[Trade] Flames trade Mangiapane to Capitals for COL 2025 2nd

[Bingo]

I think the Tkachuk bridge was a miscalculation for sure. They should have moved cap and insisted on a longterm deal, but the trend at the time was certainly the exit bridge. Treliving wasn't alone.

Gaudreau? From what I've heard/understand the Flames said yes to Gaudreau's demands and then he changed his mind. They weren't going to trade him at the deadline in 1st place, and his production the years before didn't warranted the extra number on the cap hit.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by 1991 Canadian

Back to Mangiapane... I can't be the only one who had the thought process of "the Capitals are having a really good season, Mangiapane must be tearing it up" ... only to see him having a below average year. A 28 point season with the lowest points/60 and shots/60 of his career.

I like Mangiapane but the Flames got great asset value in this trade. Not terrible for the Caps either as you rarely find quality UFAs that will sign for just 1 year.

Will be curious to see where he ends up in free agency.

He went from 16 minutes a game to 13 in Washington. So the complaints by his agent about opportunity and ice time is hilarious. He is what he is a inconsistent 3rd liner. His shooting % was right on with his career averages minutes his outlier season he cashed in on.

He is just not worth the contract he got.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Flames dodged a huge bullet not going long term with Mangiapane after his 35 goal year. I assume the Flames would have gladly done this same cap hit on a 5-6 year term but the agent fumbled here and the 35 goal year was a one off and not a sign of things to come.

No I don't think his agent fumbled the bag. This one seems like it was the Flames insisting on a short term deal.

His agent had a interview on fan960 talking about it, that they presented the Flames with a long term deal that likely came with a bigger cap hit. Thank goodness we didn't get sucked into that.

[Erick Estrada]

I would wager Mangiapane was one of the organization's best ever 6th round picks. I think the disconnect was that he was always ideally a 3rd line guy but he blew up in the 2021 World Championships and it led into a career NHL season. Since then for whatever reason he's just not been nearly as effective in the NHL for two different organizations. He can still play a bottom six role for a lot of teams as 15 goals and 35 points will usually keep a player employed in the NHL.

[Ped]

No doubt Mangiapane thought he might get a shot in Washington, but a career for Strome, a bit of a resurgence for Dubois, and breakout seasons for Protas and McMichael meant no room for him in the top 6 there.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

No I don't think his agent fumbled the bag. This one seems like it was the Flames insisting on a short term deal.

His agent had a interview on fan960 talking about it, that they presented the Flames with a long term deal that likely came with a bigger cap hit. Thank goodness we didn't get sucked into that.

The Mangiapane camp wanted $7-8M for a long term deal and the Flames wouldn’t do that which is why they settled on the 3 years $5.8M cap.

Had Mangiapane been willing to go 6x6 I think the flames would have taken it all day long in 2022

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the Tkachuk bridge was a miscalculation for sure. They should have moved cap and insisted on a longterm deal, but the trend at the time was certainly the exit bridge. Treliving wasn't alone.

Gaudreau? From what I've heard/understand the Flames said yes to Gaudreau's demands and then he changed his mind. They weren't going to trade him at the deadline in 1st place, and his production the years before didn't warranted the extra number on the cap hit.

Putting Gaudreau in the situation where he was only able to negotiate after the season ended was a mistake. Having a star player who wouldn’t negotiate in-season in a small market Canadian city is far too risky a move a GM should make not even factoring in this player is from the Eastern US.

The summer of 2022 was not shocking at all that Gaudreau walked and Tkachuk forced his way out using the QO. Treliving created that situation himself.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Putting Gaudreau in the situation where he was only able to negotiate after the season ended was a mistake. Having a star player who wouldn’t negotiate in-season in a small market Canadian city is far too risky a move a GM should make not even factoring in this player is from the Eastern US.

The summer of 2022 was not shocking at all that Gaudreau walked and Tkachuk forced his way out using the QO. Treliving created that situation himself.

In hindsight, and with taking your comments about the market .... yes.

But Gaudreau was a 0.84 ppg player the previous two seasons. If he was asking for $10M in that tight of cap you can't bend over.

If the Gaudreau camp wanted $8M before that season, and the Flames were grinding at say $7M then for sure a mistake.

[getoverit]

I’m glad we escaped and he moved on. So what do you think his next contract will be. Less than 30 points last year

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by getoverit

I’m glad we escaped and he moved on. So what do you think his next contract will be. Less than 30 points last year

He can likely still get close to 3 per year for two years. He's been a good even strength guy. Just happens he's more of a 14-18 goal guy who blew up for 35 one year. Like Shean Donovan on steroids...

