Treliving's pre-draft media availability

[FeyWest]

Originally Posted by theoforever

All we can do is hope it goes well, and if it does great.
If it doesn't who do we blame scouts/Button or Treliving/Burke?

I don't think you blame anyone until the dust has settled and we see results of our draftees from this year. Anything else would seemingly be premature IMO. Of course the opinions are fine *Shrug* all I know is they may not choose who I "Want" but in the end it may work out better than first anticipated!

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by FeyWest

I don't think you blame anyone until the dust has settled and we see results of our draftees from this year. Anything else would seemingly be premature IMO. Of course the opinions are fine *Shrug* all I know is they may not choose who I "Want" but in the end it may work out better than first anticipated!

Kind of like Jankowski..........

[Five-hole]

I think Treliving is a smart guy who knows what he's doing, but when he speaks he leaves all these hanging clauses and unfinished sentences around.

[xmyth]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think Treliving is a smart guy who knows what he's doing, but when he speaks he leaves all these hanging clauses and unfinished sentences around.

frustrates me too. he's either thinking way too fast / far head or he realizes what he wants to say probably shouldn't be said.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by theoforever

All we can do is hope it goes well, and if it does great.
If it doesn't who do we blame scouts/Button or Treliving/Burke?

This depends on what you've said before. So, for example, I'm a big Sutter supporter so when people trash his draft record or development track record, I state that it's the scouts who should be blamed since they present the recommendations to Sutter.

I'm however not a Feaster supporter, so I pin the Jankowski pick on him because he was too enthusiastic about it on draft day and it aligns with my feelings of Feaster.

While the scouts were in control during the Sutter regime, Feaster and Weisbrod went over all of them when they controlled the Flames.

We'll see....

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think Treliving is a smart guy who knows what he's doing, but when he speaks he leaves all these hanging clauses and unfinished sentences around.

With Darryl it's too little info.
With Feaster it's too much needless statements and nonsense.
With Treliving it's too many hanging clauses?

Really? I personally think Treliving towards the media is perfectly fine. He says what can be said directly and with honesty. Guess you really can't please everyone.

[Roof-Daddy]

Sure you can please everyone.....just never at the same time.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by activeStick

This depends on what you've said before. So, for example, I'm a big Sutter supporter so when people trash his draft record or development track record, I state that it's the scouts who should be blamed since they present the recommendations to Sutter.

I'm however not a Feaster supporter, so I pin the Jankowski pick on him because he was too enthusiastic about it on draft day and it aligns with my feelings of Feaster.

While the scouts were in control during the Sutter regime, Feaster and Weisbrod went over all of them when they controlled the Flames.

We'll see....

Sutter was not a very good GM, mortgaged the future. He interfered with scouts left and right. Got killed on couple of trades. Could not pick a good coach, gave the job to his brother and then wouldn't even talk to him.
All that and he managed to be a jerk to everyone and created a very unpleasant atmosphere around the team.

Feaster/Weisbrod interfered once with Janko, who by the way is 19 and still could be a great pick. Under Feaster the picks start looking better, development improves. He modernized the Flames, hired some good people, improved the atmosphere. Won some trades, lost some too, had some close calls. He wasn't a great GM but wasn't that bad. All in all I liked the guy.

So, we can disagree.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Sutter was not a very good GM, mortgaged the future. He interfered with scouts left and right.

I had a friend who used to work for the Flames. According to him, Sutter used to meddle with the scouts all the time and tell them what he thought of the players they had all been watching. "You guys like player X? Well he stinks. We need guys like player Y" who the scouts did not like.

Over time, a lot of the scouting reports started coming back reflecting what Sutter wanted to hear as opposed to the unbiased review they should have been.

I always took that story with a grain of salt (although it was the only sane explanation of Sutter's drafting). Then another friend went to a luncheon recently where apparently Burke said the same thing so I suspect there is something to that.

[FeyWest]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Kind of like Jankowski..........

I don't understand why that needs to be brought up, we don't know how he will adjust or play in the NHL so there's no factual idea on Janko.

Was it the right pick at the time given the Flames' situation probably not but if we're talking now in this draft I'm still going to give scouting benefit of the doubt til proven otherwise.

I could retort you and say "kinda like Poirier..." But you don't need to hear that do ya? If you screw up at one time there is another time that usually compensates. We don't know who we have, teams hit and miss all the time it's a matter of hitting more than missing. But if you want to hold on to one controversial pick then all the more power to ya.

[theoforever]

@FayWest

I'm in pro Janko camp. It was a green text.

[Rifleman]

Randy Sportak @SUNRandySportak
"In my mind, there's nine different scenarios in how the first four (draft choices) can go." Treliving on picks.

Scenario 1: Both Sam's are gone, Ekblad is gone. Flames have to choose between Dal Cole, Draisaitl, Ehlers, and Ritchie.

Scenario 2: Both Sam's are gone, No good Coilers pick Draisaitl, Ekblad falls into their lap.

Scenario 3: Ekblad is picked first, followed by both Sams, Flames have to choose between Dal Cole, Draisaitl, Ehlers, and Ritchie.

Scenario 4: Both Sams are gone, then a team above them goes off the board and picks one of Dal Colle, Ehlers, or Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of Draisaitl and Ekblad. They pick Ekblad, obviously.

Scenario 5: One of the Sams falls to #4. They pick him.

Scenario 6: Two teams go off the board and pick Dal Colle, Ehlers, and Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of one of the Sams, and Ekblad.

