Treliving

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason for hiring any coach. The GM should never make his decisions on the basis of what will make fans feel better. He makes decisions on what he believes is best for the team, and will result in an improved on-ice performance and results. Whether or not you agree that Bill Peters is a good coach, Treliving most certainly did the right thing to hire the coach he believes in.

I wasn’t implying that the hire should be made for the fans. I was saying that this coaching hire probably should have been a guy with pedigree. Gulutzan had none. So when he was fired the thought was, maybe the coach was the issue. The next hire should have removed question marks around the coaches ability to win. Had we hired a guy like Quenneville I doubt fans or management would be sitting around wondering if the coach was the issue. As it stands, coaching might be the issue. Peters has never won anything, maybe he’s the problem. Or, it’s the team that is the problem. Since it has been two unproven coaches with this core we are no closer to the answer. It’s about removing variables. Hiring Peters didn’t do that.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

The way you combat the undesirable city dilemma is you build a culture that attracts players. Baltimore isn’t the most desirable city to live in in the NFL and yet they consistently are able to draw players to the team because they have such a good culture and reputation. Kawhi aside (he is a special case imo given the past) Toronto is currently seemingly building that in the NBA. I don’t look at the Flames in the same vein.

It must be an NHL player thing, for regular people Toronto sucks. Calgary has a far higher quality of life and a better climate, unless you like being locked up in AC the entire summer.

The airport access is also better in Calgary and it’s easier to get to western destinations.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I wasn’t implying that the hire should be made for the fans. I was saying that this coaching hire probably should have been a guy with pedigree. Gulutzan had none. So when he was fired the thought was, maybe the coach was the issue. The next hire should have removed question marks around the coaches ability to win. Had we hired a guy like Quenneville I doubt fans or management would be sitting around wondering if the coach was the issue.

Is management sitting around wondering if the coach is the issue?

[BTW, hiring Quenneville was impossible, since he was still employed by the Blackhawks at the time.]

Originally Posted by VilleN

...As it stands, coaching might be the issue. Peters has never won anything, maybe he’s the problem. Or, it’s the team that is the problem. Since it has been two unproven coaches with this core we are no closer to the answer. It’s about removing variables. Hiring Peters didn’t do that.

I guess this would be the approach for a GM who didn't have a good idea about what the hell he is doing, and was just throwing ideas at the wall hoping something will stick. I think Treliving has a better handle on the problem and it's solution. Unfortunately, it may be a more difficult fix than a new coach or a trade.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

To reiterate a point I made elsewhere, Canadian NHL orgs tend to be way too impatient in regards to team building. Most GMs don't build a contender inside of five years, and most wil ebb and flow between success and setbacks. If Treliving let Peters go at the end of the year (I don't think this will happen) I would hope that Flames ownership would not take the reactionary approach and start over again with someone new. Being patient is unpleasant and it's unsexy, but I think in this case it will yield better results in the end.

Except the culmination of Trelivings moves have been bad and therefore he should not have a job.

I’m a huge Baltimore Ravens fan. I get continuity, it’s served the Ravens very well sticking with Harbaugh all these years. But that’s because Harbaugh is excellent at his job and therefore continuity is good. Continuity for the sake of continuity is bad. Part of the reason Trelivings job is in jeopardy is because he wasn’t patient with the rebuild and emptied the prospect cupboard way too early while mismanaging the cap in an attempt to hurry along the rebuild. This team is not positioned for drastic improvements because of the chains Treliving applied.

If the total disaster of a season so far keeps going and they don’t fire the architect then this team is even dumber than I have presumed

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is management sitting around wondering if the coach is the issue?

I certainly ****ing hope so because evaluating that is part of their job.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

I certainly ****ing hope so because evaluating that is part of their job.

Yeah, that is totally different than "sitting around around wondering if the coach is the issue."

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is management sitting around wondering if the coach is the issue?

[BTW, hiring Quenneville was impossible, since he was still employed by the Blackhawks at the time.]


I guess this would be the approach for a GM who didn't have a good idea about what the hell he is doing, and was just throwing ideas at the wall hoping something will stick. I think Treliving has a better handle on the problem and it's solution. Unfortunately, it may be a more difficult fix than a new coach or a trade.

Where to start with this? Thanks for letting me know that hiring Q was impossible. Could that have been why I said a guy "like" Q... had I meant they should have hired him specifically I would have said that... but I guess ignoring that made it easier to stick with your typical condescending posting style. How does hiring a coach with pedigree after you just fired a coach without one mean that management doesn't know what they're doing? Isn't that just simple problem solving? At the very least it is just a better hiring practice(resumes seem to be important for that process). I'm not even saying Peters should be fired, I think in hindsight it would have been a good idea to go with a proven coach the second time around.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Where to start with this? Thanks for letting me know that hiring Q was impossible. Could that have been why I said a guy "like" Q... had I meant they should have hired him specifically I would have said that... but I guess ignoring that made it easier to stick with your typical condescending posting style...

Uh, okay...

How does hiring a coach with pedigree after you just fired a coach without one mean that management doesn't know what they're doing?

