Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Toonage]

This will be such a huge summer on so many fronts for Treliving.

He will need to look at the coaching and make the correct call there. He will need to look at improving the scoring and doing so via a pure hockey trade. Same for the goaltending. Can't go back to rookie backups as we've seen with the worst case scenario playing out right now.

This will be Treliving's make or break summer as GM of this team.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Results matter but teams are going to have bad seasons. The Preds haven't been terrific every year but they stuck with Poile? Why...because he makes sound decisions and generally does more good than bad.

I agree you can't just make a list of good/bad and that results also matter but that's the point - it needs to be a full and thorough review.

Again I go back to one of my main points - bad teams change GMs far too regularly. If you think the guy is making rationale and sound decisions, then my inclination would be to stick with him.

Oh for sure, I'm not advocating that Tre should go.

Many of his decisions have been good or at least looked good on paper. But at the end of the day if those good decisions don't yield good results... It's reasonable to think he should start feeling the heat after a few years.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Toonage

This will be such a huge summer on so many fronts for Treliving.

He will need to look at the coaching and make the correct call there. He will need to look at improving the scoring and doing so via a pure hockey trade. Same for the goaltending. Can't go back to rookie backups as we've seen with the worst case scenario playing out right now.

This will be Treliving's make or break summer as GM of this team.

I don't get the feeling that the fate of the coaches will fall on him. I think that will come from higher up....and if that's the case we aren't going to see the head coach changed.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Would you say bad teams hire bad GM's (and therefore have to fire them) or are they firing good GM's?

The Patriots cycled through GM's and coaches until BB showed up.
The Penguins won the Cup with a brand new management team.
Haven't the Oilers had the same jokers in charge for a long time?

IMO it all comes down to whether you have a GM with an appropriate vision and strategy and then you can measure how they do against that strategy.

I don't think its that binary. I think in some cases bad teams are hiring bad, and in other cases they are firing good GMs.
Specific to the Flames, I believe that Button and Coates were both not given enough time to execution to their vision.
We are speaking a lot in this thread about broader organizational issues that plague bad teams, including the price paid for trying to accelerate the path to winning. Well, part of what breeds that is the historic time that a GM has been given to get there. This organization has a history of only giving a GM a short number of years to execute to the vision. So that means that GMs are only managing to that window. And that's not healthy.

I further believe that when you swap GMs you pay a price, including that the new GM will move out some pieces that maybe shouldn't be. If we look back at the Flames I would point to players like Martin St. Louis, JS Giguere and more recently Paul Byron as players that the previous regime was knowledgeable about and found of, but were moved out when someone took over. This is pretty common as the new person puts their stamp on things.

It's one of the reasons why this organization has been in a continual weak spot from an asset POV.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Oh for sure, I'm not advocating that Tre should go.

Many of his decisions have been good or at least looked good on paper. But at the end of the day if those good decisions don't yield good results... It's reasonable to think he should start feeling the heat after a few years.

So you put the heat on him and what do you think that does?
It creates an environment where he starts managing to an even shorter time window to save his job and win now, which is precisely part of the criticism being lobbed against him.

"Putting the heat on" after just a few years is exactly what is breeding the deeper problems here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I don't get the feeling that the fate of the coaches will fall on him. I think that will come from higher up....and if that's the case we aren't going to see the head coach changed.

If Tre can't fire or hire his own coaches he will walk.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you put the heat on him and what do you think that does?
It creates an environment where he starts managing to an even shorter time window to save his job and win now, which is precisely part of the criticism being lobbed against him.

"Putting the heat on" after just a few years is exactly what is breeding the deeper problems here.

But at some point, if the results aren't there, you have to start looking at what the GM is doing and whether he's the right man for the job.

I mean, we can't wait forever. It's just a matter of debating what is the proper timeframe that Treliving should be given to build a winner.