Scenario 7: Three teams go off the board and pick Dal Colle, Ehlers, and Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of both Sams, Draisaitl, and Ekblad. (Best case)

Scenario 8: If the player they want is still available at #3, they dangle a current player to move up one spot and take them.

Scenario 9: If two of the players they want are still available at their spot, they move down one spot with the Islanders and the Isles give them another later round pick.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

With Darryl it's too little info.
With Feaster it's too much needless statements and nonsense.
With Treliving it's too many hanging clauses?

Really? I personally think Treliving towards the media is perfectly fine. He says what can be said directly and with honesty. Guess you really can't please everyone.

I didn't say a damned thing about Sutter or Feaster, so don't imply that baggage into my post.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I didn't say a damned thing about Sutter or Feaster, so don't imply that baggage into my post.

Calm down. I'm not implying anything you wrote about Sutter or Feaster, I'm implying that people always find a way to nitpick, even though the consensus this time around is that Treliving's been a breath of fresh air in front of the media.

[Scoreface]

Does anyone remember the Conroy interview on the Fan a month or so ago when he said he has his #4 pick (their #1 at that slot), and Brad has his?

It's more of a non-story than anything, but it does go to show that a GM (and even asst. GM's) have their guy in mind and bounce ideas off one another, which is a good thing in order to constructively aid in arriving at a decision for their pick.

That said, I wonder how much Treliving's guy weighs in on the decision. I'm leaning more toward the Burke philosophy, where he basically says, "If Brad and I disagree on a matter, I will defer to him. He is the GM."

Does Treliving hold the same philosophy with Button and his scouting staff? I would tend to think so, as this matter probably came up when he was interviewed and water should flow downhill in a proper hierarchy in a macro sense, but on a smaller scale, it should come back up from those you trust. I tend to think things are pretty fluid right now but the buck stops with the GM. Every GM has 'their guy' afterall, right? And they should.

I have thought about that for awhile now and found it interesting, but not doubting management and how they treat these kind of things. It's not unusual, but should be the norm for any member of the front office to have 'their guy' as it presents a collaborative process, but I sometimes wonder to what degree it translates into, as we will likely never know.

Like I said, just had been something on my mind lately, but not really heavily weighing. How do some of you feel about that?

[calgarywinning]

It's so silly when the flames have traded away their top draft picks for 5-6 years during Sutter's tenure to even discuss how the teams approach to drafting and Sutters inclinations might have hampered our drafting and the scouts.

Feaster managed to re-stock us in a fairly decent fashion from an empty situation in a short tenure, while making some non-experienced mistakes. His general directive was also mixed.

Treliving said that you have to retain and draft well because your picks aren't always going to work out, but if you are getting 2 picks instead of .5 of a pick, your odds are way better. He also said to build the team from what was not available but always the best player. Then trade out to fill in the gaps.

True rebuilds are all about draft, draft, draft and getting some hits. Doesn't it make sense if you retain most of your draft picks your odds of a hit increase. While good scouting can parlay successful results, each person is an individual and can not deliver. However, increased drafting leads to prospecting true NHL level talent.

[Scoreface]

Agreed, and perhaps more importantly, proper development is key, and I believe we have a good coach with a high pedigree in Adirondack. It's especially important with later and subsequentially, more raw picks. Huska has had this experience in Kelowna and I look forward to see how it plays out. I'm quite optimistic.

What particularly impresses me is that he occasionally would give 15 year olds a taste at camp and then start grooming them the following year and roll all four lines fairly equally (same mostly with dmen I'm thinking) outside of key situations. I gathered this from RJ and Matty's posts.

Sounds very promising how he treats his players, as they all want ice time, but have to earn every bit of it by playing a 200' game and buy in. Maybe a bit cliche in that regard, but not favoring vets at that level, like in junior, can reap rewards in time. He knows a bit about longer term development in a player from all his success with the Rockets and I believe it will translate at the next level.

[FeyWest]

Originally Posted by theoforever

@FayWest

I'm in pro Janko camp. It was a green text.

Fair enough, coulda been taken a couple ways *shrug* I'd seen similar comments in other forums so it's just a conditioned response

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by FeyWest

Fair enough, coulda been taken a couple ways *shrug* I'd seen similar comments in other forums so it's just a conditioned response

Yap, I have some precondition responses too. Cheers.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Scenario 1: Both Sam's are gone, Ekblad is gone. Flames have to choose between Dal Cole, Draisaitl, Ehlers, and Ritchie.

Scenario 2: Both Sam's are gone, No good Coilers pick Draisaitl, Ekblad falls into their lap.

Scenario 3: Ekblad is picked first, followed by both Sams, Flames have to choose between Dal Cole, Draisaitl, Ehlers, and Ritchie.

Scenario 4: Both Sams are gone, then a team above them goes off the board and picks one of Dal Colle, Ehlers, or Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of Draisaitl and Ekblad. They pick Ekblad, obviously.

Scenario 5: One of the Sams falls to #4. They pick him.

Scenario 6: Two teams go off the board and pick Dal Colle, Ehlers, and Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of one of the Sams, and Ekblad.

Scenario 7: Three teams go off the board and pick Dal Colle, Ehlers, and Ritchie, leaving them with a choice of both Sams, Draisaitl, and Ekblad. (Best case)

Scenario 8: If the player they want is still available at #3, they dangle a current player to move up one spot and take them.

Scenario 9: If two of the players they want are still available at their spot, they move down one spot with the Islanders and the Isles give them another later round pick.

1 & 3 are the same thing. I don't think 8 is realistic, The Flames and Oilers aren't making that trade.