If that's the only criteria, that's how.

Isn't that just simple problem solving?

Too simple, I would warrant. Pedigree isn't everything. I imagine that for most NHL teams it is a matter of compiling criteria and identifying the most suitable hire to fit said criteria. Pedigree may factor in, but I fundamentally disagree that it is a necessary response following the failure of an unproven prior coach.

At the very least it is just a better hiring practice(resumes seem to be important for that process). I'm not even saying Peters should be fired, I think in hindsight it would have been a good idea to go with a proven coach the second time around.

I still disagree. Sometimes hiring the most experienced candidate is the way to go; other times it is not. I think making that determination solely on the basis of the poor results of an unproven coach is naive. Again, I think the goal is not merely to isolate and identify issues, it's solving them within the limits provided to do so. Sometimes that means hiring the less experienced candidate.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

It must be an NHL player thing, for regular people Toronto sucks. Calgary has a far higher quality of life and a better climate, unless you like being locked up in AC the entire summer.

The airport access is also better in Calgary and it’s easier to get to western destinations.

Wel I wouldn’t say that. For people from smaller cities or rural people who like slower surroundings, Toronto sucks. For people from big cities, which is actually the majority of people, they usually want that big city experience. I would say the travel and poor weather are the bigger factors however.

[puckbrain]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Calgary is a bottom 5 market in terms of desirability for most players.

1. Brutal travel schedule. Tons of extra time flying, customs etc.
2. Fish bowl. Flames are the biggest show in town so the pressure is high. I wonder how Johnny feels with fans all over twitter saying we need to trade him and big media outlets speculating on it.
3. Small market. Calgary is a relatively small city compared to many of the other NHL cities. Places like Toronto, Chicago, LA, NY have much more to offer for a young millionaire
4. Weather. It is Canada and cold during most of the season
5. Building. There is not a super nice practice facility near the rink or a state of the art building. This is coming but still 4-5 years away.

the city should have allowed the flames to pay for the arena themselves, this might allow the owner to bolt from calgary and move 'em to a US city such as Houston...

[Jacks]

While we are the topic of coaching. If they hadn't been in such a hurry to fire Hartley and hire Gully then Gallant might have fell right into their lap.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Uh, okay...


If that's the only criteria, that's how.


Too simple, I would warrant. Pedigree isn't everything. I imagine that for most NHL teams it is a matter of compiling criteria and identifying the most suitable hire to fit said criteria. Pedigree may factor in, but I fundamentally disagree that it is a necessary response following the failure of an unproven prior coach.

[/I]
I still disagree. Sometimes hiring the most experienced candidate is the way to go; other times it is not. I think making that determination solely on the basis of the poor results of an unproven coach is naive. Again, I think the goal is not merely to isolate and identify issues, it's solving them within the limits provided to do so. Sometimes that means hiring the less experienced candidate.

For the record, I don't think that should be the only criteria. However, after coming off of a failed coaching hire, in which the coach had basically no pedigree or history of proven success I believe it would have been prudent, and logical to include winning pedigree into your next hiring criteria so as to remove that variable from the equation. Of course, if the only candidate with a winning pedigree doesn't tick any of your other boxes then I don't think management should hire that coach simply on that basis. It's why I wouldn't hire Babcock today.

If Peters were fired, would you not prefer a coach who has proven they are capable of winning? Don't you think it would provide more information as to why the team is underperforming if we at least hired a coach that has proven they can bring a team to the next level? I think it makes sense to include that variable into the criteria of hiring a coach at this point - and I believe it probably should have been included in the hire after Gulutzan... Having said all that, maybe Treliving wanted to do that but the pedigreed coach he wanted wasn't available, and Peters ticked the most boxes for him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by VilleN

For the record, I don't think that should be the only criteria. However, after coming off of a failed coaching hire, in which the coach had basically no pedigree or history of proven success I believe it would have been prudent, and logical to include winning pedigree into your next hiring criteria so as to remove that variable from the equation. Of course, if the only candidate with a winning pedigree doesn't tick any of your other boxes then I don't think management should hire that coach simply on that basis. It's why I wouldn't hire Babcock today.

This reads much better than your first post to which I responded. I generally agree that hiring a coach with pedigree makes the most prudent sense, but I still disagree that this is a necessary condition, which is precisely how you worded it in the first place.

If Peters were fired, would you not prefer a coach who has proven they are capable of winning? Don't you think it would provide more information as to why the team is underperforming if we at least hired a coach that has proven they can bring a team to the next level?

I honestly don't have a preference one way or the other beyond a coach who will get the best out of the players in his charge. Peters has been able to do that, and I still believe he can do it again. I guess I just don't put that much stock in pedigree among NHL coaches.

I think it makes sense to include that variable into the criteria of hiring a coach at this point - and I believe it probably should have been included in the hire after Gulutzan... Having said all that, maybe Treliving wanted to do that but the pedigreed coach he wanted wasn't available, and Peters ticked the most boxes for him.

