Elliot Friedman believes Treliving may not be back next season

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I guess I think it's just unrealistic and thus not expected that a guy will go out and kill himself to prove his 'leadership' value on a team going nowhere. He definitely hasn't displayed much of a hatred for losing but then again, who really has? Maybe it's hard to get so angry at losing when you're doing so much of it? Maybe it's a wasted exercise to get that worked up when things are going wrong and to stick with it knowing you're in year 1 of a 4 year deal?

I'm quoting this piece, but I'm not trying to single you out here; there seems to be plenty of this sentiment. But I'm honestly a little confused.

These past few games have been rough no doubt.

But last year at the All-Star break the Flames were 21-24-3. Good for 45 points in 48 games (or a 46.87% win ratio).

This year at the All-Star break they're 25-24-3. Good for 53 points in 52 games (or a 50.96% win ratio).

That's an improvement. Furthermore, we're still currently in a playoff spot. It's no guarantee we'll make the playoffs, but it's still a legitimate possibility.

I'm certainly not ready to write this team off yet and proclaim that they're going no where.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I'm quoting this piece, but I'm not trying to single you out here; there seems to be plenty of this sentiment. But I'm honestly a little confused.

These past few games have been rough no doubt.

But last year at the All-Star break the Flames were 21-24-3. Good for 45 points in 48 games (or a 46.87% win ratio).

This year at the All-Star break they're 25-24-3. Good for 53 points in 52 games (or a 50.96% win ratio).

That's an improvement. Furthermore, we're still currently in a playoff spot. It's no guarantee we'll make the playoffs, but it's still a legitimate possibility.

I'm certainly not ready to write this team off yet and proclaim that they're going no where.

they are definitely improved.

It's not.imposdible but it is not likely to happen. Points percentage at this point looks like a huge obstacle and 50+ games into a season pretty much tells you what kind of team it is. 3-6 extra points likely only means 2-4 spots in the standings.

[bluejays]

As much as most want to throw Treliving under the bus (deservedly so), I think Burke actually deserves a ton of the blame. Burke, by virtue of being such a strong personality, has to have input in personnel decisions whether coaches or player deals. In a lot of organizations, especially with one with such a vocal head honcho, when something is strongly implied, the lower subordinate sometimes just has to do it to satisfy the boss. While I'm not saying this as a fact, the fact is Burke is a strong personality and he's been the spokesperson for a lot of things that the GM should be in the spotlight for in relation to camera time on moves and the direction of the team day to day. Also, Burke pretty much made the same mistake in Toronto by jumping on the bandwagon of refusing to tank and instead trying to improve the team too quickly instead of improving the slower and steady way by rebuilding. The shouldn't be saying rebuild, then accelerating that rebuild the second the team shows they're slightly ahead of the curve. Sure they can say that the team and management should never aim for the tank, but you better have a creative plan on building your team if you don't. And what makes you smarter than everyone else?

I can't blame the GM for the goalie situation as that was a hit of miss and I don't think anyone seen this coming. I can't blame him for the Hamilton deal as that simply didn't work out either (good trade, bad result). I blame him for the coach completely, and I also blame him for not taking on a slower rebuild (moreso Burke). I'll judge Treliving further this off-season when he tries to correct his mistakes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by fleury

As much as most want to throw Treliving under the bus (deservedly so), I think Burke actually deserves a ton of the blame. Burke, by virtue of being such a strong personality, has to have input in personnel decisions whether coaches or player deals. In a lot of organizations, especially with one with such a vocal head honcho, when something is strongly implied, the lower subordinate sometimes just has to do it to satisfy the boss. While I'm not saying this as a fact, the fact is Burke is a strong personality and he's been the spokesperson for a lot of things that the GM should be in the spotlight for in relation to camera time on moves and the direction of the team day to day.

Ignoring the complete contradiction of the sentence as it stands, I am interested to know about how much more visible Burke has been as President of Hockey as compared to other NHL teams. Granted, he is a very well known public figure in the hockey world, but it doesn't seem to me like he has garnered much more media attention than other well known NHL counterparts like Brendan Shanahan in TO, and Trever Linden in Vancouver. It seems to me that the majority of Burke's public statements about the team stem from media questions, and not in the form of official pronouncements from the Flames.

Also, Burke pretty much made the same mistake in Toronto by jumping on the bandwagon of refusing to tank and instead trying to improve the team too quickly instead of improving the slower and steady way by rebuilding. The shouldn't be saying rebuild, then accelerating that rebuild the second the team shows they're slightly ahead of the curve. Sure they can say that the team and management should never aim for the tank, but you better have a creative plan on building your team if you don't. And what makes you smarter than everyone else?...

