Coaching, leadership and a top 5 list

[Psytic]

Is BT really the best Flames GM since Fletcher though? I feel like the Iginla, Kipper, Tanguay, Langkow, Juice, Cammy, Jokinen, Regher and Sarich teams would mop the floor with this group in a playoff series. 7 years I feel like the end product is not nearly as good as the last cycle. Take Iggy out even I still think they mop the floor with the BT Flames and have more heart doing it.

[1qqaaz]

The drafting and developing has been good, but that was clearly set into motion by previous GMs. The change in draft philosophy between Sutter and Feaser was night and day.

I think Treliving is a below average GM. Especially since the Lindholm trade.
Sutter was probably better until later on. Feaster is generally underrated (I think people put too much weight on the Ryan O'Reilly thing). Al Coates was simply better.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Is BT really the best Flames GM though? I feel like the Iginla, Kipper Tanguay, Langkow, Juice, Cammy, Jokinen, Regher and Sarich teams would mop the floor with this group in a playoff series. 7 years I feel like the end product is not nearly as good as the last cycle. Take Iggy out even I still think they mop the floor with the BT Flames and have more heart doing it.

It's not quite seven years. It's not quite 6 as a matter of fact. But are you saying Sutter was a better GM? He was the one who got Kipper, Langkow, Jokinen, Cammaleri, Huselius, Sarich and Tanguay. Or Coates (Reg and Iginla)?

But with each of those you also have to account for the bad moves - Phaneuf, Jokinen, Stralman, Lydman trades and terrible drafting by Sutter, the really inconsequential trades by Coates aside from the Iginla one, plus 1st and 2nd round draft picks like Tkaczuk and Fata.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not quite seven years. It's not quite 6 as a matter of fact. But are you saying Sutter was a better GM? He was the one who got Kipper, Langkow, Jokinen, Cammaleri, Huselius, Sarich and Tanguay. Or Coates (Reg and Iginla)?

But with each of those you also have to account for the bad moves - Phaneuf, Jokinen, Stralman, Lydman trades and terrible drafting by Sutter, the really inconsequential trades by Coates aside from the Iginla one, plus 1st and 2nd round draft picks like Tkaczuk and Fata.

The team as constructed cant survive playoff hockey and is easy to play against. If i'm going by the game as played on the ice rather than looking at the transaction sheets then yes I guess I do think in despite of some dumb moves the actual team was better constructed to play a style that could succeed when the whistles go away.The only reason this isn't a 10th place team is the Pacific has become a joke. I would argue the competition was stiffer for the last cycle Flames as they had the peak Sharks, Kings, Canucks, Ducks, (central) Hawks, etc to deal with. Any of those teams Iggy Flames included would feast on today's Pacific/ West Conf much like St. Louis is today.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

The drafting and developing has been good, but that was clearly set into motion by previous GMs. The change in draft philosophy between Sutter and Feaser was night and day.

I think Treliving is a below average GM. Especially since the Lindholm trade.
Sutter was probably better until later on. Feaster is generally underrated (I think people put too much weight on the Ryan O'Reilly thing). Al Coates was simply better.

So how was Treliving until his last big move, which was only a season ago.

Feaster - you are ignoring his Iginla, Jaybo and Regher trades, I bet. Also the acquisition of O'Brien and Jones for Tanguay and Sarich. He also used first round picks on Jankowski, Poirier, Klimchuk, and Sven and 2nd rounders on Seiloff and Wotherspoon. Really, the only good move I can think of is drafting Gaudreau (Monahan was a by the book no-brainer).

Coates - just look at his draft record. He drafted one guy who made an impact for the Flames (Morris), maybe two if you count Lydman. I give him credit for Iginla, but that's about it.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So how was Treliving until his last big move, which was only a season ago.

Feaster - you are ignoring his Iginla, Jaybo and Regher trades, I bet. Also the acquisition of O'Brien and Jones for Tanguay and Sarich. He also used first round picks on Jankowski, Poirier, Klimchuk, and Sven and 2nd rounders on Seiloff and Wotherspoon. Really, the only good move I can think of is drafting Gaudreau (Monahan was a by the book no-brainer).

As awful as Feaster was, the team he built still made it further in the playoffs than the Treliving builds ever have. I really don't get why people rate Treliving so high around here, very mediocre GM.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

As awful as Feaster was, the team he built still made it further in the playoffs than the Treliving builds ever have. I really don't get why people rate Treliving so high around here, very mediocre GM.

That has more to do with the Flames getting a lucky match up with an aging Vancouver team more than anything. Feaster was an awful GM, there is a reason he hasn’t touched hockey operations anywhere since.

[taxbuster]

The problem in evaluating BT as a GM is this: he doesn't work for us. He works for an absentee expatriate owner, plus a couple of local ones. His job is to make them money. THEY are the ones who evaluate him and they have different criteria.

(Comparable to Bettman: he works for 31 owners, not players, fans, teams or anyone else -- their concerns are rarely his concerns unless it means less money for owners.)

So - to the best of our knowledge, the Flames are profitable, and some say quite profitable. As long as that is the case, he can, and will, do whatever he needs to. Hence the Lucic-Neal trade which made little hockey sense, but saved the owners a bunch of money (ie what his job is). And dealing Frolik...saved the team money.

