Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

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.

I think people are misinterpreting some of what's said about Hartley. I don't think Hartley was a great coach, but he's useful as a comparison with Gulutzan to at least show the impact a coach can have on his team. Gulutzan's Flames have generated a lot more shots and allowed a lot fewer shots, but they've also scored on a lower percentage of their shots and allowed goals against on a lower percentage. Overall, Gulutzan's results have been better, but there are clear areas that have become worse. So when someone tries to argue that a coach doesn't have much impact, Hartley is useful to point to as a counterexample. You don't have to want to re-hire Hartley to appreciate some of the things he did well.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

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.

Hartley was fine considering the quality of players we had at the time. You certainly don't want a coach you want to keep long term if you're giving them David Jones to work with.

Was he a notable coach for the Flames... Well, we've had Greg Gilbert as a coach, so the bar is pretty low.

[Gaskal]

Glen will get an extension if he can get us past the first round. Anything else and I expect him, along with the rest of the coaching staff, to be shown the door. I'm not sure how long the assistants were signed for, but CapFriendly says this is Gulutzan's contract season and unless there's some sort of miracle push here I think his time with the Flames is over.

There should be a better selection of coaches this offseason for Treliving. Vigneault, Quennville, Tortorella, and Trotz could easily be on the chopping block. Three of them in the East as well, so their GMs should be less trepid about allowing us permission to interview them.

On top of that, internal coaching budget shouldn't as be much of an issue because A.) Treliving has more autonomy, B.) We're not going to be paying multiple coaches at the same time, and C.) Hopefully ownership has realized the stupidity of cheaping out on coaching budget.

[Shazam]

Sweet Jesus kidnap AV and brainwash him to coach this team if we have to.

[Toonage]

Knowing the Flames they'll probably hire Dave Tippett (assuming there is no bad blood with Maloney) and you know what, at this point I'd be thrilled with that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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."

Poile has been a GM for 36 years in the NHL. Would you trade 1 Stanley Cup win and 2 Finals appearances for Poile's record during that time?

There is a lot to like about David Poile, and he has a strong regular season record. But a whole bunch of teams have cycled through GM's during his 36 years and were able to put up some banners. Is Nashville good now because of Poile or due to the law of averages?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Hartley is described by some as having 3 horrible seasons and one lucky one.

Others see him as the guy that took over the country club that was long in the tooth, and the first two years were instilling accountability and blowing it up. The third year was overachieving with work ethic, speed, and motivation. The 4th year he got out of the gate with the three headed goalie issue, Brodie out, Gio just back from a major injury and Hamilton taking time to adjust. They got off to a hideous start, and dug a hole they could not climb out of, but were looking good until Ramo got hurt.

I just don’t see how you can ignore the team Hartley had to work with and put it all on him.

The last two times coaches have been brought in to instill structure, it was Brent who killed a perennial playoff team, and now Gully, who has a team that should be methodical but is devoid of that killer instinct.

Treliving is wrapping up his 4th year. Gulutzan is his guy and Gulutzan has laid an egg this year.

Say what you will about Feaster and his two almost blunders (ROR and Richards) but his prospect cupboard when he showed up was led by Tim Erixon. They were preaching hockey IQ and speed. Feaster made some good draft choices and trades and in just over 2 years blew it up and progressed the rebuild.

And Treliving at the trade deadline of his 4th year, when you would think the tinkering should be completing, gets Chris Stewart. Why? The guy is 6 years removed from a good season, is an advanced stats disaster and was thrown on the scrap heap by his old team.

A few years ago, it was always earned, never given. The team was fast and had guys in the bottom 6 like Jooris playing over his head, and a guy like speedy Paul Byron. Now there is no discernible identity, and a pile of post apex reclamation projects stacking up.

I used to be able to tell people outside of Calgary why they should watch the Flames and there were reasons other than Johnny Gaudreau. Now I can’t think of any.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

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.

How about this:

Bob Hartley coached this team (a rebuilding team nonetheless) into the SECOND ROUND of the playoffs. That was only the SECOND TIME in the last 25 years for the Calgary Flames to reach the second round. Those 25 years encompassed TWELVE coaches (including 3 interim coaches).

Are we good here?

[Flash Walken]

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

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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."

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Poile has been a GM for 36 years in the NHL. Would you trade 1 Stanley Cup win and 2 Finals appearances for Poile's record during that time?

There is a lot to like about David Poile, and he has a strong regular season record. But a whole bunch of teams have cycled through GM's during his 36 years and were able to put up some banners. Is Nashville good now because of Poile or due to the law of averages?

This is not giving poile enough credit, and also is exemplary of what Jiri is saying.

Washington Capitals under Poile:

The caps hadn't made the playoffs in over a decade since entering the league when they hired Poile. Poile's caps then make the playoffs for the next 13 years in a row. 6 of those years they advance to the second round or better. The Caps make the Finals for the first time the year after Washington lets him go and then miss the playoffs in 4 of the next 8 years, basically until Ovi arrives.

He then goes to an expansion franchise in a non traditional hockey market with severe budget restrictions. They've made the playoffs 10 out of 18 years as an expansion team, winning 6 rounds of hockey and one trip to the final.

Nashville came into the league in 1998. Since Nashville has been in the NHL, as an expansion team, the Flames have made the playoffs 7 times with one trip to the final and 4 playoff round wins.

Since 1998 the Preds have had one GM, the Flames have had 5.

[Shazam]

Seems to me the Flames' GM-pickers are bad at picking GMs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

How about this:

Bob Hartley coached this team (a rebuilding team nonetheless) into the SECOND ROUND of the playoffs. That was only the SECOND TIME in the last 25 years for the Calgary Flames to reach the second round. Those 25 years encompassed TWELVE coaches (including 3 interim coaches).

Are we good here?

Did he coach the team into the 2nd round or did a team he coached happen to make it into the second round? A lot went right in that first round - Hiller was unreal in 4/5 games before the final game where he got yanked. Ferland pulled a Ferland, which he still does. Scoring from the likes of Bollig, Jones and Russell - it took the Monahan line until the third period of game 3 to get a point, and that was on the PP.

And looking back, Vancouver had a terrible team. The Sedins were pretty done even then and Horvat was a rookie. Calgary was extremely lucky, opponent-wise. I think the could have only beaten the Jets, aside from the Canucks, that year.

GG gets into the second round last year with (a) better goaltending against the Ducks who I think they outplayed, or (b) by playing the Sharks, Wild or Hawks.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is not giving poile enough credit, and also is exemplary of what Jiri is saying.

Washington Capitals under Poile:

The caps hadn't made the playoffs in over a decade since entering the league when they hired Poile. Poile's caps then make the playoffs for the next 13 years in a row. 6 of those years they advance to the second round or better. The Caps make the Finals for the first time the year after Washington lets him go and then miss the playoffs in 4 of the next 8 years, basically until Ovi arrives.

He then goes to an expansion franchise in a non traditional hockey market with severe budget restrictions. They've made the playoffs 10 out of 18 years as an expansion team, winning 6 rounds of hockey and one trip to the final.

Nashville came into the league in 1998. Since Nashville has been in the NHL, as an expansion team, the Flames have made the playoffs 7 times with one trip to the final and 4 playoff round wins.

Since 1998 the Preds have had one GM, the Flames have had 5.

David Poile is a good GM in my opinion. But using him as a reason for why changing GM's is a bad idea doesn't work for me.

Many shorter tenured GM's have had more success. Meanwhile, some other historically long tenured GM's, like Darcy Regier and Larry Pleau have not gone as well.

If you think Treliving is a good GM, or can grow into the job, that would be a good reason to keep him. Not because David Poile.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Would be interesting to try and look at GM tenure and organizational success to see how much of a correlation there is.
Does a GM get better the longer they stay with an organization?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

David Poile is a good GM in my opinion. But using him as a reason for why changing GM's is a bad idea doesn't work for me.

