Brad Treliving needs to go

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Treliving’s risk assessment and mitigation skills are not where they need to be

He took the promising team Jay Feaster left and has driven it off a cliff

Yup. I agree and that is so terrifying. His management of contracts and the roster are atrocious. To set things up so this was possible is a massive blunder and he should be fired.

He is making Jim Benning look only a little worse overall.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We just keep repeating the same arguments every day.

There are three scenarios here.

1) Treliving is the man

- Owners have entrusted Treliving to run the team
- He looked at what it would take last summer to sign Gaudreau and took a pass
- He looked at what he could get last summer in a Gaudreau trade and didn't like it, and turned it down
- He alone decided to risk taking Tkachuk into the last year of his contract
- He was wrong on all of it, and the owners are pissed

2) Treliving Reports to Ownership but is the man
- Treliving makes day to day decisions, but on franchise altering moves he needs to present the information to owners
- He took the Gaudreau contract offer to owners with a recommendation to not take the offer
- He took the trade options for Gaudreau last summer to owners recommending they don't trade him.
- He suggested to owners that Tkachuk wants to stay and suggested they let the season play out
- He was wrong on most of it, and the owners are pissed, but ultimately they signed off on all the moves

3) Treliving Reports to Owners - Edwards in Charge
- Treliving makes day to day decisions, but the owners ultimately make all the big calls.
- He takes the final Gaudreau demands last summer to Edwards. Edwards takes a pass
- He took the trade offers for Gaudreau to Edwards, and Edwards didn't think it was enough
- He presented the risks on Tkachuk and Edwards decided to punt until this summer

In scenario one he's fired.
In scenario two he could be scape goated.
In scenario three he could still be scape goated, but shouldn't be.

My gut given rumblings over the years, we have zero chance on scenario one, about a 20% chance on scenario two, and more like 80% chance on scenario three.

Good projections of structure. Having worked for Edwards and Markin I would rule the third scenario out. Edwards would rather give you all the rope in the world to hang yourself, and fire your ass, than micromanage the crap out of you. He pays you to do a job and holds you accountable when you #### up.

The first scenario is unlikely too, especially with the regular report outs that Treliving spoke of. I doubt he was given the keys to the kingdom and told have at it.

The most likely is the second scenario where he is granted authority and responsibility but is given a budget and oversight over his spending decisions.

Most organizations have sign off authority and spending limits. Treliving's would be quite high so he wasn't constantly running to get permission to do certain things, and most of these lesser decisions would be covered in his regularly scheduled report outs if they had potential to have risk or negative outcomes associated with them. It would be expected that Treliving would present a regular strategic update, address budgetary issues, and come prepared to answer hard questions and provide insight into the direction of the team and its resources. Pretty standard stuff. He is the decision maker up to a budget level, then would have to get signoff before going beyond that level. The board is not going to get into the weeds of the decisions, they're going to ask for justification of the expenditure and how this moves the organization forward in achieving fiscal and operational goals. When it comes down to the bottom line and not meeting those goals, that's where Treliving will have some 'splainin to do and potentially lose his job. Treliving is a decision maker with oversight. He'll own the decisions the club has made or is about to make. He's got to feel pretty uncomfortable right now.

[PuckSlap]

It’s not even a matter of question. It’s time to get someone new in, with new ideas.

Maybe take him down a notch.

[Toonage]

If Coronato ends up wanting out, and Tre is still the guy in charge, that's the fireable offence.

So many assurances, then this disaster of an off season, followed by the kid wanting to Adam Fox us. That'd be it.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This may be the worst offseason I’m the history of the NHL

It's totally sullied the memories of last season as well; imagine looking back at highlights of 2021-2022 season, seeing two 100 point players, three 40 goal scores and two of them are gone. Painful.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Good projections of structure. Having worked for Edwards and Markin I would rule the third scenario out. Edwards would rather give you all the rope in the world to hang yourself, and fire your ass, than micromanage the crap out of you. He pays you to do a job and holds you accountable when you #### up.

