Brad Treliving needs to go

[Ped]

There's far too much "Well at least we're not the Oilers" on this board lately.


You don't get any medals or cups for being better than the Oilers. Aim better.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

We have also lost Brodie, Giordano, Hamonic (dont get me started on that deal) in the process with zero return.

Big Deal Treliving

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing.

Boston lost Krug for... nothing.

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing.

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing.

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing.

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing!

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing.

Washington lost Holtby for nothing.

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing!

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing.


This was all before Columbus lost Panarin, Duchene, and Bobrovsky for nothing, the Islanders lost Lehner for nothing, the Sharks lost Pavelski and Nyquist for nothing, the Avalanche lost Varlamov for nothing... etc. etc. etc.

It's almost as though teams lose good players (or at least some with clear value), sometimes a number of them at once... for nothing, all the time, every year.

Or not. Maybe it only happens to the Flames. NBD.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing.

Boston lost Krug for... nothing.

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing.

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing.

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing.

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing!

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing.

Washington lost Holtby for nothing.

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing!

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing.


This was all before Columbus lost Panarin, Duchene, and Bobrovsky for nothing, the Islanders lost Lehner for nothing, the Sharks lost Pavelski and Nyquist for nothing, the Avalanche lost Varlamov for nothing... etc. etc. etc.

It's almost as though teams lose good players (or at least some with clear value), sometimes a number of them at once... for nothing, all the time, every year.

Or not. Maybe it only happens to the Flames. NBD.

You know what this tells me? Treliving is an idiot

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by TOfan

You know what this tells me? Treliving is an idiot

:facepalm

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing.

Boston lost Krug for... nothing.

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing.

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing.

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing.

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing!

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing.

Washington lost Holtby for nothing.

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing!

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing.


This was all before Columbus lost Panarin, Duchene, and Bobrovsky for nothing, the Islanders lost Lehner for nothing, the Sharks lost Pavelski and Nyquist for nothing, the Avalanche lost Varlamov for nothing... etc. etc. etc.

It's almost as though teams lose good players (or at least some with clear value), sometimes a number of them at once... for nothing, all the time, every year.

Or not. Maybe it only happens to the Flames. NBD.

Many of those personnel losses are justifiable when the teams are in contention and going for something. The Flames are just awful and under Treliving are almost always trying to scrounge their way into the post season when they don't even deserve it.

When you lose an asset for nothing like Calgary has and just did based on the above hope and a prayer, it's just beyond sad and really, really bad management. Treliving stinks.

[Firebot]

Forget this thread then, Treliving is doing a fantastic job. He needs to be provided an extension.

Yes he added Tanev and Markstrom. He also added James Neal. He also added Brouwer which I didn't mention. I feel those more then just cancel each other out on the free agency front.

The Hamilton trade was 3 years ago.

Treliving was signed on in 2014, 7 years ago, and handed a team that had a solid young core at the start of a rebuild.

The Flames have won one playoff series in those 7 years, missed the playoffs in 3 of them, with our originally young core about to potentially go to free agency.

We didn't even talk of his coaching hires, or his goalie escapades.

We need to move on unless we want to keep accepting total mediocrity.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing.

Boston lost Krug for... nothing.

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing.

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing.

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing.

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing!

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing.

Washington lost Holtby for nothing.

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing!

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing.

You forgot New York lost Eberle for nothing, St Louis lost Schwartz for nothing, Montreal lost Danault for nothing… etc

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Forget this thread then, Treliving is doing a fantastic job. He needs to be provided an extension.

Yes he added Tanev and Markstrom. He also added James Neal. He also added Brouwer which I didn't mention. I feel those more then just cancel each other out on the free agency front.

The Hamilton trade was 3 years ago.

Treliving was signed on in 2014, 7 years ago, and handed a team that had a solid young core at the start of a rebuild.