[Flamescuprun2018]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

So far so good for Conny, he'd rank high on the all-time list.

But who knows what he does next? Trade multiple firsts for aging veterans to try and chase 8th? He'd quickly fall down the list.

Tre did a lot of good things - mostly RFAs IMO. Lots of bad things too - Huberdeau deal, trading picks for plug defensemen.

Poor coaching hires, deficit spending of picks and precious cap space to sign aging UFAs and middling bottom half of roster players were Treliving's blindspots. I will always remember how Conny described Treliving as the lone wolf when it came time to making big decisions. The echo chamber is not a place to lead from.

I have found little to dislike with Conny. No similar blindspots as above so far. His leadership style clearly is collaborative. His eye for talent in coaching and drafting may in fact be elite.

[Calgary4LIfe]

We probably should have another "Rank the GMs" since the Treliving era is over, and there has probably been enough hindsight to rank him fairly among his predecessors. I so far like the work that Conroy has been doing, but he is in year 2 of X. I would rather rank a GM based on his entire tenure. At any rate, since we are talking about this...

It is really unfair to rank some GMs actually. For instance, Flecher was AWESOME... Flames went to the finals and won a cup with him, and made the playoffs what - 14? 15? - straight seasons under his watch? However, why was he a good GM? Was it that the Flames simply chose to hang onto him for a very long time until he became very good? Over 20 seasons worth of experience starting with Atlanta in '72.

Sutter was a GOD in the first half of his tenure, and then he became the devil. How do you rank that?

How do you rank Coates who made some very astute moves and guides this organization through some incredibly difficult hurdles, but didn't even make the playoffs?

Here is my list. I don't include "interim" GMs - Burke and Maloney - as they were doing that job for too short a stretch. However, Burke did guide this team through two important phases during his term - the trade deadline and the draft. I still think it is just too short a time to really rank either of them.

1) Fletcher - SCF + Cup. Nevermind a bunch of divisional champs and President's Trophy finishes (which I don't really care too much about).

2) Sutter. I expect people to disagree with me on this one, but that's ok. He built a SCF team (and a phantom goal away from a championship team). He was here for 7 years. I will be happy to cheer for a complete loser if it means a SCFs appearance once in 7 years, right? Who wouldn't be ok with that? It certainly has been a lot better than what the Flames have managed to do since '89. I have no choice but to rank him #2. Also, let's not forget that the first half of his term he was operating under some challenges - cap at first, then scouting and development which essentially non-existent when he took over. Flames were still operating as a bare-bones franchise, even sharing an AHL team. The rise of the Canadian dollar certainly helped fix things, but credit also has to go to him for helping to build the scouting department, bringing in development personnel, and convincing the owners to spend money on an AHL team that they could control. Sutter did a lot of good, and yes, he definitely did a lot of bad as well. In the world of professional sports, your successes are more remembered than your failures, and as I said, give me one finals appearance and 7 no-shows, and I will be happy with that. He exceeded it - Flames made the playoffs 5 straight years with Sutter.

3) Coates. This was a tough one between him and Treliving actually. I tip my hat to Coates just because he guided this franchise through the worst, and had very little tools at his disposal. The bad dollar, the 'disgust' that was prevalent with the Riseborough-teardown, the lack of scouting, the lack of development. Everything was being held together by a band-aid, and Calgary was a hair's breadth away from losing their team. Yes, that era sucked, but to his credit, it was a fairly competitive team that he had. Also brought in some very important pieces. Maybe I have a soft-spot for him, but I think he really helped guide this franchise through the very darkest days.

4) Treliving. I find it difficult to rank him higher since in the 9 seasons he was here for, he had a lot of resources. Flames scouting was already pretty good - and he improved upon it, to his credit. He did draft a foundational piece with Wolf by the looks of it so far, which is another credit. However, even with an even playing field in terms of the cap, a development team in place, an AHL franchise that is owned and controlled by the Flames, and starting off with a fairly blank slate in terms of contracts while also having Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Backlund, and a great piece in Giordano - he was never really able to elevate this team. I don't give him credit for drafting Bennett (wasn't allowed to be part of the draft as per terms of his hiring), but he certainly gets credit for Tkachuk (and many other good hits too). Still - that's 9 seasons, and he didn't come close to building a contender. Maybe your definition will differ from my own, but I classify as contender as a team that is a shoe-in year-over-year for the playoffs, often a divisional winner, and who has a couple of 'runs' going to the 3rd round of the playoffs or beyond over that team's 'core' era. Flames weren't a regular playoff team, and they only twice made it to the 2nd round, upon which they lost both times in 5 games. He was very good in the media, however. He operated with class and professionalism, which is what this team needed after the tail-end of the Sutter era, and especially so after the Feaster era. Burke did put a stop to how the Flames were seen, but Treliving continued it right until the last year of his tenure.