The first scenario is unlikely too, especially with the regular report outs that Treliving spoke of. I doubt he was given the keys to the kingdom and told have at it.

The most likely is the second scenario where he is granted authority and responsibility but is given a budget and oversight over his spending decisions.

Most organizations have sign off authority and spending limits. Treliving's would be quite high so he wasn't constantly running to get permission to do certain things, and most of these lesser decisions would be covered in his regularly scheduled report outs if they had potential to have risk or negative outcomes associated with them. It would be expected that Treliving would present a regular strategic update, address budgetary issues, and come prepared to answer hard questions and provide insight into the direction of the team and its resources. Pretty standard stuff. He is the decision maker up to a budget level, then would have to get signoff before going beyond that level. The board is not going to get into the weeds of the decisions, they're going to ask for justification of the expenditure and how this moves the organization forward in achieving fiscal and operational goals. When it comes down to the bottom line and not meeting those goals, that's where Treliving will have some 'splainin to do and potentially lose his job. Treliving is a decision maker with oversight. He'll own the decisions the club has made or is about to make. He's got to feel pretty uncomfortable right now.

I've overheard Edwards talking to a previous GM on the phone and that was almost exactly what he said - I didn't hear who the GM wanted to sign but Edwards said "It's your budget, sign Jagr if you want" (Jagr was at his peak then - it was hyperbole). Though obviously that GM was of the view he should check in, nonetheless.

Where I disagree somewhat is that Edwards won't carp about decisions that don't work out. He will act on clear mistakes - bad paperwork, missed rules (ROR) etc. But if he's given a general direction (no tank - go for it this year - build a Sutter team) and Treliving's moves are aimed there, he will be unhappy if it doesn't work, but he owns the strategy and that Treliving has acted accordingly. Trades of guys like JG and MT at a much earlier stage would be something he'd want to be in on since they are a change of direction.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I can understand the outrage at Treliving right now, but I think it is unwarranted. He isn't terrible. Riseborough was terrible. Feaster was terrible.



Conversely, I don't understand the outcry of support for him either. Just because he isn't terrible doesn't mean he is great either.


Pick ONE word to describe his entire tenure as the Flames GM in relation to success. What is that word for you? For me, it is mediocre. Not terrible, not great.. just mediocre.


This might surprise some people (it did me) but here are some of his Tenure facts:


Currently, Treliving is the 6th longest tenured GM in the NHL. That surprised me actually.


Treliving is also now the 2nd longest serving GM of the Flames. Only Fletcher has had more time.


He came near the start of a rebuild, and his task was to build a contender. Has he succeeded?


Absolutely not. Sure, last season some people called the Flames a contender. A few seasons ago as well when they finished 2nd overall in in the league. But something was missing - and actual playoff run.


Contenders make the playoffs year in year out during their 'window'. Calgary doesn't. They didn't the previous season. They did the season before.



Contenders also usually have a couple of runs (or more) in them - a run to me is conference finals. More than half the team make the playoffs. Simply making the playoffs isn't a contender.


Also, at some point, I think it is fair to say that during a team's contention window, they should actually play for the cup. True contenders make the cup finals. People pointed at Colorado as maybe being a contender, but many didn't have them as true contenders because they actually never made it out of the 2nd round.



Treliving has essentially built a decent team. Not terrible, not great. Just 'mediocre'. Can anyone claim otherwise? I think both sides of the spectrum here are arguing through emotion. When you look at the Flames from the start to present under Treliving, can anyone say: "They have been terrible" or "they have been great" with a straight face? No.


So no, I don't think that Treliving deserves to get fired. I still argue he could have been more proactive when it came to Johnny, and he definitely shot himself in the foot with his terrible coaching hires, but overall, I don't think his overall body of work has been terrible and deserving of being fired.


