Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

That's my stance also. I have noticed a bunch of posters that think replacing coach will fix everything. If flames go that route I think they will be wasting another year.

As far as I'm concerned the flames have a 3 year window with most of the core. 2 guys I could see declining quite a bit after that while still eating quite a bit of cap. The other core member I'm not sure will re-sign, so you need to look at trading him the summer of final year. I would also add that future picks in coming drafts will not be helping this core group in the next 3 years unless traded for immediate help. That's not an avenue that flames management should explore.

Come on really? He's terrible. It doesn't normally take a whole two years to adjust to a system. GG has just conditioned us to believe that its acceptable that no ones learned his yet.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This is the major point. I think folks have confused some of the arguments being made. Someone the other day asked why I think the Flames should keep GG. That's not my position. My position is that just changing the coach isn't enough and that there are more serious issues with the roster beyond the HC.

So the amount of discussion about the coach, and absence of blame being placed on the team, and their best players, is what I disagree with

Take a look at the stats of the teams' best players during these more critical games. They are awful.

It's not an absence of blame being put on the players. Everyone agrees there are problems with the roster.

The problem, when there is a coaching issue, is that it is a team game, and a game of confidence. When the team is playing well, individual players can and do look much better. Conversely, when the team is playing poorly, or players are being improperly utilized, those players look much worse.

So it becomes a problem in that it is difficult to evaluate players individually, if the team is being poorly managed and team confidence is low.

At that point, the only sensible solution is to replace the coach so that the individual players can then be evaluated in a more illuminating light.

It is not at all about absolving the players of responsibility.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This is the major point. I think folks have confused some of the arguments being made. Someone the other day asked why I think the Flames should keep GG. That's not my position. My position is that just changing the coach isn't enough and that there are more serious issues with the roster beyond the HC.

So the amount of discussion about the coach, and absence of blame being placed on the team, and their best players, is what I disagree with

Take a look at the stats of the teams' best players during these more critical games. They are awful.

I think the coach has to go and the GM should be on thin ice. It is unfathomable to me that a team that has a pretty thin system (6 players that reasonably may make the NHL at some point, with 4 of them being dmen) would go and trade 8 picks for 3 dmen over a 3 year period. The Hamilton trade made sense, even the Stone trade did, the Hamonic trade never did.

The Flames knew or ought to have known that they would have a reasonable chance of re-signing Stone, and they knew or ought to have known that they had no non-NHL ready forwards outside of Jankowski. They should have also realized that they do not have many that are likely to make the NHL outside of Dube.

In that environment, the GM trades over a 12 month period a 2nd and what will now be a 3rd for a goalie (along with a former 3rd). That is more than the Oilers gave up for Talbot. It is more than the Sharks gave up for Martin Jones. The goalie acquisition process was a complete fail (even if Elliott worked out, it is arguable that that package was more than the Jones package).

After we get past his goalie debacle, you look at his acquisition of at least one more dman than he really needed vis-a-vis the forward needs. He went into a season with old, poor 3rd and 4th liners with almost no young help in the system. He could have used those 3 picks to possibly bolster the forward ranks, but rather overloaded on defence. Now he could trade a dman or two for some immediate help, which puts the 2021 Flames in a bad position or he could trade for draft picks to help out the system or he could try to make a couple UFA signings and trade some dmen for picks.

My problem is I have almost no faith in his ability to make the right move. I would completely clean house and start over from a coaching and management perspective.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think the coach has to go and the GM should be on thin ice. It is unfathomable to me that a team that has a pretty thin system (6 players that reasonably may make the NHL at some point, with 4 of them being dmen) would go and trade 8 picks for 3 dmen over a 3 year period. The Hamilton trade made sense, even the Stone trade did, the Hamonic trade never did.

The Flames knew or ought to have known that they would have a reasonable chance of re-signing Stone, and they knew or ought to have known that they had no non-NHL ready forwards outside of Jankowski. They should have also realized that they do not have many that are likely to make the NHL outside of Dube.

In that environment, the GM trades over a 12 month period a 2nd and what will now be a 3rd for a goalie (along with a former 3rd). That is more than the Oilers gave up for Talbot. It is more than the Sharks gave up for Martin Jones. The goalie acquisition process was a complete fail (even if Elliott worked out, it is arguable that that package was more than the Jones package).