5) Button. It was a short tenure. Rumour had it that he was handcuffed as well after Sutter was hired, so even a shorter tenure than it maybe was on paper. The most notable things he did was: A terrible trade with Marc Savard after the coach-player feuded, but then also fired the coach quickly afterwards. I can't remember if letting St. Louis walk was under him or Coates, but to me that wasn't too egregious since nobody saw St. Louis becoming that good. Still, if we are talking hindsight, that is a fairly big blemish. I don't feel he was as bad as some people think (apparently the Iginla for Peca deal was never offered, for instance), but I would put him at the start of poor GMs in the history of the Flames.

6) Feaster. He made Calgary embarrassing. He gave Regehr away for peanuts. He gave Iginla away for peanuts. He gave away Bouwmeester for peanuts. He may (depending on the MOU - I think he would have been ok) have given away Monahan's pick + for O'Reilly who would have been claimed off of waivers. The constant "we're smarter than everyone else" stink that came from the team at the time. For me, he would have been an easy 'last place' if not for a ridiculously worse GM. Arguably his best move was the failing at a pitch for Brad Richards, even though he offered the biggest contract.

7) Riseborough. I am sure he did good things, but for the life of me I can't remember what they were. We all loved the player that he was in Calgary. Flames were the best-managed team in the entire NHL under Fletcher, and then immediately went to the worst-managed team. The deconstruction of a winning organization with multiple HHOF players. Players quickly wanted out. He sold them for returns that were less than what Feaster got. Yes, this was the start of the low Canadian dollar era with aggressive cost cutting year-over-year, but he pushed players out unnecessarily. He was Calgary's version of Milbury.

Conroy's tenure would be unfair to rank IMO. Just two years in. Sutter may have been ranked #1 after his first two years, no? I love the work that Conroy is doing, but I think you have to let the tenure come to an end, and then proabably even wait another couple of years to see how some of his moves played-out. For instance, huge credit has to given to Treliving for drafting Wolf, right? I do mostly approve of what Conroy has been doing so far, but I don't think you can rank him yet.

One thing that I noted - very few GMs were hired with previous actual GM experience (Feaster only), and very few have gone on to be GMs on other teams (Fletcher, Treliving and strangely enough - Riseborough!). Flames either can't attract top-level GMs, are aren't willing to pay top-level salary. I think it is the former rather than the latter. Same thing was said about coaching, but Hartley wasn't cheap, Sutter certainly wasn't cheap, and they don't seem to have an issue with firing a coach (even a highly paid one), regardless of how many years left. When was the last time a coach left because he wasn't extended? They also have greatly expanded hockey ops over the years, surrounded Conroy with experienced (and not cheap) help (Nonis, Maloney, Pascal) and even brought Iginla on-board. That doesn't scram penny-pinching to me.

My opinion is that GMs have a tough gig now. Gone are the days of 20 year tenures. That era has officially come to an end with Poile. I just really appreciate the fact that the Flames have groomed Conroy for this position long-term. They didn't do that with Sutter. I expect better things from Calgary over the next decade. As for Treliving, i don't think he was bad, but he just didn't get much accomplished in his tenure here. It was a rather forgettable decade other than Gaudreau dazzling us.

[indes]

Treliving lost me at the Huberdeau + Weegar extensions. Losing Gaudreau + Tkachuk put the writing on the wall, we weren't good enough with them - we sure as hell weren't going to be good enough without them.

We should have flipped Huberdeau & Weegar for more assets and started the rebuild that summer. I'm a huge Weegar fan but at the time it didn't make sense to try and run it back without 2/3 of our top line. We could have loaded up on capital that summer and probably ended up with the equivalent of 4 firsts for Tkachuk. Keeping the 1st from the Monahan trade and we end up with 5 firsts in the next 2 years and still have a ton of assets to trade off.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I always felt Coates deserved more time. He made a lot of savvy moves and with more time I think he would have built something.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed.

And I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested Treliving was a savant. He made lots of mistakes; most GMs do.

But the hyperbole that kicked this off (worst all time with Risebrough and Button) isn't hard to quell.

He definitely got thrown a curve ball when Edwards hired his coach using the Murray budget!