Likewise, I don't see a rationale for him to be kept at all costs. If there is a competent GM somewhere that would be interested in taking over the role, I would support a move. Why not? Treliving has had 8 years, and hasn't built a great team.


If you want to know what a bad GM is and what a great GM is, just look at the Calgary Flames' history.



Fletcher - A GOD here in Calgary. Was a rookie GM in Atlanta at first, but he definitely grew into his role and became a literal GOD here.


Riseborough - The devil, no? Also a rookie GM.


Al Coates - I honestly say underrated given his situation. I think he guided this team exceptionally well given the environment. Was he perfect? Absolutely not, but he was far from bad and I think he has been underrated. Rookie GM too.



Button - Rookie GM (see a pattern yet??). I don't think he was bad (and I was surprised it was only 3 seasons - thought it was longer). I don't think he was bad, and I don't think he was great.



Sutter - Rookie GM - and honestly, fantastic. Sure, it didn't end well, and that's what you get with a rookie GM who hasn't seen the life-cycle of a team firsthand. I think he would have improved, but it is what it is. Stanley Cup Finals, so yeah, fantastic.


Feaster - Established GM. Terrible though. Terrible trade values, terrible media availabilities, and started turning this organization into a laughing stock.


Burke - Interim, so I won't comment (nothing but positive to say).


Treliving - Rookie GM. Didn't build a contender, but gave Calgary a few good regular seasons. I won't comment on what is happening right now since the off-season isn't over, but this is not looking good at the moment (but things can drastically change too). His bright spot was how quickly and efficiently he dealt with what was an embarrassing situation with Peters, the 2nd in the west season, and last season. However, a few seasons of not making the playoffs, 1st round exits, and the furthest this team achieved was two second round exits.


Yeah, I think Treliving has been mediocre thus far. However, Fletcher wasn't experienced or even a great GM to begin with, but he learned as time wore on and became a literal God. Will Treliving? I don't know. I assume he will get better. If there is an upgrade, I suggest the Flames grab it, however. Unless there is an upgrade, there is no point in firing him and hoping for change. He isn't awful enough to get rid of, that's for sure, and us Calgary fans remember what awful was.


So no, I don't support either extreme on this argument - those that are adamant that Treliving sucks, and those that are adamant that he is a great GM. There is ZERO proof either way of that being the case.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I can understand the outrage at Treliving right now, but I think it is unwarranted. He isn't terrible. Riseborough was terrible. Feaster was terrible.



Conversely, I don't understand the outcry of support for him either. Just because he isn't terrible doesn't mean he is great either.


Pick ONE word to describe his entire tenure as the Flames GM in relation to success. What is that word for you? For me, it is mediocre. Not terrible, not great.. just mediocre.


This might surprise some people (it did me) but here are some of his Tenure facts:


Currently, Treliving is the 6th longest tenured GM in the NHL. That surprised me actually.


Treliving is also now the 2nd longest serving GM of the Flames. Only Fletcher has had more time.


He came near the start of a rebuild, and his task was to build a contender. Has he succeeded?


Absolutely not. Sure, last season some people called the Flames a contender. A few seasons ago as well when they finished 2nd overall in in the league. But something was missing - and actual playoff run.


Contenders make the playoffs year in year out during their 'window'. Calgary doesn't. They didn't the previous season. They did the season before.



Contenders also usually have a couple of runs (or more) in them - a run to me is conference finals. More than half the team make the playoffs. Simply making the playoffs isn't a contender.


Also, at some point, I think it is fair to say that during a team's contention window, they should actually play for the cup. True contenders make the cup finals. People pointed at Colorado as maybe being a contender, but many didn't have them as true contenders because they actually never made it out of the 2nd round.



Treliving has essentially built a decent team. Not terrible, not great. Just 'mediocre'. Can anyone claim otherwise? I think both sides of the spectrum here are arguing through emotion. When you look at the Flames from the start to present under Treliving, can anyone say: "They have been terrible" or "they have been great" with a straight face? No.