What actions have the Flames taken to "accelerate" the rebuild, and how have these damaged the team's future?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by fleury

I can't blame the GM for the goalie situation as that was a hit of miss and I don't think anyone seen this coming.

sure you can. instead of him going for a hit or miss situation, he could have gotten one of the available #1 goalies out there. he chose not to.

how can you not blame him for taking a chance and failing?

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by fleury

As much as most want to throw Treliving under the bus (deservedly so)

Just to reset things... 83% of voters think he's done a good job.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

sure you can. instead of him going for a hit or miss situation, he could have gotten one of the available #1 goalies out there. he chose not to.

how can you not blame him for taking a chance and failing?

I would blame him if he didn't do his due diligence, overpaid with assets, overpaid with cap space or otherwise fundamentally misread the situation. He did none of those things. The goalies are not performing as well as anticipated, that is likely true, but that can't all be on the GM.

[Jason14h]

The goalies are not performing as well as anticipated, that is likely true, but that can't all be on the GM.

It isn't ALL on the GM. However, the GM's job is to pick the correct coaches and players.

What is really weird is I think most in the hockey world believe in most of the moves, but they don't seem to work out as well on paper as real life.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It isn't ALL on the GM. However, the GM's job is to pick the correct coaches and players.

What is really weird is I think most in the hockey world believe in most of the moves, but they don't seem to work out as well on paper as real life.

Yeah, it's been a weird tenure for Treliving, he's made so many moves that look perfect/elite on paper and then just don't quite work out. I'd say his biggest mistake so far has got to be coaching, though.

I know it's an ugly topic on CP and it usually elicits "How can you judge that now" type of responses, but it's starting to look like Gulutzan was a fairly weak hire. Not that he's downright horrible but a young team heading into the playoff team portion of this rebuild needed a strong to elite coaching hire.

This particular coaching hire was critical for Brad, as the owners are already paying for two coaches now, so a simple "You know what guys, wrong hire on my part, but now Claude Julian is available we've got to get him" is likely going to be met with "Sorry Brad, we're not putting three head coaches on payroll with two of them not coaching".

Even though that would be short sighted and stupid by the owners in the grand scheme of what they pay out for all salaries and how critical coaching is, I honestly think that will be their response, so we'll be stuck Glen for his tenure.

[Enoch Root]

Whenever a team isn't playing well, people question the leadership. Like, just because you're a vet you're supposed to be able to walk into the dressing room and say "hey guys, we should be better". (Spoiler: they do say that).

Bottom line is that vets earn their salaries when the going gets tougher in the playoffs. If/when we get there, that's when I'll be judging his value.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Whenever a team isn't playing well, people question the leadership. Like, just because you're a vet you're supposed to be able to walk into the dressing room and say "hey guys, we should be better". (Spoiler: they do say that).

Bottom line is that vets earn their salaries when the going gets tougher in the playoffs. If/when we get there, that's when I'll be judging his value.

bingo.

[GullFoss]

IMO very little blame to go around. Decent drafting, good cap management and most importantly, amazing risk management in terms of contract signings. Very good track record. And wins trades.

Good long-term contracts: brodie, hamilton
Ok Long-term contracts: Giordano, Frolik, Monahan, Johnny
Bad long-term contracts: Brouwer

Bad short-term contracts: Bollig, Raymond, Bouma,
Good short-term contracts: Engelland, Versteeg, Johnson

The trades: 5-2
Hudler - Win
Russell - Win
Glencross - Win
Hamilton - Win
Sven Baertschi - Win
Byron - loss
Bollig - loss
Chiasson - Push
Grandlund - Push
Shore - Push
F Hamilton - Push
Reinhart - Push

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Whenever a team isn't playing well, people question the leadership. Like, just because you're a vet you're supposed to be able to walk into the dressing room and say "hey guys, we should be better". (Spoiler: they do say that).

Bottom line is that vets earn their salaries when the going gets tougher in the playoffs. If/when we get there, that's when I'll be judging his value.

Is that in response to my coaching post or just in general to the thread? Because my opinion of the coaching comes from the entirety of the season. Not saying I couldn't be wrong, but it's definitely not an "in the moment" thought.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

IMO very little blame to go around. Decent drafting, good cap management and most importantly, amazing risk management in terms of contract signings. Very good track record. And wins trades.

