Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
IF he loses Gaudreau for nothing you COULD make the case that he should have moved him when he didn't get him signed.
|
That WILL be the case. Not construct a case, that WILL be the case. Just like everyone still blames Feaster for the Iginla debacle - which was Sutter's fault - a loss of Gaudreau for nothing will hang the anvil around Treliving's neck. That's the way this will play out. Every GM gets blamed for the loss of high profile talent on their watch.
Quote:
|
That's a pretty flaky foundation to judge anything from since we have no idea.
|
We have no idea that Gaudreau had an NTC about kick in, and that constraint would greatly restrict the Flames' ability to get maximum value out of the asset? Really? This was a point of concern on this board for over a year and was well discussed. If Treliving claims to have not known that, or did not have that on his radar, that kind of lends more support to the concerns about his competence.
Quote:
|
The fact that he didn't trade him suggests that maybe he feels he will sign him, so then the asset management thing just disappears.
|
No, it clearly does not. It may actually be amplified. Treliving had all the leverage in the spring and should have been able to negotiate an extension at a team friendly level based on Gaudreau's regressive numbers. This should have been goal one for the GM to achieve. It was an opportunity to eliminate the unknown and establish stability. The GM's job is not to gamble, but to build. If the player wants to gamble on himself, that is something the player controls. The GM needs to be concerned about the long-term health of the team and eliminate as many unknowns and risks as possible. Treliving actually exposed to the team to greater risk by letting the contract issue get this far. At best, it costs the team tens of millions of dollars more over an eight year contract because of the spike in performance. At worst it means the potential to trade Gaudreau has dropped significantly, as it is now restricted to only five teams. As a manager it is his job to recognize there was only downside in allowing this to drag out past the invocation of NTC. This was a mistake. There is nothing beneficial to the Calgary Flames allowing this to play out where Gaudeau will be able to tender offers from other teams.
Quote:
|
Comments like Craig Button recently suggesting Gaudreau will sign seemed pretty confident. Guys like Steinberg who are around the team keep saying they think he'll sign as well.
|
At what cost? And if those talking heads are wrong? This is a huge gamble by a guy whose job it is to eliminate as much risk as possible. The closer this gets to Gaudreau being able to tender offers from other teams the greater the probability that Gaudreau walks for nothing.
Me? I'm still pretty confident he signs. He was the one individual that Colemen reached out to about signing in Calgary, so I doubt Gaudreau would tell Coleman to sign without knowing what his future looks like. But I say that with a big disclaimer. The closer this gets to those other offers, the lower the percentage of Gaudreau signing here is. After the Coleman signing I was 98% certain a signing would be done, and in short order. As we approached camp, and a deal was not done, I pegged that at 70%. Where we are now, I probably call it 60%. If we get to the deadline, 50%. If Gaudreau is able to review other offers, I think it drops down below 20%.
The problem we're going to feel regardless of the signing, is the increase in cost because of the performance spike in a contract year. This could have/should have been done before the NTC kicked in. There was nothing but downside for the team. Because of going down this risky path, there are other issues as well. Tkachuk's contract becomes a bigger problem. Mangiapane's contract becomes a bigger problem. Kylington's coming out party creates a problem.
Quote:
|
No point in criticizing or applauding anything until the actual result is in.
|
This is an interesting comment from a guy who runs a discussion board and then is a spreadsheet guy. So we can't apply a basic measure to his performance nor talk about it. Then why are we here?
Quote:
|
It would have been worse asset management to move a player for a poor return because you had an internal rule that he had to be signed even though you feel strong he will be signed.
|
Only using the hindsight we now have available to us. You're going to try and tell me you saw Gaudreau having this monster year? Because if you did, that is all the more reason to press to get him signed, as this explosion is costing you and extra $2-3M per year on his next contract. What was looking like an $8M contract is now likely going to be north of $10M. The only reason you are okay with not signing him is because you think he's going to have another soft year and you can get him at a discount or interest in him will dry up where few teams will be interested. This was likely where Treliving was leaning and a lot of the people who do player projections were in the same boat. Most had Gaudreau in the 60-70 point range. The highest projection I found was 87 points. That's why being an executive is not easy. You have to make hard decisions and know all possible outcomes, then determine which is best for your organization long-term. Faced with the risks and the outcomes, Treliving had a tough decision. I don't like his approach to this process, even if we get Gaudreau to sign, because it tied a number of other contracts together and decision points will be forced in the team that should have been managed separately.
Quote:
|
Bottom line ... the team is good. The GM gets some of that credit. Silly to argue otherwise.
|
Of course Treliving gets some of the credit for the success of the team. But the immediacy of the current season is but one measure to the success of an executive officer. How is the team positioned moving forward? This is the most important measure as it is base off the five year plan every team is going to have. Are we improved, stagnated, or in a worse predicament? How is our asset base? Better, similar, or worse? How is our brand and how is it viewed? Better, similar, or worse? How is P&L, and does it meet expectations, adjusted or otherwise? The future state is equally if not more important than the current, as most of the measures of an executive are tied to that future performance. How does the big guy measure up to expectations? Just like Bergevin, the effect of immediate success will only last for so long before the other measures are viewed as more important.
Now if it really is silly to argue otherwise, then why have a ####ing discussion board?