None of those may make fans happy. And hiring an expensive coach (say Gallant, Lavi) is less likely to make owners happy, especially when they're already paying one, or two....

Is he good from a fan / hockey sense perspective? That is a totally different question, but not necessarily one that costs him his position if the answer is no. (It might, if fans stop going to games and/or selling out the 'Dome for a long period.)

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The problem in evaluating BT as a GM is this: he doesn't work for us. He works for an absentee expatriate owner, plus a couple of local ones. His job is to make them money. THEY are the ones who evaluate him and they have different criteria.

(Comparable to Bettman: he works for 31 owners, not players, fans, teams or anyone else -- their concerns are rarely his concerns unless it means less money for owners.)

So - to the best of our knowledge, the Flames are profitable, and some say quite profitable. As long as that is the case, he can, and will, do whatever he needs to. Hence the Lucic-Neal trade which made little hockey sense, but saved the owners a bunch of money (ie what his job is). And dealing Frolik...saved the team money.

None of those may make fans happy. And hiring an expensive coach (say Gallant, Lavi) is less likely to make owners happy, especially when they're already paying one, or two....

Is he good from a fan / hockey sense perspective? That is a totally different question, but not necessarily one that costs him his position if the answer is no. (It might, if fans stop going to games and/or selling out the 'Dome for a long period.)

This post is terribly cynical, and what’s depressing is it’s hard to disagree with any of it.

The Flames are a product, and as long as they continue to rake in money they have no reason to change any of what they’re doing.

[Wiggum_PI]

The Flames owners are missing out on all the playoff revenue by either not making the playoffs or bowing out in the 1st round. You'd think they would want to be a consistent playoff contender which is better for their own wallets and for the fans.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

As awful as Feaster was, the team he built still made it further in the playoffs than the Treliving builds ever have. I really don't get why people rate Treliving so high around here, very mediocre GM.

Meh: They won the round under Treliving's tenure. But moreover, as of Sept. 2013, the year before, Burke was pulling a lot of, if not most of, the strings, so whatever happened that year I'm not giving Feaster a lot of credit for. I give Feaster credit for signing Hudler, and for drafting Gaudreau (though I understand that was mainly a staff decision). But his lack of drafting and crappy returns for Iginla, Jaybo and Reg put the team into a huge hole for Treliving.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

The Flames owners are missing out on all the playoff revenue by either not making the playoffs or bowing out in the 1st round. You'd think they would want to be a consistent playoff contender which is better for their own wallets and for the fans.

True...but getting to that point of making the extra million per game - with only TWO assured games, might cost more than $2 million....so could end up easily in a less profitable position.

(I don't necessarily think that way, but there are certainly very conservative people of money who do....)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

As awful as Feaster was, the team he built still made it further in the playoffs than the Treliving builds ever have. I really don't get why people rate Treliving so high around here, very mediocre GM.

Treliving is polished, articulate (although a little cliche heavy for my taste) and good with the media. That gets him a lot of leeway.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

The drafting and developing has been good, but that was clearly set into motion by previous GMs. The change in draft philosophy between Sutter and Feaser was night and day.

I think Treliving is a below average GM. Especially since the Lindholm trade.
Sutter was probably better until later on. Feaster is generally underrated (I think people put too much weight on the Ryan O'Reilly thing). Al Coates was simply better.

The interesting thing is ROR for Monahan would definitely be a win for the Flames 1-for-1.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Treliving is polished, articulate (although a little cliche heavy for my taste) and good with the media. That gets him a lot of leeway.

And I’m pretty sure a side gig announcing for ziprecruiter.com

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

The interesting thing is ROR for Monahan would definitely be a win for the Flames 1-for-1.

Except for that pesky "have to expose him in waivers" thingy. And the fact ROR got traded twice since that deal before he really blossomed in the right situation.

Where the Flames erred IMO was not going aggressively for ROR in Buffalo. They were disappointed in him and looking to move him after he signed his $7.5M deal, and they were also looking at Reinhart as a big disappointment back then. I think the Flames could have dealt Backlund (who was well regarded at the time and much cheaper), Bennett (who hadn't declined as much) + something extra for ROR and Reinhart.

[Stanley]

Tre said it himself - he's horseshi*t.
So f-ing do something about it already...

Be bold, be bright or be gone.

[Manhattanboy]

I still don't get why Flames ownership needed to re-up Treliving long term.

He wasn't going anywhere.

He could be on a week to week contract and still be Flames GM in five years.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I still don't get why Flames ownership needed to re-up Treliving long term.

He wasn't going anywhere.

He could be on a week to week contract and still be Flames GM in five years.

One possible explanation is that he’s low risk, which is exactly the guy you want to run a stable business.

Whether that low risk comes attached to low reward in terms of on-ice product is a matter of debate, but also not really relevant as long as the team consistently turns a profit. He’s the buttered toast of GMs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Treliving is polished, articulate (although a little cliche heavy for my taste) and good with the media. That gets him a lot of leeway.

I thought that was more feaster - at least the glib, articulate part. He was very media friendly. I don't think they took him seriously though.

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I still don't get why Flames ownership needed to re-up Treliving long term.

He wasn't going anywhere.

He could be on a week to week contract and still be Flames GM in five years.

You probably need something more than a lame duck to have the heft to make deals with other teams.

What star GM are we all thinking of when we want to get rid of treliving BTW?