So no, I don't think that Treliving deserves to get fired. I still argue he could have been more proactive when it came to Johnny, and he definitely shot himself in the foot with his terrible coaching hires, but overall, I don't think his overall body of work has been terrible and deserving of being fired.


Likewise, I don't see a rationale for him to be kept at all costs. If there is a competent GM somewhere that would be interested in taking over the role, I would support a move. Why not? Treliving has had 8 years, and hasn't built a great team.


If you want to know what a bad GM is and what a great GM is, just look at the Calgary Flames' history.



Fletcher - A GOD here in Calgary. Was a rookie GM in Atlanta at first, but he definitely grew into his role and became a literal GOD here.


Riseborough - The devil, no? Also a rookie GM.


Al Coates - I honestly say underrated given his situation. I think he guided this team exceptionally well given the environment. Was he perfect? Absolutely not, but he was far from bad and I think he has been underrated. Rookie GM too.



Button - Rookie GM (see a pattern yet??). I don't think he was bad (and I was surprised it was only 3 seasons - thought it was longer). I don't think he was bad, and I don't think he was great.



Sutter - Rookie GM - and honestly, fantastic. Sure, it didn't end well, and that's what you get with a rookie GM who hasn't seen the life-cycle of a team firsthand. I think he would have improved, but it is what it is. Stanley Cup Finals, so yeah, fantastic.


Feaster - Established GM. Terrible though. Terrible trade values, terrible media availabilities, and started turning this organization into a laughing stock.


Burke - Interim, so I won't comment (nothing but positive to say).


Treliving - Rookie GM. Didn't build a contender, but gave Calgary a few good regular seasons. I won't comment on what is happening right now since the off-season isn't over, but this is not looking good at the moment (but things can drastically change too). His bright spot was how quickly and efficiently he dealt with what was an embarrassing situation with Peters, the 2nd in the west season, and last season. However, a few seasons of not making the playoffs, 1st round exits, and the furthest this team achieved was two second round exits.


Yeah, I think Treliving has been mediocre thus far. However, Fletcher wasn't experienced or even a great GM to begin with, but he learned as time wore on and became a literal God. Will Treliving? I don't know. I assume he will get better. If there is an upgrade, I suggest the Flames grab it, however. Unless there is an upgrade, there is no point in firing him and hoping for change. He isn't awful enough to get rid of, that's for sure, and us Calgary fans remember what awful was.


So no, I don't support either extreme on this argument - those that are adamant that Treliving sucks, and those that are adamant that he is a great GM. There is ZERO proof either way of that being the case.

Mediocre is the best way to put it, and the on-ice results have been mediocre at best. Mediocre doesn’t but it, a GM for a contending team should be good or better. He is no longer an up and coming GM worth giving time to learn. He has had a complete cycle of this team - all of our top picks are broken, going, or gone.

Time’s up Brad.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I can understand the outrage at Treliving right now, but I think it is unwarranted. He isn't terrible. Riseborough was terrible. Feaster was terrible.



Conversely, I don't understand the outcry of support for him either. Just because he isn't terrible doesn't mean he is great either.


Pick ONE word to describe his entire tenure as the Flames GM in relation to success. What is that word for you? For me, it is mediocre. Not terrible, not great.. just mediocre.


This might surprise some people (it did me) but here are some of his Tenure facts:


Currently, Treliving is the 6th longest tenured GM in the NHL. That surprised me actually.


Treliving is also now the 2nd longest serving GM of the Flames. Only Fletcher has had more time.


He came near the start of a rebuild, and his task was to build a contender. Has he succeeded?


Absolutely not. Sure, last season some people called the Flames a contender. A few seasons ago as well when they finished 2nd overall in in the league. But something was missing - and actual playoff run.


Contenders make the playoffs year in year out during their 'window'. Calgary doesn't. They didn't the previous season. They did the season before.