I think he's either 2nd or 3rd on the list of top GM's for the team. Not a high bar....but there was more good than bad. Had he been able to do what he wanted...things might have been different. I think after Burke left, he had more owner meddling than Sutter ever did.

For all we know Tre wanted to tear it down if that year went badly...but got undermined on that.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by indes

Treliving lost me at the Huberdeau + Weegar extensions. Losing Gaudreau + Tkachuk put the writing on the wall, we weren't good enough with them - we sure as hell weren't going to be good enough without them.

We should have flipped Huberdeau & Weegar for more assets and started the rebuild that summer. I'm a huge Weegar fan but at the time it didn't make sense to try and run it back without 2/3 of our top line. We could have loaded up on capital that summer and probably ended up with the equivalent of 4 firsts for Tkachuk. Keeping the 1st from the Monahan trade and we end up with 5 firsts in the next 2 years and still have a ton of assets to trade off.

If they wanted a futures deal they could have just done the deal with Carolina as Bean said. Edwards wanted to keep competing. The guy paying his salary has the final call.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

In hindsight, and with taking your comments about the market .... yes.

But Gaudreau was a 0.84 ppg player the previous two seasons. If he was asking for $10M in that tight of cap you can't bend over.

If the Gaudreau camp wanted $8M before that season, and the Flames were grinding at say $7M then for sure a mistake.

I don’t think hindsight is necessary when discussing concerns that Gaudreau could walk there were a lot of fans that felt he was going to walk back to the East US. The fact Treliving couldn’t get a deal done then was his failure and he rolled the dice and lost a star player for nothing. He put Tkachuk in the drivers seat with the $9M QO and him flexing that to get out was also not that surprising.

When I walked out of the Dome after game 5 against the Oilers I asked my buddy I was with if that was the last time we see Gaudreau and Tkachuk in Flames jerseys.

Ultimately the praise that was given for the summer of Brad was all due to self-inflicted shots where he fumbled the top players and then overestimated the supporting cast he put around them. He added 3 players to massive long term deals and couldn’t even flip the Florida 1st in the Monahan deal and he had to put conditions on the pick that cost the Flames the 16th pick and has them stuck with the 29-32nd pick.

The fact that he dumped the Flames and not the other way around makes me dislike him even more. I wish him no professional success and see he has made similar moves in Toronto where he has traded away a bunch of picks, has signed long term deals to mid level players, and is about to let a superstar winger walk where he will then use the free agent pool to augment his roster. Leaf fans got the full Treliving experience with the Rantanen almost-trade. Takes me back to Taylor Hall and Jack Eichel.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by indes

Treliving lost me at the Huberdeau + Weegar extensions. Losing Gaudreau + Tkachuk put the writing on the wall, we weren't good enough with them - we sure as hell weren't going to be good enough without them.

We should have flipped Huberdeau & Weegar for more assets and started the rebuild that summer. I'm a huge Weegar fan but at the time it didn't make sense to try and run it back without 2/3 of our top line. We could have loaded up on capital that summer and probably ended up with the equivalent of 4 firsts for Tkachuk. Keeping the 1st from the Monahan trade and we end up with 5 firsts in the next 2 years and still have a ton of assets to trade off.

That wasn’t Treliving’s call alone. The whole franchise - especially ownership - were desperate to turn around the narrative that no stars wanted to play in Calgary. Conroy and others have talked about the collective decision by the Flames braintrust not to go the rebuild route. Their hand was forced a year later, but at the time there was no appetite for it from Edwards down.

I think people put way too much emphasis on individual GMs. These days in the NHL all major decisions have a half-dozen experts weighing in. And ownership has the final call on strategic direction.

This Flames management group is much the same as the one during Treliving’s tenure. Edwards, Maloney, Treliving, Conroy, Pascall >>> Edwards, Maloney, Conroy, Nonis, Pascall isn’t the clean break people have made it out to be.

[mikephoen]

Every GM has to deal with pressure from the owner(s). I don't think Treliving should get a pass, as convincing the owner to make the right move instead of the wrong one is part of the job. Feaster for sure dealt with this. Maybe Riseborough had more free reign back in the day, but I kind of doubt it. Personally, I'd take Feaster over Treliving or Button. Riseborough is probably the worst, but we may need to revisit that as those last contracts Treliving signed will still be on the books for a long time yet.

[1Nite]

Had to double check I was in the right thread. It's kind of funny if you compare his career to https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/...php?pid=145502 former teammate, or even more funny if you look at Labanc and Anderssons games played and total points, and I remember some discussion several years back when Labanc had his career year and didn't cash in on a big contract.