This team has been in a "win now" mode for a while now, symbolized by the Hamonic deal the most. You don't make that deal unless you think so. Now if Tre starts backpedaling and makes decisions that look like rebuilding again then I don't know what the direction is anymore.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't think its that binary. I think in some cases bad teams are hiring bad, and in other cases they are firing good GMs.
Specific to the Flames, I believe that Button and Coates were both not given enough time to execution to their vision.
We are speaking a lot in this thread about broader organizational issues that plague bad teams, including the price paid for trying to accelerate the path to winning. Well, part of what breeds that is the historic time that a GM has been given to get there. This organization has a history of only giving a GM a short number of years to execute to the vision. So that means that GMs are only managing to that window. And that's not healthy.

I further believe that when you swap GMs you pay a price, including that the new GM will move out some pieces that maybe shouldn't be. If we look back at the Flames I would point to players like Martin St. Louis, JS Giguere and more recently Paul Byron as players that the previous regime was knowledgeable about and found of, but were moved out when someone took over. This is pretty common as the new person puts their stamp on things.

It's one of the reasons why this organization has been in a continual weak spot from an asset POV.

All good points. When you press reset, there can sometimes be a few steps back. And the GM should certainly be given enough time to implement their vision. I would love to see big Treliving supporters spend more time explaining his vision for the team and articulate how his decisions have helped advance that vision.

All I'm really left is the possession stats showing the Flames are on the right track. But as others have said in other threads, those don't factor in all aspects of a hockey game.

Bottom line, it is troubling as to why a young, growing hockey team is trading away such valuable draft picks. I don't feel like I have enough information to evaluate BT but as owner I'd want to hear his plan for the team. And I'd be comparing it to what he was saying the last 3 years.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Saqe

But at some point, if the results aren't there, you have to start looking at what the GM is doing and whether he's the right man for the job.

I mean, we can't wait forever. It's just a matter of debating what is the proper timeframe that Treliving should be given to build a winner.

This team has been in a "win now" mode for a while now, symbolized by the Hamonic deal the most. You don't make that deal unless you think so. Now if Tre starts backpedaling and makes decisions that look like rebuilding again then I don't know what the direction is anymore.

Again, this is precisely the problem. "We can't wait forever". I realize that Flames' fans have been waiting for a long time for a contender but this GM has only had a few years. If you cycle out GMs after only 3 years, you are creating that cycle I'm talking about. You need to give a regime more time.

And yes I think that they felt they were closer in the summer than they are now. So you adjust with that information now in place. I don't see the team making decisions to rebuild again though. I see that he probably made the right call at the deadline to not pay for rentals because the team hasn't exhibited the ability to consistently win. But nor did he sell of pieces or not re-sign Backlund which would have signaled a re-build.

By all signs the approach will be to go about addressing the roster gaps in the off-season

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

We are speaking a lot in this thread about broader organizational issues that plague bad teams, including the price paid for trying to accelerate the path to winning. Well, part of what breeds that is the historic time that a GM has been given to get there. This organization has a history of only giving a GM a short number of years to execute to the vision. So that means that GMs are only managing to that window. And that's not healthy.

Poile is a good example. He would have been fired several times over by the fans of this board if he was the Flames GM.

I'd say it takes at least 5 years for an NHL GM to have enough of a body of work to judge him by. That's too short of a time-frame to complete a rebuild of an asset-starved franchise like the Flames, so you need other metrics besides "turned team into Stanley Cup contender."

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again, this is precisely the problem. "We can't wait forever". I realize that Flames' fans have been waiting for a long time for a contender but this GM has only had a few years. If you cycle out GMs after only 3 years, you are creating that cycle I'm talking about. You need to give a regime more time.

And yes I think that they felt they were closer in the summer than they are now. So you adjust with that information now in place. I don't see the team making decisions to rebuild again though. I see that he probably made the right call at the deadline to not pay for rentals because the team hasn't exhibited the ability to consistently win. But nor did he sell of pieces or not re-sign Backlund which would have signaled a re-build.

By all signs the approach will be to go about addressing the roster gaps in the off-season

Again, I'm not saying he should be cycled out at this point.