Contenders also usually have a couple of runs (or more) in them - a run to me is conference finals. More than half the team make the playoffs. Simply making the playoffs isn't a contender.


Also, at some point, I think it is fair to say that during a team's contention window, they should actually play for the cup. True contenders make the cup finals. People pointed at Colorado as maybe being a contender, but many didn't have them as true contenders because they actually never made it out of the 2nd round.



Treliving has essentially built a decent team. Not terrible, not great. Just 'mediocre'. Can anyone claim otherwise? I think both sides of the spectrum here are arguing through emotion. When you look at the Flames from the start to present under Treliving, can anyone say: "They have been terrible" or "they have been great" with a straight face? No.


So no, I don't think that Treliving deserves to get fired. I still argue he could have been more proactive when it came to Johnny, and he definitely shot himself in the foot with his terrible coaching hires, but overall, I don't think his overall body of work has been terrible and deserving of being fired.


Likewise, I don't see a rationale for him to be kept at all costs. If there is a competent GM somewhere that would be interested in taking over the role, I would support a move. Why not? Treliving has had 8 years, and hasn't built a great team.


If you want to know what a bad GM is and what a great GM is, just look at the Calgary Flames' history.



Fletcher - A GOD here in Calgary. Was a rookie GM in Atlanta at first, but he definitely grew into his role and became a literal GOD here.


Riseborough - The devil, no? Also a rookie GM.


Al Coates - I honestly say underrated given his situation. I think he guided this team exceptionally well given the environment. Was he perfect? Absolutely not, but he was far from bad and I think he has been underrated. Rookie GM too.



Button - Rookie GM (see a pattern yet??). I don't think he was bad (and I was surprised it was only 3 seasons - thought it was longer). I don't think he was bad, and I don't think he was great.



Sutter - Rookie GM - and honestly, fantastic. Sure, it didn't end well, and that's what you get with a rookie GM who hasn't seen the life-cycle of a team firsthand. I think he would have improved, but it is what it is. Stanley Cup Finals, so yeah, fantastic.


Feaster - Established GM. Terrible though. Terrible trade values, terrible media availabilities, and started turning this organization into a laughing stock.


Burke - Interim, so I won't comment (nothing but positive to say).


Treliving - Rookie GM. Didn't build a contender, but gave Calgary a few good regular seasons. I won't comment on what is happening right now since the off-season isn't over, but this is not looking good at the moment (but things can drastically change too). His bright spot was how quickly and efficiently he dealt with what was an embarrassing situation with Peters, the 2nd in the west season, and last season. However, a few seasons of not making the playoffs, 1st round exits, and the furthest this team achieved was two second round exits.


Yeah, I think Treliving has been mediocre thus far. However, Fletcher wasn't experienced or even a great GM to begin with, but he learned as time wore on and became a literal God. Will Treliving? I don't know. I assume he will get better. If there is an upgrade, I suggest the Flames grab it, however. Unless there is an upgrade, there is no point in firing him and hoping for change. He isn't awful enough to get rid of, that's for sure, and us Calgary fans remember what awful was.


So no, I don't support either extreme on this argument - those that are adamant that Treliving sucks, and those that are adamant that he is a great GM. There is ZERO proof either way of that being the case.

Sums up my thoughts entirely. If there is an upgrade in GM, then I would be happy to see him leave. I'm just not convinced that Calgary will be the place where the upgrade chooses. Instead, to date we have had a decent GM who - at least to me - appears to identify mistakes and fixes them. Perhaps he can become a good-to-great GM. I would rather the Flames benefit from a GM who has learned from his past mistakes than be set back by a new person.

[Flamesfan05]

What make people think Treliving learned anything?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've overheard Edwards talking to a previous GM on the phone and that was almost exactly what he said - I didn't hear who the GM wanted to sign but Edwards said "It's your budget, sign Jagr if you want" (Jagr was at his peak then - it was hyperbole). Though obviously that GM was of the view he should check in, nonetheless.