The Flames have won one playoff series in those 7 years, missed the playoffs in 3 of them, with our originally young core about to potentially go to free agency.

We didn't even talk of his coaching hires, or his goalie escapades.

We need to move on unless we want to keep accepting total mediocrity.

Well aside from a 2-3 good seasons where only 1 of which translated into playoff success, the last 15 years of Flames hockey has provided the gold standard for mediocrity in professional sport.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You forgot New York lost Eberle for nothing, St Louis lost Schwartz for nothing, Montreal lost Danault for nothing… etc

Again, most of those teams were playing for something significant, which does significantly excuse losing said players for nothing.

Losing players for nothing while playing for garbage bags (or ill conceived notions of potential success). Not so much.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Again, most of those teams were playing for something significant, which does significantly excuse losing said players for nothing.

Losing players for nothing while playing for garbage bags (or ill conceived notions of potential success). Not so much.

The Blues and Canadiens were bubble teams that squeaked into the playoffs.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Blues and Canadiens were bubble teams that squeaked into the playoffs.

The Blues have a cup, plus a handful of 1st round wins and a couple 2nd round wins being to the conference finals a twice recently.

They have also been a legit contender for many years.

And to top it off, they had a season where they back slid from being a top team, but were still in playoff contention yet they still sold. I don't remember what season it was, but IIRC they were still in a playoff spot but sold Shattenkirk as a pending UFA and got at least a 1st round pick for him. I'm too lazy to look right now.

IIRC they used the excess 1st rounder they had as part of the package to snag ROR and were still able to make a 1st round selection despite giving up a 1st rounder plus for the guy who win the Conn Smythe for them.

Some teams know how to manage assets much better than others.

EDIT: Also, the Habs have 5 first round wins, 3 second round wins and 1 third round win in the salary cap era. Just saying.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The Blues have a cup, plus a handful of 1st round wins and a couple 2nd round wins being to the conference finals a twice recently.

They have also been a legit contender for many years.

And to top it off, they had a season where they back slid from being a top team, but were still in playoff contention yet they still sold. I don't remember what season it was, but IIRC they were still in a playoff spot but sold Shattenkirk as a pending UFA and got at least a 1st round pick for him. I'm too lazy to look right now.

IIRC they used the excess 1st rounder they had as part of the package to snag ROR and were still able to make a 1st round selection despite giving up a 1st rounder plus for the guy who win the Conn Smythe for them.

Some teams know how to manage assets much better than others.

EDIT: Also, the Habs have 5 first round wins, 3 second round wins and 1 third round win in the salary cap era. Just saying.

We won a playoff round in the salary cap era with the remnants of the Jay Feaster team, along with Hillier, Raymond, Bollig and Englland.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing.

Boston lost Krug for... nothing.

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing.

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing.

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing.

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing!

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing.

Washington lost Holtby for nothing.

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing!

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing.


This was all before Columbus lost Panarin, Duchene, and Bobrovsky for nothing, the Islanders lost Lehner for nothing, the Sharks lost Pavelski and Nyquist for nothing, the Avalanche lost Varlamov for nothing... etc. etc. etc.

It's almost as though teams lose good players (or at least some with clear value), sometimes a number of them at once... for nothing, all the time, every year.

Or not. Maybe it only happens to the Flames. NBD.

Except these are all teams in the playoffs. Teams looking to go on runs.

The Flames are a team that is regressing, didn't make the playoffs, have extremely weak prospects in the system, yet somehow think they're going to re-tool. Too bad they lost their top two defenders for nothing. Tough to re-tool doing that.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

We won a playoff round in the salary cap era with the remnants of the Jay Feaster team, along with Hillier, Raymond, Bollig and Englland.

Ok...?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Many of those personnel losses are justifiable when the teams are in contention and going for something.

Ok, here's where they stood before they lost the player, then, keeping in mind the Flames lost in round 1, 4-2:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it's crazy man.