But I also don't agree that there should be an infinite time window where the GM makes good looking decisions on paper but the team never goes anywhere.

To me, when they traded away picks for Hamonic, that signaled a win mode now and Tre should be on the clock. He's made a decision to go for it and should be given maybe a few more (?) years to implement his vision.

But at the end of the day, there has to be results at some point.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The team's composition and the overall blueprint for assembling the squad are becoming questionable.

Also, Treliving is getting way too much credit for having "pieces". In capped NHL everyone has " pieces", specially if you can spend to the cap. That's the way the league is designed and it has nothing to do with Treliving. The job of GM in the parity era is not so much about collecting pieces, but rather putting them together to assemble a working machine, and thus requires some sound knowledge about designing a hockey team that can win in today's NHL. This is where Treliving have been falling short again and again.

I agree with this, I think having the right pieces are important,but I also think Treliving also may have fallen short in that he was looking for a coach that could implement a system that focused on puck possession. He may have overlooked the importance of having a coach who is also a strong motivator. Throwing your stick is one way to motivate, but there is a lot to be desired when this team comes prepared to play.

[Bar-Down]

It kind of seems like Calgary is trying to model themselves after Nashville.

Load up on defense and defense prospects. Then trade them for help up front.

I definitely see us trading defense assets for an impact forward this summer.

Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen
2nd Round pick + Samuel Girard for Kyle Turris

And they somehow pulled off one of the most lopsided trades in NHL History:

Martin Erat + Michael Latta for Filip Forsberg

Nashville has traded for 3 impact forwards in their recent past.
No reason why we cant trade some of our assets for one this summer.

Brodie + Fox for Mark Stone?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't think Treliving deserves a lot of heat right now, though I imagine he is going to get some.

Yeah, that trade for Hamonic potentially might look bad, but it isn't like Hamonic is an over-the-hill vet that will be leaving the organization shortly. He is probably better than what you get mid-round. It will look ugly if that pick wins the lottery, but as it stands right now, outside of the top 10 picks, that is a trade I would want the GM to make. He has been really good for this second half of the season, is mobile, is good defensively, moves the puck well and is actually quite difficult to play against. He was worth the acquisition price in my books.

The main issue is that there hasn't been any RW prospect that has made the jump since Ferland who has any scoring potential. I think Poirier had tremendous potential. Pribyl was looking good, and seemingly was a really good pickup. Sometimes an organization just has bad luck and things go south.

I expect Treliving to do two things this off-season:

Address the depth - depth is much easier to find through the UFA bin or through trades. I think Shore was a move in the right direction already.

I also think that Treliving will find a top 6 RW.

Darryl Sutter said it best at the trade deadline: The Backlund line is the best 3rd line in the NHL.

Bennett - Jankowski - X need to be a good line next season for this team to have any success.

That 4th line has to have guys that can PK, pot a few goals in a season, and be better defensively ALL year.

I think if you find the right winger for that second line, that line could really start making noise. Many don't think so, and that's fine. We will just have to see.

The most glaring hole in the lineup to me is of course coaching. I do expect Treliving to be busy finding a new coach this off-season. The Flames are giving up more shots on net (and I would bet high danger shots, especially in the last stretch) than in the previous regime's tenure, but without the offence. Usually a team that implements a more defensive structure actually experiences better defensive stats. It hasn't been working for whatever reason.

I also think it is a shame having this many capable offensive D who are all (with Hamilton being the exception) of under-achieving offensively. For a club that is STARVED for offence, that is a serious untapped resource.

I don't want Treliving let-go. I do think that consistency in the GM position allows for a longer-term vision and increased likelihood of success. I want Treliving fired if he starts making some moves with the apparent aim of saving his job, or saving a season. That's when a GM absolutely needs to go.

Coaching, #1 goalies and #1 centers - the three enigmas that has haunted this team forever.