Where I disagree somewhat is that Edwards won't carp about decisions that don't work out. He will act on clear mistakes - bad paperwork, missed rules (ROR) etc. But if he's given a general direction (no tank - go for it this year - build a Sutter team) and Treliving's moves are aimed there, he will be unhappy if it doesn't work, but he owns the strategy and that Treliving has acted accordingly. Trades of guys like JG and MT at a much earlier stage would be something he'd want to be in on since they are a change of direction.

Oh, no, that's Edwards to a tee. #### up and he's going to let you know about so you don't ever do it again. And he would do that publicly because embarrassment was a good learning tool.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

Sums up my thoughts entirely. If there is an upgrade in GM, then I would be happy to see him leave. I'm just not convinced that Calgary will be the place where the upgrade chooses. Instead, to date we have had a decent GM who - at least to me - appears to identify mistakes and fixes them. Perhaps he can become a good-to-great GM. I would rather the Flames benefit from a GM who has learned from his past mistakes than be set back by a new person.

Boils down to next best alternative.

There's way more bad GMs than good GMs. And the risk of getting a really awful GM I think is quite high.

Best to keep him until a truly obvious replacement appears.

[JohnnyB]

One thing I do quite like about Treliving is that he's not afraid to take big shots. He has pulled off big trades and made big signings, and he took a big shot this year with going all in on a 2022 cup run. I'm curious how he would do with going all in on a rebuild. If the Flames trade Tkachuk, Lindholm, Markstrom and everyone else of value for high picks and take back salary in the form of players who can traded for more high picks at the deadline, how would he do with rebuilding the team? I'm curious. I would probably be okay with that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

What make people think Treliving learned anything?

Well, you’re trolling but since you asked, since Neal, he’s traded for and signed players with no character issues. And he wasn’t too proud to hang on to his big UFA signing and instead mitigated the loss by trading for Lucic (and making Edmonton eat some salary in the process). Too the extent people say he didn’t trade Gaudreau, he’s now trading Tkachuk.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Pick ONE word to describe his entire tenure as the Flames GM in relation to success. What is that word for you? For me, it is mediocre. Not terrible, not great.. just mediocre.

Brad Treliving is the 3.6 Roentgen of NHL General Managers.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, you’re trolling but since you asked, since Neal, he’s traded for and signed players with no character issues. And he wasn’t too proud to hang on to his big UFA signing and instead mitigated the loss by trading for Lucic (and making Edmonton eat some salary in the process). Too the extent people say he didn’t trade Gaudreau, he’s now trading Tkachuk.

He still traded for a guy that can’t skate like Toffoli.
And it’s more Tkachuk forcing his hands than anything.
Yeah if we don’t agree it’s trolling.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Locke

Brad Treliving is the 3.6 Roentgen of NHL General Managers.

And we have had 3.6 Roentgen for 8 years now so it is taking a cumulative toll. You don’t notice it at first but it eventually sneaks up on you.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

He still traded for a guy that can’t skate like Toffoli.
And it’s more Tkachuk forcing his hands than anything.
Yeah if we don’t agree it’s trolling.

No it’s trolling because it’s you. And he also traded for guys that could skate but you ignored that in your nitpicking. Toffoli is a consistent scorer at a low salary. It was a good deal and remains a good deal.

And it’s obvious that you haven’t even thought about it.

[Strange Brew]

I find it hard to give Treliving the credit for having the foresight to trade Tkachuk at this point.

That's like giving him credit for not signing Gaudreau to a cap crippling contract.

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Boils down to next best alternative.

There's way more bad GMs than good GMs. And the risk of getting a really awful GM I think is quite high.

Best to keep him until a truly obvious replacement appears.

So continue with the train wreck until a good option appears? You are telling me that out of all the people employed in the NHL, you won’t find people better than Treliving?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk