Sutter is the problem

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

Why would you choose a coach whom has had little to no success in the past decade over a player coming off an 115 point season, and a center who was instrumental in winning the Stanley cup last year?

Darryl needs to go.

I don't have confidence in the players or the coach right now. Huberdeau and Kadri's contracts scare the piss out of me right now. Darryl's doesn't. No free passes. If you want out after a year because it was a hard work environment, I'm facilitating if I can.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Yes, he (and other coaches) "could have"...but he also could leave them all in place and say "You created this mess tonight...you clean it up and help out your goalie." And they didn't do that either.

Sure, for 4 straight games sabotaging their playoffs hope just to prove a point. Sounds reasonable.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Nope.

You fire the coach before you sell low on all three of those players.

People all talk about "This team got Hartley, Gulutzan, and Peters/Ward fired, you can't let the inmates run the asylum".

The only player on this roster that played for Hartley is Backlund.

The only players that played as a regular for Gulutzan were Backlund and Stone.

This isn't the same team, and it's not a young team like it was in 15-16 when Hartley was fired. It's a team of respected veterans with Huberdeau, Kadri, Lindholm, Toffoli, Tanev, Backlund, Coleman, Lewis, Lucic all being respected veterans across the league.

If those guys say the coach and his way of dealing/communicating with players is the issue then you trust them.

You made a list of players, most of whom are thriving under Darryl. Sorry, 2 of those are not like the others. We don't know who hates the coach, but we can sure guess. They are probably sucking this year, they probably have insiders naming them by name as being unhappy, and they probably have agents who have been tweeting about it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

And Sutter wasn't the reason we lost to the Oilers, that was all Markstrom. We had multiple, multiple goal leads and he blew all of them.

Markstrom was A problem, but not the only one (by a long shot).

One of the other problems was that the Flames had no answer for what the Oilers were doing, and Sutter made NO adjustments to counter. None, that I could see.

I think the same thing was true in the Dallas series, but the Flames were just that much better than the Stars, and won regardless.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Boomer on the Barn Burner:

Treliving doesn't have a contract, and (likely) doesn't want Sutter back, but knows the owners do. Treliving is handcuffed, and I don't see how he can make changes without a contract, but if changing the coach is on his list of desires, I doubt he gets another contract.

Sutter is not wanted by the GM (my speculation), or the players, or the fans. But he has 2 more years on his contract. And is (presumably still) supported by ownership.

The team has half a dozen core players on the final year of their contracts, and are openly frustrated with the coach. A rebuild is the right path, but ownership doesn't want that, nor does the coach. But the UFAs probably don't re-sign if the coach is still here.

What breaks first?

[Toonage]

^ They'll likely try a bunch of desperation trades (with a new GM) to surround Sutter with his style of players.

Rebuild comes after, kicking and screaming and abbreviated.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by toonage

^ they'll likely try a bunch of desperation trades (with a new gm) to surround sutter with his style of players.

Rebuild comes after, kicking and screaming and abbreviated.

moar looooch

[Flames_F.T.W]

Sutter isn't entirely to blame for this terrible season, but he's been a big part of the problem and replacing him is by far the easiest solution. I think it's as simple as that.

[jg13]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638241503398055943

[Hockey_Ninja]

I put this in the Friedman thread, might as well put it in here:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638247791725015043

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638241503398055943

Sure a lot of smoke here…

[Kipper_3434]

I wouldn't want any of the players back who can leave without being suspended. The UFA'S can all walk. If Kadri and Huberdeau are gonna no-show, we can suspend them and take the cap space.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Treliving doesn't have a contract, and (likely) doesn't want Sutter back, but knows the owners do. Treliving is handcuffed, and I don't see how he can make changes without a contract, but if changing the coach is on his list of desires, I doubt he gets another contract.

Sutter is not wanted by the GM (my speculation), or the players, or the fans. But he has 2 more years on his contract. And is (presumably still) supported by ownership.

The team has half a dozen core players on the final year of their contracts, and are openly frustrated with the coach. A rebuild is the right path, but ownership doesn't want that, nor does the coach. But the UFAs probably don't re-sign if the coach is still here.

What breaks first?

This will be a true test of ownership's merit.

Door number one you keep Sutter, deal with trade requests and make moves from a position of zero leverage. This scenario makes it almost impossible to 'win now' as your disgruntled veterans are forcing trades that will be very challenging to win in a hockey trade and still remain competitive. This route also probably moves on from Treliving, giving some (if not all) hockey ops control to Sutter.

Door number two, you fire Sutter, attempt to re-sign Treliving to an extension, and give him the herculean task of winning now with an aging, expensive roster.

If I'm Treliving and somewhat of a coveted GM, this is not a job I'd come back to. There's no way to slice it. Lack of impact prospects, cap space, and autonomy. Heck, I'd even sit it out and if it means waiting a season for the right job to open up, that's preferable.

Either way you slice it, I think it's near foregone conclusion we see someone new in the GM chair this offseason.

[mile]

My guess is that Sutter will step down and go back to the farm after this season, ownership will convince him to stick around in the same role he had in Anaheim as a coaching staff advisor. Love, Muller, or Brunette takes over.

Make sure the relationship is still on good terms so that Sutter doesn’t coach the no goods out of spite and I’ll be happy.

[Kasi]

Some of us said this four months ago in November/December and were laughed at and were told there was no proof and that this wasn’t happening. Now it’s all coming out. Sutter needs to go.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

I wouldn't want any of the players back who can leave without being suspended. The UFA'S can all walk. If Kadri and Huberdeau are gonna no-show, we can suspend them and take the cap space.

Yeah that's a great environment to try to sign Coronato in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

This will be a true test of ownership's merit.

Door number one you keep Sutter, deal with trade requests and make moves from a position of zero leverage. This scenario makes it almost impossible to 'win now' as your disgruntled veterans are forcing trades that will be very challenging to win in a hockey trade and still remain competitive. This route also probably moves on from Treliving, giving some (if not all) hockey ops control to Sutter.

Door number two, you fire Sutter, attempt to re-sign Treliving to an extension, and give him the herculean task of winning now with an aging, expensive roster.

If I'm Treliving and somewhat of a coveted GM, this is not a job I'd come back to. There's no way to slice it. Lack of impact prospects, cap space, and autonomy. Heck, I'd even sit it out and if it means waiting a season for the right job to open up, that's preferable.

Either way you slice it, I think it's near foregone conclusion we see someone new in the GM chair this offseason.

Well, if you're unwilling to take on the situation that you have been creating for the last 9 years, that is not exactly shedding a positive light on your resume

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638241503398055943

In listening to that...Boomer DOES say (essentially) that is HIS interpretation of what he's hearing. Not that anyone actually said that ... other than Boomer.

I still suspect where there's smoke, there's fire though, and he's probably right.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

This will be a true test of ownership's merit.

Door number one you keep Sutter, deal with trade requests and make moves from a position of zero leverage. This scenario makes it almost impossible to 'win now' as your disgruntled veterans are forcing trades that will be very challenging to win in a hockey trade and still remain competitive. This route also probably moves on from Treliving, giving some (if not all) hockey ops control to Sutter.

Door number two, you fire Sutter, attempt to re-sign Treliving to an extension, and give him the herculean task of winning now with an aging, expensive roster.

If I'm Treliving and somewhat of a coveted GM, this is not a job I'd come back to. There's no way to slice it. Lack of impact prospects, cap space, and autonomy. Heck, I'd even sit it out and if it means waiting a season for the right job to open up, that's preferable.

Either way you slice it, I think it's near foregone conclusion we see someone new in the GM chair this offseason.

High-impact people LOVE challenges.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Toonage

^ They'll likely try a bunch of desperation trades (with a new GM) to surround Sutter with his style of players.

Rebuild comes after, kicking and screaming and abbreviated.

How many new gm’s step in and start trading top players straight away. Normally they want to take there time to see what they got.