Notable coaches that experienced success while in Calgary:
Bob Johnson - Got the Flames over the hump and able to beat the Oilers
Darryl Sutter - Got a bunch of lunch-pail unheralded guys to work so hard together
Bob Hartley - got a rebuilding squad into round two of the playoffs
Terry Crisp - won a cup, even though he was despised by the players

Agree with the list or not, but that is the Calgary Flames' 'good coaching' history. Some people would even scratch Hartley and/or Crisp off that list.

In goal, the Flames have had Vernon, Kiprusoff and now Smith. Sure, there were others that kind of came and went through the organization like Giguere, Roloson and Anderson, but I am talking about legitimate #1 goalies that were here as #1 goalies.

#1 Centers - Nieuwendyk, Gilmour, Monahan. HM Langkow. Savard was a player that looked like he was breaking out, but I don't think I would consider him a bona fide #1 center while here.

The three Unicorns that has plagued the Calgary Flames, but I say that coaching has cost this team the most over the years. Flames have no choice but to remedy the situation. If Treliving honestly feels that he has done a good job in the building department, then he has no choice but to relive Gulutzan after this season and find a replacement that can take this team further.

I always think a GM should get 3 cracks at a coach. If he wins the cup (or even goes to the final with one), he gets an additional crack or two. I said it when he fired Hartley - the clock started ticking on Treliving at that time with Gulutzan being his first crack at it. Unless the 2nd coach absolutely bombs, he deserves 2 more after Gulutzan. I would be looking to hire a more experienced coach with a track record if I was Treliving.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I don't get the feeling that the fate of the coaches will fall on him. I think that will come from higher up....and if that's the case we aren't going to see the head coach changed.

What do you mean? He's on the last year of his deal so essentially lame duck and easy to fire. Bringing back Gulutzan is going to be very bad for season ticket sales so IMO if the owners have any input he's as good as gone.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Agree with the list or not, but that is the Calgary Flames' 'good coaching' history. Some people would even scratch Hartley and/or Crisp off that list.

what?? one guy has a Presidents Trophy and a Cup ring, the other guy has 3 of this franchise's highest draft positions, plus one playoff round win powered by magical come from behind unicorn juice. how are they somehow equivalent borderline selections?

all of the talk about Gully's shortcomings is justified, but it's bizarrely turned the Legend of Bob into a thing. yes, that guy who the players grew to despise over the course of 4 years and will probably never work in the NHL again. I'm tired of reading about how awesome Hartley hockey was. it was bad in the shortened 12-13 season, which is why all the vets had to get shipped out cause they underperformed. it was ok in 13-14 cause of zero expectations. it was super fun in 14-15 because we broke the Nucks. then it sucked in 15-16 again despite a better roster.

if that 14-15 year was more like the other 3 and they didn't abracadabra their way in with a ton of comebacks, then we'd be talking about him being in the running as the worst Flames coach of all time.

[Shazam]

Well yes if you ignore any coach's successes they tend to look really bad.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Again, I'm not saying he should be cycled out at this point.

But I also don't agree that there should be an infinite time window where the GM makes good looking decisions on paper but the team never goes anywhere.

To me, when they traded away picks for Hamonic, that signaled a win mode now and Tre should be on the clock. He's made a decision to go for it and should be given maybe a few more (?) years to implement his vision.

But at the end of the day, there has to be results at some point.

Putting him on the clock though could provoke more decisions that hurt the franchise in the long-run.
He's either your guy or not. If he's your guy, you don't give him a time window to manage to. You allow him to set timelines and expectations.
If you start to think you need to put him on the clock he's probably not your guy anyways.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What do you mean? He's on the last year of his deal so essentially lame duck and easy to fire. Bringing back Gulutzan is going to be very bad for season ticket sales so IMO if the owners have any input he's as good as gone.

Have we confirmed GG is on the last year? It seems hard to get that info.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well yes if you ignore any coach's successes they tend to look really bad.

not ignoring it, just saying it's outweighed 3 to 1. if people want to say they'd rather watch Hartley hockey because the fire drills on both ends were more exciting then fine. I just got triggered by seeing Hartley's name placed on the same level as Crispy's.