Many shorter tenured GM's have had more success. Meanwhile, some other historically long tenured GM's, like Darcy Regier and Larry Pleau have not gone as well.

If you think Treliving is a good GM, or can grow into the job, that would be a good reason to keep him. Not because David Poile.

I think Treliving is great at contracts, adequate at drafting and trades, but there seems to be some holes in pro scouting. I think Hamilton and Hamonic have been good and as advertised. Versteeg was a good steal. I think Smith was a obviously a great choice of target. But his assessments of Lazar, Brouwer, Jagr, Bollig, Raymond, Bouma (on his extension) were off. Stewart is for free, so I don't care, and I think Shore can be a decent pickup at a really cheap price.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Would be interesting to try and look at GM tenure and organizational success to see how much of a correlation there is.
Does a GM get better the longer they stay with an organization?

And in particular, how much better does the team get later in the GM's tenure? Poile might be the exception here. Think of Lamierello in NJ and Ken Holland in DET.

Those teams became less successful as time went on, maybe largely because of the natural cycle of of a good team getting older.

I'm starting to think teams have the most success early in a GM's tenure.

[Shazam]

Lamoriello was the Devils' GM for 27 years. The Devils missed the playoffs five times during his tenure.

I'll take that.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Say what you will about Feaster and his two almost blunders (ROR and Richards) but his prospect cupboard when he showed up was led by Tim Erixon. They were preaching hockey IQ and speed. Feaster made some good draft choices and trades and in just over 2 years blew it up and progressed the rebuild.

Feaster made one good pick, Gaudreau. Monahan was an obvious one and everyone else has been a big pile of meh. Sieloff and Baertschi were shipped out of town, Klimchuk and Poirier are starting to look like busts, and Jankowski and Gillies are, IMO, overrated by most people here and have yet to show anything substantial at the NHL level.

It's still way too early to judge Treliving's drafting/prospect development but under his watch we have Fox, Andersson, Kylington, Parsons, Dube, Mangiapane, Valimaki, and Foo, in addition to a home run in Tkachuk. Also don't forget about a highly sought after Dman in Brandon Hickey that he was able to flip for our team MVP this year. That's the meat of our prospect base right now, and although all of these guys have yet to prove anything at the NHL level also, I'd put them up against the list of propsects Feaster assembled any day of the week.

[Shazam]

Let's add Larry Pleau to the list of long tenured GMs. Too bad the Blues never won a cup. Bunch of losers.

[automaton 3]

It's a results based business, yes BT has to answer to Burke and ultimately to ownership.

Personally I think he has made far more good moves, than bad. The majority of the decisions that didn't turn out, seemed to have some logic behind them at the time from my perspective.

I think where he will feel some heat is if ticket sales decline. Personally, I feel the current product on the ice is not very entertaining.

I can't imagine what people that have put down serious coin to watch this team are thinking. But if enough feel the same, it will get ownership's attention.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

David Poile is a good GM in my opinion. But using him as a reason for why changing GM's is a bad idea doesn't work for me.

Many shorter tenured GM's have had more success. Meanwhile, some other historically long tenured GM's, like Darcy Regier and Larry Pleau have not gone as well.

If you think Treliving is a good GM, or can grow into the job, that would be a good reason to keep him. Not because David Poile.

Larry Pleau was AGM and director of player personnel with the rangers in 94 when they won the cup.

He was the st.louis GM when they won the presidents trophy.

The Blues problems are a direct extension of having been sold 3 times in 12 years.

Without the bull#### brett Hull crease goal, Darcy Regier is likely a stanley cup winning general manager. In his tenure with Buffalo he guided that team to back to back conference finals appearances and a presidents trophy.

Again, that team's problems are directly traceable to ownership. While Regier was GM of the Sabres they were sold 3 times and filed for bankruptcy protection once.