After we get past his goalie debacle, you look at his acquisition of at least one more dman than he really needed vis-a-vis the forward needs. He went into a season with old, poor 3rd and 4th liners with almost no young help in the system. He could have used those 3 picks to possibly bolster the forward ranks, but rather overloaded on defence. Now he could trade a dman or two for some immediate help, which puts the 2021 Flames in a bad position or he could trade for draft picks to help out the system or he could try to make a couple UFA signings and trade some dmen for picks.

My problem is I have almost no faith in his ability to make the right move. I would completely clean house and start over from a coaching and management perspective.

The oilers gave up about the same package for Talbot and the sharks gave up a first for Jones
Do people really think the Smith deal wasn’t a good one?
If he hadn’t addressed the tending a have a feeling you would be destroying him over that

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Come on really? He's terrible. It doesn't normally take a whole two years to adjust to a system. GG has just conditioned us to believe that its acceptable that no ones learned his yet.

If you had read my other post or read the post I was responding to , you would realize that I'm talking about firing coach and making changes to roster . You probably spent more time looking up the giff than reading

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The oilers gave up about the same package for Talbot and the sharks gave up a first for Jones
Do people really think the Smith deal wasn’t a good one?
If he hadn’t addressed the tending a have a feeling you would be destroying him over that

In order to get to the point that the Flames have a 36 year old goalie to lead a young team into the future they made the following moves

Traded the 34th overall pick and a conditional 3rd that did not come to pass for Brian Elliott.

For Smith they have now appeared to have traded roughly the 72 overall pick and Hickey (former 3rd)

The Sharks traded the 29th overall pick and a former 5th rounder.

Brad gave up more to fill his goalie spot than the Sharks did. He also gave up more than the Oilers did for Talbot.

I would rather have Jones than Smith. Would you rather have Smith?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The oilers gave up about the same package for Talbot and the sharks gave up a first for Jones
Do people really think the Smith deal wasn’t a good one?
If he hadn’t addressed the tending a have a feeling you would be destroying him over that

I have found the explanations for why this team needed a top end goaltender to be severely lacking.

What about the lifecycle of the team suggested they needed to go out and immediately improve the roster at the expense of draft picks?

Why couldn't they have stepped into free agency for a lesser goalie and kept Johnson for a tandem?

Obviously Elliott #### the bed against Anaheim, but it was pretty clear that goaltending wasn't the only issue.

Why did the flames need to expend so many picks in such a short amount of time to just stop the bleeding and not really improve?

This is the bizarre flames notion that a chance at any kind of success is an invitation to go all in.

What is the team direction exactly? What is the 'process'? Hard to look at this team over Tre's tenure and suggest there is an overarching plan other than 'move draft picks for roster players, win now' which isn't a terribly different direction than his predecessors.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

In order to get to the point that the Flames have a 36 year old goalie to lead a young team into the future they made the following moves

Traded the 34th overall pick and a conditional 3rd that did not come to pass for Brian Elliott.

For Smith they have now appeared to have traded roughly the 72 overall pick and Hickey (former 3rd)

The Sharks traded the 29th overall pick and a former 5th rounder.

Brad gave up more to fill his goalie spot than the Sharks did. He also gave up more than the Oilers did for Talbot.

I would rather have Jones than Smith. Would you rather have Smith?

It's been speculated by the media that Tre was very aggressive on trying to get , jones , Talbot and Anderson.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have found the explanations for why this team needed a top end goaltender to be severely lacking.

What about the lifecycle of the team suggested they needed to go out and immediately improve the roster at the expense of draft picks?

Why couldn't they have stepped into free agency for a lesser goalie and kept Johnson for a tandem?

Obviously Elliott #### the bed against Anaheim, but it was pretty clear that goaltending wasn't the only issue.

Why did the flames need to expend so many picks in such a short amount of time to just stop the bleeding and not really improve?

This is the bizarre flames notion that a chance at any kind of success is an invitation to go all in.

What is the team direction exactly? What is the 'process'? Hard to look at this team over Tre's tenure and suggest there is an overarching plan other than 'move draft picks for roster players, win now' which isn't a terribly different direction than his predecessors.

Lol Johnson as a tandem. Johnson is a backup goalie and that's it. He is not a 1a goalie or a 1b goalie, he is a backup. Tre offered him a contract for this season as a backup and he said no.

The tandem route had failed for the last bunch of years. Why would they go that route again?

[Enoch Root]

I don't think that attempting to solve the goalie problem is an indication of going all in.

The thing about goaltending is that, if you don't have it, everything flounders. For the organization to move forward, they had to improve their goaltending.