I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-2)

Boston lost Krug for... nothing. (Lost in round 2, 4-1)

Arizona lost Hall for... nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-1)

Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing. (Lost in round 2, 4-3)

Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing. (Lost in Qualifier)

Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing! (Lost in Qualifier)

Toronto lost Barrie for nothing. (Lost in Qualifier)

Washington lost Holtby for nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-1)

Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing! (Lost in round 1, 4-1)

Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing. (Won the Cup)

So, what's your definition of "many"? Because Vancouver made it to round 2 it was actually ok to lose 3 valuable players for nothing, and not even trade for signing rights?

I count 7 other teams who performed the same or worse as the Flames and lost guys for nothing... out of a whopping 10 teams... so that's "many" or "most"? Out of those teams, only 2 made it out of the first round this year. The other 8 combined for a HUGE 6 wins between them, with half of those coming from one team.

This is what a majority of "contenders" looks like to you? Many of those loses were justifiable because you see 6 playoff wins spread across 8 teams indicative that those teams were really "going for it"?

Weird.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Except these are all teams in the playoffs. Teams looking to go on runs.

The Flames are a team that is regressing, didn't make the playoffs, have extremely weak prospects in the system, yet somehow think they're going to re-tool. Too bad they lost their top two defenders for nothing. Tough to re-tool doing that.

See the above post. 3 of those teams didn't make the playoffs this year, just like the Flames. 2 of those teams that did got swept.

Big runs they were "all" looking to go on, huh.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Ped

There's far too much "Well at least we're not the Oilers" on this board lately.


You don't get any medals or cups for being better than the Oilers. Aim better.

The bar has been set too low. Team needs to reach higher. This might be a different team if we had cooked the rebuild a bit little longer. Poor coaching hires didn't help as guys like Bennett couldn't break out here. To make matters worse, the guys we bring in often don't move the needle and get shipped right back out (..delays the team moving forward). Flames have to aim much higher and bring in better quality players that fit the team.

Flames also need to decide what type of team they want to be, big, fast or skilled, we seem to bring in a little of everything which doesn't really give us an edge come playoff time. What type of team do the Flames want to be...Brad? This is where I hope Sutter can help if he is in the loop.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think it is a lot more palatable if you have a good team and you let players go for nothing. Typically, you need those players in the playoffs and need the cap space in the off season. Letting them go for nothing is often the best choice.

But when the team is not really contending, it makes it tougher to take. You can't afford to tread water in this league for very long before you find yourself stuck in a rut.

[1qqaaz]

Treliving has made one msitake that is even greater than the Neal contract, Hamonic trade, Gulutzan hire, and failure to acquire a good long term goalie. It's the Matthew Tkachuk contract.

Tkachuk is a fantastic player. He should be by far the most valuable asset in the organization. He had very little leverage in the negotiation. Now Tkachuk gets 9 million next year, and is a 25 UFA the year after.
That utterly destroys the majority of his value.

Not only has he been the highest paid player on the team during this deal, but he gets to be overpaid next year, and he could leave the team right as he's entering his prime.

I still can't get my mind around it.
If your elite 23-26 years olds don't have good contracts, no one will. How are you supposed to win when you manage the cap like that

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Treliving has made one msitake that is even greater than the Neal contract, Hamonic trade, Gulutzan hire, and failure to acquire a good long term goalie. It's the Matthew Tkachuk contract.

Tkachuk is a fantastic player. He should be by far the most valuable asset in the organization. He had very little leverage in the negotiation. Now Tkachuk gets 9 million next year, and is a 25 UFA the year after.
That utterly destroys the majority of his value.

Not only has he been the highest paid player on the team during this deal, but he gets to be overpaid next year, and he could leave the team right as he's entering his prime.

I still can't get my mind around it.
If your elite 23-26 years olds don't have good contracts, no one will. How are you supposed to win when you manage the cap like that

The disappointing thing here is I doubt you would be saying any of this if he had not mailed it in last season. He was being paid to be a leader on the team but he let that one incident define his season.