their roster and probably what it will ultimately will take if the organization will ever win a Stanley Cup again. I just don't see the downside myself unless you are happy with the current trajectory of spinning wheels.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

What is the worst thing a bad GM could do? Tank the team so we start fresh with picks?

I guess trade picks and tank the team would be THE WORST, but really - Can the Flames be in a much worse position with a new GM?

Sell picks, sign big but awful UFAs to Bobrovsky or Skinner like contracts, etc. Heck, you could do both of those with a bad offer sheet. Fail miserably at the draft. Misread the CBA, or just plain breach it, and cost penalties.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sell picks, sign big but awful UFAs to Bobrovsky or Skinner like contracts, etc. Heck, you could do both of those with a bad offer sheet. Fail miserably at the draft. Misread the CBA, or just plain breach it, and cost penalties.

Like James Neal to a 5 x $28 or Troy Brouwer to a 4 x $18 million deal? Outside of the offer sheet Treliving's already had some major failures.
The reality is that mediocre GM's like Brad Treliving are a dime a dozen. The really bad GM's like Tallon, Mibury and Chiarelli are outliers.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I think Treliving's biggest apparent weaknesses have been:
-Bad coaching hires
-Bad free agent signings
-Trading away draft picks

Some things have gone pretty well:
-Drafting has been pretty good
-The Flames have actually managed to develop defensemen
-The trades have been pretty good in terms of value

I'm not sure if any of these weaknesses can definitively be credited to Treliving. What if Treliving couldn't hire big name coaches because ownership didn't give him the budget to? Maybe that's why coaches like Boudreau were never even interviewed - Treliving knew he was too expensive.

What if the Flames signed free agents like Brouwer and Neal because ownership wanted the Flames to compete ASAP? What if he was basically instructed to spend to the cap so that the team could be competitive? You could argue that the Flames should have then signed someone else, but big contracts to older UFAs are always risky. What if Treliving traded away picks because he was told that the Flames should try to compete?

I guess what I'm saying is, it's possible that many of Treliving's weaknesses could be a result of bad directions from ownership. If that's the case, we can probably still say that Treliving isn't the best at using pro scouts. Other than that, it's possible that a lot can be blamed on ownership. They may have been setting unrealistic goals.

It was reported at the time of his last contract that Treliving insisted on having free reign with no interference from above. I think at the time that meant no interference from Ken King but we don't know for sure the details. To blame everything he has done wrong on ownership seems like a real stretch to me. Personally I think ownership left it up to him until recently when Sutter was brought in, no proof on that, just a feeling.

[cannon7]

Is "worst case" that much worse than seven more years of what we've had the past seven years?

One playoff series win vs. ...none? Oh the humanity!