Good long-term contracts: brodie, hamilton
Ok Long-term contracts: Giordano, Frolik, Monahan, Johnny
Bad long-term contracts: Brouwer

Bad short-term contracts: Bollig, Raymond, Bouma,
Good short-term contracts: Engelland, Versteeg, Johnson

The trades: 5-2
Hudler - Win
Russell - Win
Glencross - Win
Hamilton - Win
Sven Baertschi - Win
Byron - loss
Bollig - loss
Chiasson - Push
Grandlund - Push
Shore - Push
F Hamilton - Push
Reinhart - Push

Byron wasn't traded. He was lost on waivers.

Also, yeah, yeah, Bollig was traded for a 3rd. The guy who Chicago picked? Matheson Iacopelli, some guy with underwhelming stats in the USHL. Bollig scored a big playoff goal in Game 3 against the Ducks. Call me if Matheson Iacopelli ever does that.

I get that Bollig was by-and-large useless, but he actually contributed to this team's success.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Is that in response to my coaching post or just in general to the thread? Because my opinion of the coaching comes from the entirety of the season. Not saying I couldn't be wrong, but it's definitely not an "in the moment" thought.

No, it was in response to the Brouwer discussions.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Whenever a team isn't playing well, people question the leadership. Like, just because you're a vet you're supposed to be able to walk into the dressing room and say "hey guys, we should be better". (Spoiler: they do say that).

Bottom line is that vets earn their salaries when the going gets tougher in the playoffs. If/when we get there, that's when I'll be judging his value.

Why can't vets also earn their salary when the going gets tough during the season?

[Samonadreau]

I don't think vets get a pass during the regular season and then only have to show up in the playoffs. You have to get to the postseason in the first place.

Brouwer has been a limp noodle since day 1 of the season. Pretty much a no show. You can't even defend him saying "well he's on pace for his typical 20 goal, 35 to 45 point season" because he's on pace for 13 goals and 29 points. When this guy was brought in and it was criticized for paying him 4.5M until he's 34 and was defended saying it's the intangibles he brings. I don't know - I don't see it. I just can't believe STL gave up Oshie for him. I mean Ya maybe he brings it a little more during the playoffs but guess what - you have to make it there first.

I didn't get this signing from day 1 and still don't. Why not wait or make a different move for an actual top 6 RW.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Byron wasn't traded. He was lost on waivers.

Also, yeah, yeah, Bollig was traded for a 3rd. The guy who Chicago picked? Matheson Iacopelli, some guy with underwhelming stats in the USHL. Bollig scored a big playoff goal in Game 3 against the Ducks. Call me if Matheson Iacopelli ever does that.

I get that Bollig was by-and-large useless, but he actually contributed to this team's success.

Who Chicago drafted in the 3rd round is irrelevant. What's relevant is who the Flames would've drafted, but we won't know because it was traded away for a guy who not only can't crack the line-up, but also caused Byron to be waived. Had Treliving not traded for Bollig (or had someone in him warming a spot in the Flames line-up), the Flames wouldn't have waived Byron.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Ignoring the complete contradiction of the sentence as it stands, I am interested to know about how much more visible Burke has been as President of Hockey as compared to other NHL teams. Granted, he is a very well known public figure in the hockey world, but it doesn't seem to me like he has garnered much more media attention than other well known NHL counterparts like Brendan Shanahan in TO, and Trever Linden in Vancouver. It seems to me that the majority of Burke's public statements about the team stem from media questions, and not in the form of official pronouncements from the Flames.


What actions have the Flames taken to "accelerate" the rebuild, and how have these damaged the team's future?

Yes, the statement contradicted, but I've seen more of Burke than Treliving on interviews. He may be popular, but he can just as easily turn down the opportunity to be the face of the franchise with a simple decline. I also would say the same for Shanahan. As for Linden, I don't see him even close to those guys on TV. It's not scientific, but the GM's should really be more the face as they're the ones making the moves. At least that's my two cents.

As for the acceleration, I can't pinpoint one move in particular because it's not. It was the year Johnny broke out, and everything clicked. Rather than doing an incremental build and slower develop they moved a few bodies out. In hindsight, I really wish they brought back Hudler this year as the team seems to have been lost without him.

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

sure you can. instead of him going for a hit or miss situation, he could have gotten one of the available #1 goalies out there. he chose not to.

how can you not blame him for taking a chance and failing?

I didn't think it was a bad move at the time - gamble yes, but by the numbers, Elliott wasn't a bad move at the time. Really bad result though. I don't think anyone could've seen him being this bad. How much of that is because of the bad defence though? On paper, the D is great, but they simply haven't performed and that to me is more on the coaching.

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Just to reset things... 83% of voters think he's done a good job.

As do I.

[Strange Brew]

Not a fan of the Brouwer signing but I also believe he can be better than this and hopeful we see that next year. But I also think the perception that he is a playoff performer is misguided. That was true last year but he had more than one disappointing post season before that.