Brad Treliving needs to go

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Red

nobody gets full unconditional control.

The owners have full unconditional control....they own it.

They can't force Treliving to hire a coach though. He has to agree to it.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The owners have full unconditional control....they own it.

They can't force Treliving to hire a coach though. He has to agree to it.

However, they are subject to the League itself, and other members of the ownership group of other franchises.

[Red]

Owners can do whatever they want. Treliving may have gained their trust and got some autonomy to complete trades and sign players, but that still has some strings. It is simply to avoid the Bishop scenario and fixing that is a far different than full control. No GM gets full control. Unless they own the team.

In the end owners get what they want. And Tre would be a fool to disagree with them. He is probably the happiest guy in all this, he still has a job and got another chance with a proven winner.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Is this 5 coaches in under 7 years?

I am happy the Flames are bringing in Sutter but has any GM been able to do this before. Such a long leash, almost sounds like he has a job for life.

Yeah 5 Coaches in under 7 years is unheard of.
Even better 4 of them will never be a Head Coach in the NHL ever again.
Thank you ownership for stepping in and getting a real Coach. We have hope again.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The owners have full unconditional control....they own it.

They can't force Treliving to hire a coach though. He has to agree to it.

Your two sentences contradict each other. The top person in control of an organization is the owners, full stop.

Whether they choose to be fully hands off or not is up to them though. But even if there's a person who basically does whatever they want with hockey ops, the owners still have the final say if necessary since they are the top of the hierarchy.

So owners can (and seems like they have) told Tre to hire their preferred coach.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by New Era

This hiring of Sutter does NOT have his fingerprints on it and it was likely forced on him. I would say Treliving has one foot out the door and has had his responsibilities greatly curtailed. I wouldn't be surprised if Sutter has to give approval of moves made and on personnel decisions affecting the on ice product. I have a feeling that Treliving's office will be "de-personalized" this morning and his GAF may be running a little low.

Elliot Friedman from this morning: "Do I believe Murray Edwards told Treliving to do this? No, I do not believe that."

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Yeah 5 Coaches in under 7 years is unheard of.
Even better 4 of them will never be a Head Coach in the NHL ever again.
Thank you ownership for stepping in and getting a real Coach. We have hope again.

Ha, what is this?

Treliving can wear the goat horns for the previous hires, but the owners get the credit for this one. oh, ok. that makes sense.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Yeah 5 Coaches in under 7 years is unheard of.
Even better 4 of them will never be a Head Coach in the NHL ever again.
Thank you ownership for stepping in and getting a real Coach. We have hope again.

Its actually 5 coaches in 5 years.

Though some apparently "don't care"...just to get that out of the way.

[GioforPM]

It’s crazy how many people want to ascribe some sort of backroom power struggle to this. reporting was that DS was in der consideration in the offseason. Murray Edwards is not a hands on guy with respect to internal decisions. He is hands on with respect to choosing who he thinks is the right guy to handle an operation and the bottom line. I’ve personally overheard him tell Flames management that he didn’t want to be involved in decisions about such things other than he’d approved a budget, and it was theirs to manage.

Did owners call Treliving when the team wasn’t doing well, to see what the plan was? Maybe. Did Treliving ask them what they thought about Sutter, especially whatever his ask was? Certainly since it would have been a new budget item (and they are still paying Ward). Did they direct him to hire Sutter “or else”? Nah.

It’s funny how it’s gone from “the owners are too cheap to hire an experienced coach” to “the owners forced Treliving to hire an experienced coach”. In a year where revenues are flat and a coaching change means zero increased attendance.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its actually 5 coaches in 5 years.

Though some apparently "don't care"...just to get that out of the way.

Not that it’s a model but Oilers 2011-2016 = 6 coaches.

Lots of teams have had runs of coaching changes. The 90s Isles after Arbour went thru 1 coach per year for 8 years before they hired Laviolette for 2, then hired 3 coaches in 3 years after that. Bruins had 5 coaches in 4 years (Burns, Keenan, Ftorek, O’Connell, Sullivan). The Stars just went through 4 in 4. The Canucks did prior to Crawford. The Hawks went through 4 coaches in a very few few years before they found Q.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its actually 5 coaches in 5 years.

Though some apparently "don't care"...just to get that out of the way.

All coaches are not made equally.

Treliving hired 3 dud coaches, and extended/fired one coach that he had inherited because he didn't believe he could carry the team forward.

He's now hired an elite coach.

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s crazy how many people want to ascribe some sort of backroom power struggle to this. reporting was that DS was in der consideration in the offseason. Murray Edwards is not a hands on guy with respect to internal decisions. He is hands on with respect to choosing who he thinks is the right guy to handle an operation and the bottom line. I’ve personally overheard him tell Flames management that he didn’t want to be involved in decisions about such things other than he’d approved a budget, and it was theirs to manage.