I think it is pretty clear from the timeline of Peters's hire and based on Treliving's comments that he was the guy all along. Peters was targeted by Treliving long before he let Gulutzan go.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Toronto is a stone’s throw from a bunch of major US cities on the eastern seaboard. Calgary is a stone’s throw from the middle of nowhere. Hard not to see the difference here.

Plus Toronto is a world class city in its own right. Add to that the fact that they have a young child and Kadri’s family lives nearby it is pretty easy to see why his wife was willing to live in Toronto but not in Calgary.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Saving billionaires some money should matter so little to any of us that it shouldn’t even be brought up.

Except that it matters to those actually making decisions. Silly to dismiss this as some sort of class warfare thing when it's a very real consideration.

[SmoggyFlamesFan]

I may not agree with what Treliving said today in his public address, but I can certainly understand and respect it. As the GM he has to be very careful with how he treats his personnel, and the number one rule of management is not to throw your employees under the bus. You speak lower of yourself, and you defend your team. The coach was his choice, and this team near cap hell is by his design.

Ironically, he looked like a genius last year with a team that was 2nd overall in the NHL. Now, his job is on the line depending on the performance of HIS coach, and HIS players. Regardless of the results, as a manager, I would maintain the stance that he has done a good job. The ONLY thing he can do from a PR perspective is to defend them, hope they figure it out, and make moves behind the scenes in the interest of improving the team.

[curves2000]

The more and more I look at the season and how Tre's tenure has gone here, the more and more I think we are looking at an overall poor performing GM in the grand scheme of things. There is LOT's of evidence to back this up! Not every aspect is poor performing in my opinion but enough are that I think it's a problem.

1) UFA signing's: This has been a very big sore point and one that can't be under looked. If we look a the UFA signing's from 14/15 season until today there are FAR more big misses than hit's. Some of them may be on the smaller side and other's handcuff the cap and the team long term. All these mistakes with the supposed "Elite Hockey Executive" Burke at the side who always talks about July 1st mistakes on TV

Very little excuses for a lot of these mistakes and the reason's that may have lead to them put ice on all all this so called "homework" they do. Lot's of talk about looking into every aspect of a player and "homework, homework and asking around" but a lot of these issues end up being known in the NHL or to average fans.

2) Coaches: Say what you want about Hartley but he did get a very young team into the 2nd round of the playoffs almost 5 years ago. Hartley was extended and than fired the first year, leaving ownership with the $1.5-2 million tab + Asst. Coaches

Gully was brought in as some amazing coach, high metrics and advanced stats, a "players coach" blah blah blah. We did nothing at all and towards the end even basic members of the media and average fan's are like "What is this guy doing?" Again, enough of a body of work out there that this guy isn't bench boss material and was being tactically out coached. Fired with a year left on his deal leaving ownership with the bill.

Peter: Last year was very successful but the playoffs were not at all. This year we will see what happens but it's not looking very good at all.

3) Core and Key Players: The amount of key players on this club and the key contributors the last few years have mostly been drafted, signed or developed by previous regimes. Gio, Brodie, Stajan, Monny, Johnny, Backlund, Ferland.

Very little in the way of Tre's guy's have really had a ton of long term, meaningful impact on the overall and top level performance.

We are doing all of this while being in CAP HELL and having our top guys signed to great value contracts for the most part.

I get some of the love for Tre from his fan's and we always hear the stories about how he is "the hardest working guy, always on the phone, in on all the deals, leaving no stone unturned" We get it but I don't know if the results are really showing the fruition. In the money management business, he is a very very active fund manager but he is delivering below average returns for the most part.

I don't know what the future holds but overall I don't think I or any other fan should be thrilled with the performance of this club, this franchise, where this season is going or where it may be heading.

Tough all around

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by SmoggyFlamesFan

I may not agree with what Treliving said today in his public address, but I can certainly understand and respect it.

ICMYI (I did) it's on the Flames website.

Thanks Smoggy..had no idea.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is management sitting around wondering if the coach is the issue?

[BTW, hiring Quenneville was impossible, since he was still employed by the Blackhawks at the time.]


I guess this would be the approach for a GM who didn't have a good idea about what the hell he is doing, and was just throwing ideas at the wall hoping something will stick. I think Treliving has a better handle on the problem and it's solution. Unfortunately, it may be a more difficult fix than a new coach or a trade.

its

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Except the culmination of Trelivings moves have been bad and therefore he should not have a job.

I’m a huge Baltimore Ravens fan. I get continuity, it’s served the Ravens very well sticking with Harbaugh all these years. But that’s because Harbaugh is excellent at his job and therefore continuity is good. Continuity for the sake of continuity is bad. Part of the reason Trelivings job is in jeopardy is because he wasn’t patient with the rebuild and emptied the prospect cupboard way too early while mismanaging the cap in an attempt to hurry along the rebuild. This team is not positioned for drastic improvements because of the chains Treliving applied.

If the total disaster of a season so far keeps going and they don’t fire the architect then this team is even dumber than I have presumed

You'd be right if that's what they think and aren't doing anything about it.

But I for one don't agree with you, so maybe just maybe the ownership group doesn't either?