And the other issue that needs to be considered is that, despite multiple draft picks being spent on goalies (4 picks in the prior 6 years, 5 in 8), no one had yet stepped up and earned the starting role internally.

I find it bizarre that anyone would have the take that needing a top end goalie was a strategy that was 'severely lacking'.

Teams need goaltending. The Flames had back to back seasons where the goaltending was sub-par. And the team is (or should be) in a position to take the next step. But that could only happen with better goaltending.

I don't see that as going all in, I see that as correctly addressing a primary need that this team had.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Lol Johnson as a tandem. Johnson is a backup goalie and that's it. He is not a 1a goalie or a 1b goalie, he is a backup. Tre offered him a contract for this season as a backup and he said no

If the flames finish in 9th with smith, is that materially different than finishing in say, 12th, with Niemi or Mason or Pavalec or Bernier?

Isn't the organization materially stronger finishing in 12th or 13th in the league and keeping those draft picks than they are with a top starter that gets them to 9th without the picks?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What is the team direction exactly? What is the 'process'? Hard to look at this team over Tre's tenure and suggest there is an overarching plan other than 'move draft picks for roster players, win now' which isn't a terribly different direction than his predecessors.

Which is why I think the 'just make the playoffs' mandate comes from higher up the organization. But I can't for the life of me think why ownership would be willing to store up long-term pain in the desperate hopes of making a playoff run in the near term...

[Enoch Root]

The team wasn't trying to finish 9th. And they shouldn't be in this position where they are finishing 9th. But even if they do, it won't have been Smith's fault.

The idea is to win. They acquired Smith in order to be better. It didn't work, for other reasons. That doesn't make the decision wrong.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

If you had read my other post or read the post I was responding to , you would realize that I'm talking about firing coach and making changes to roster . You probably spent more time looking up the giff than reading

Your talking about firing the coach but your saying it would waste another year if we did.... Right. Your own viewpoint conflicts with itself.

[TheScorpion]

The Flames are going to either miss or squeak into the playoffs because they simply cannot score. That is the reason.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Which is why I think the 'just make the playoffs' mandate comes from higher up the organization. But I can't for the life of me think why ownership would be willing to store up long-term pain in the desperate hopes of making a playoff run in the near term...

Playoff revenue.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Flames are going to either miss or squeak into the playoffs because they simply cannot score. That is the reason.

Agreed. And our management refuses to address that. Addresses everything but that

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

In order to get to the point that the Flames have a 36 year old goalie to lead a young team into the future they made the following moves

Traded the 34th overall pick and a conditional 3rd that did not come to pass for Brian Elliott.

For Smith they have now appeared to have traded roughly the 72 overall pick and Hickey (former 3rd)

The Sharks traded the 29th overall pick and a former 5th rounder.

Brad gave up more to fill his goalie spot than the Sharks did. He also gave up more than the Oilers did for Talbot.

I would rather have Jones than Smith. Would you rather have Smith?

I would rather have Jones given age and by reports the Flames were after jones
But that doesn’t mean that the price given up for Smith wasn’t extremely reasonable
The compounding impact of the fact they also gave up a pick for Elliott isn’t really that relevant to me. That deal was also sound it just didn’t work out
It is easy to gm with 20/20 hindsight. But it’s a cruddy way to evaluate a gm

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would rather have Jones given age and by reports the Flames were after jones
But that doesn’t mean that the price given up for Smith wasn’t extremely reasonable
The compounding impact of the fact they also gave up a pick for Elliott isn’t really that relevant to me. That deal was also sound it just didn’t work out
It is easy to gm with 20/20 hindsight. But it’s a cruddy way to evaluate a gm

I am curious if he has any bad moves on his resume? Seems to me giving up a 2nd and two 3rds for 4 years of goaltending at the most is a bad move. I would also guess that the package for Elliott probably would have got us Jones, I suspect Brad picked Elliott over Jones, not that the Bruins found greater value in a 29th overall pick and a former 5th rounder than a potential 34th overall and a potential 75th overall.

Hamonic bad move

Not picking up any scoring help in the offseason bad move.

Lazar, horrible move.

Trying to fill a top 6 forward spot with PTO's in back to back seasons is a different approach.

Having one of the thinnest prospect pools in hockey bad move.

Hamilton was a good move

Frolik signing was a good move.

Not sure if I am missing any good moves.

[Red Potato Standing By]

For a team that is trying to go for it for the next few seasons the hamonic trade is not a bad trade though.