Did owners call Treliving when the team wasn’t doing well, to see what the plan was? Maybe. Did Treliving ask them what they thought about Sutter, especially whatever his ask was? Certainly since it would have been a new budget item (and they are still paying Ward). Did they direct him to hire Sutter “or else”? Nah.

It’s funny how it’s gone from “the owners are too cheap to hire an experienced coach” to “the owners forced Treliving to hire an experienced coach”. In a year where revenues are flat and a coaching change means zero increased attendance.

This is my thinking. Recent frustrations with the team have led to this narrative having the inertia that it does if you ask me, as many people had seemingly soured on Tree to such a great extent. I wouldn’t doubt that ownership was involved in this dialogue to some degree, but the whole “it looks like they’ve put Brad’s chair atop the trap door in this presser!” angle strikes me as a bit of a reach.

I’ve been in the “keep Treliving camp” throughout this saga, as stability in that office is paramount for me and trumps taking the chance on canning the GM and hoping a new guy can do better. The range of leeway granted to a GM needs to be far wider than that of a coach given the time horizon they’re usually looking at, and Treliving’s made enough moves I’ve liked over his tenure that I trust allowing him to learn from mistakes and fiddle around a bit. There are exceptions of course (eg. Feaster isn’t a GM I’d have been comfortable handing the keys to for 7-10 years), but it’s obvious that ownership to some extent has faith in Treliving despite a couple of rather questionable coaching hires.

In any case, stoked that Darryl’s on board and am excited for next week!

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The owners have full unconditional control....they own it.

They can't force Treliving to hire a coach though. He has to agree to it.

Well, we all know that decisions have consequences.

Hypothetically, the owners easily could have suggested that Tre agree to hire Sutter. And if he did not agree, he could step down.

Also, Darryl himself told the story of when he fired Keenan. Keenan said he couldn’t believe Darryl was firing him, and Darryl said it was not him, it was the owners.

So I’m not saying it is the case this time.

But for those who want to pretend that it’s not possible, that’s a very naive position to take

[dino7c]

Sounds like this isn't the first time Brad wanted to hire Sutter.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Sounds like this isn't the first time Brad wanted to hire Sutter.

Darryl, if you don’t come on board, it’s my ass

Haha, kidding

[Dan403]

Everyone here bit##ing that Tre never called any other coaches when he made his last three hires.

But today we learn that he has called Sutter in the past and Sutter declined.

Maybe a few of you need to eat some crow.

[DeluxeMoustache]

So the Wizard put such a bad product on the ice that he pissed Darryl off enough to come out of retirement

Also had them put Loubo on the radio, hacked Darryl’s tractor and fed him Loubo 24 hours a day.

Drove him to it

Ingenious

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Sounds like this isn't the first time Brad wanted to hire Sutter.

Of course he is going to spin in it in that direction. I didn't get that sense at all. Sutter was available prior to each of the last 3 hires and based on Sutters comments Calgary was 1 of 2 locations he would only come back too. This screams ownership to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CGY12

Of course he is going to spin in it in that direction. I didn't get that sense at all. Sutter was available prior to each of the last 3 hires and based on Sutters comments Calgary was 1 of 2 locations he would only come back too. This screams ownership to me.

So you figure Treliving lied about reaching out to Sutter. With Sutter sitting right there.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s crazy how many people want to ascribe some sort of backroom power struggle to this. reporting was that DS was in der consideration in the offseason. Murray Edwards is not a hands on guy with respect to internal decisions. He is hands on with respect to choosing who he thinks is the right guy to handle an operation and the bottom line. I’ve personally overheard him tell Flames management that he didn’t want to be involved in decisions about such things other than he’d approved a budget, and it was theirs to manage.

Did owners call Treliving when the team wasn’t doing well, to see what the plan was? Maybe. Did Treliving ask them what they thought about Sutter, especially whatever his ask was? Certainly since it would have been a new budget item (and they are still paying Ward). Did they direct him to hire Sutter “or else”? Nah.

It’s funny how it’s gone from “the owners are too cheap to hire an experienced coach” to “the owners forced Treliving to hire an experienced coach”. In a year where revenues are flat and a coaching change means zero increased attendance.

Who said there is a power struggle?

Hey Brad, the team is in a tailspin, you brought your coaches in and it just hasn't worked out. It happens and we don't blame you for it. Having said that, we know a guy in Viking that may be able to fix this. We don't want to tell you how to do your job and it is still your call, but we want to make sure that you know that you have that option and we will stand behind you and sign that check.

It's a nudge nudge kind of ask. Tre would recognize it as such as well.