Brad Treliving needs to go

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this is a gross oversimplification of what Sutter envisions for success. No doubt, he pays a tonne of lip-service to the merits of these types of players, but neither he nor Treliving are under any delusion about what it takes to win: highly skilled, smart and effective centremen , mobile defensemen, and a top goalie.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Well, I just look at some of the evidence. He’s got a highly skilled player in Gaudreau and instead of nurturing his offensive gifts, Darryl has him dumping and chasing more then I’ve ever seen him dump and chase before. Just watching the freedom that Leafs players have vs the Flames was eye opening. The broadcast showed a replay of Auston Matthews stop, spin, pull back in the neutral zone going east to west to buy some time and space. It was a high risk, high reward play that could’ve easily resulted in a turnover, but Sheldon Keefe gives leeway to his players to be creative.

I’m not sure Darryl has the same viewpoint. He benched Dillon Dube for being too cute and turning it over resulting in a goal against and I’m pretty sure he’d bench Gaudreau for doing something similar. It’s pretty clear to me based on minutes played that Gaudreau’s skill game is not something Darryl cares to foster, he’d rather play the guys who can accomplish his objectives.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well, I just look at some of the evidence. He’s got a highly skilled player in Gaudreau and instead of nurturing his offensive gifts, Darryl has him dumping and chasing more then I’ve ever seen him dump and chase before. Just watching the freedom that Leafs players have vs the Flames was eye opening. The broadcast showed a replay of Auston Matthews stop, spin, pull back in the neutral zone going east to west to buy some time and space. It was a high risk, high reward play that could’ve easily resulted in a turnover, but Sheldon Keefe gives leeway to his players to be creative.

I’m not sure Darryl has the same viewpoint. He benched Dillon Dube for being too cute and turning it over resulting in a goal against and I’m pretty sure he’d bench Gaudreau for doing something similar. It’s pretty clear to me based on minutes played that Gaudreau’s skill game is not something Darryl cares to foster, he’d rather play the guys who can accomplish his objectives.

I think very small sample-size of games is not a good barometer for the long term vision of the coach and the GM. It looks to me like Sutter is presently working out kinks, and establishing strong, instinctive defensive game first. I would guess that once everyone is on the same page there will be further changes to accommodate a variety of zone entries.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I've always found these truism's to be a little weak. 'You can't win without an elite C', 'You can't win without a _____(fill in the blank)'.

In the late 90's you couldn't win without an elite goaltender, then the Blackhawks won with Niemi. Nowadays you can't win without an elite center, then the Blues won with ROR and Schenn. What about the blueline? You can't win without a 25min a night minute munching stud who contributes in all areas, then the Penguins won back to back with the often injured Kris Letang and Justin Schultz.

Point being, winning can take countless forms. There is no guaranteed recipe Saying this team can't win because it is missing 'X' doesn't mean a whole lot. Building a championship caliber team is far more complicated and nuanced.

(Side note: was ROR considered elite before the Blues won, or is he now considered elite because they won? which came first? And is he still elite? is he a top 5 C in the league? top 10? what about Vegas, a legitimate contender, who is their 1C?)

I think there is one truism that is hard to escape though. For a team to win a championship, some component of that team needs to be elite. I would argue that you need at least one forward, defenseman, or goalie that dominates their position that year. I am not saying you need the best player in the league at some position, but you better have someone that is top 5, and maybe a couple others that are top 10.

I have gone through all the championship teams in the last 20 years, and every single one had at least one player that was either the best in the league at their position that year, or in the conversation.

Even the 2011-2014 L.A. Kings that won 2 Cups, and many people consider to be exception to the rule for building championship team, had multiple players that were near to the top of the awards voting in those years. Kopitar finished second in Selke voting during that time (twice in the top 5) and would go on to win 2 Selkes. Quick won 2 Jennings trophies during that time and finished 2nd in Vezina once (in the top 5 twice) and was a Hart finalist. Doughty was 6th in Norris voting once.

Championship teams are elite just by definition and elite teams have elite players. As much as we like to think that hockey is a team sport and they win and lose based on team performance, you need those elite players that going to pull through on most nights because you can't contain them every night.

Do the Flames have any players, in their current form, that are obviously in that group of elite players? I don't know, but it seems unlikely. It's impossible to predict and maybe coaching is the difference here.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I like how 25 goal while being good defensive guys are now considered "mediocre" hockey players.

Whatever it takes to fit the narrative i guess.

Not sure if this was directed at me but Jason Zucker has scored more than 22 goals once in 9 years in the league, so by most objective measures he would not be a “25 goal scorer”. But if you think he is worth a 1st rounder, great I guess. He does have 6 goals in 35 career playoff games, so you are getting his playoff ability for that first rounder as well.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by TOfan

well said, and should serve as a sobering dose of reality for those clamoring to see Treliving dismissed. Sorry, ain't happenin'.

Baring a catastrophic meltdown, Treliving isn't likely to go anywhere for at least the next year to year and a half. I do think though that the seat is getting warm, I will acknowledge that. I think his success/demise is now tied to what happens this offseason and the on-ice results that follow. He has some chips he can use to adjust the roster. In relatively short order he will have to play those and see where they fall.

Yeah this is where I am and at least you're acknowledging that the temperature is going up.
He has done a lot of good things, and some just haven't worked out, not really his fault. Then there are some that are directly on him. Unfortunately the big picture pattern is that the team doesn't seem any better, or threatening or ready to be at the next level after 7 years of his tenure.
Not being easy to be a GM, or being a good man, or spending other people's money, or "easy for you to say" are weak reasons not to want a change if one is needed. A prevalent sentiment around many topics here. And I hasten to add, if they are needed.

[Duffalufagus]

He's got one more year. Then the seat gets very very warm. He will get a shot to trade some big pieces when the flames fall out of playoff contention and then his job is on the line.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I just don’t think the Flames have the roster for a Kings approach. Jeff Carter is big and (at the time) fast. Gaborik was fast. Williams was always a highly coachable two-way player. Doughty was a Norris candidate d-man just entering his prime. The Flames core just isn’t comparable.

Even looking at the ‘04 roster, a lot of those ‘pluggers’ were fast. Nieminen, Donavan, Clark. It’s a big ask to expect guys like Monahan and Tkachuk to play a style unsuited to their skillset. I don’t see how this team plays Sutter style hockey consistently without an overhaul of the roster.

Good point. Sutter's best teams were not necessarily skilled, but they were fast. It could be argued, one of the reason why post-2006 team was getting weaker and weaker was that they were progressively getting slower and slower albeit more skilled and arguably more grittier.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Not sure if this was directed at me but Jason Zucker has scored more than 22 goals once in 9 years in the league, so by most objective measures he would not be a “25 goal scorer”. But if you think he is worth a 1st rounder, great I guess. He does have 6 goals in 35 career playoff games, so you are getting his playoff ability for that first rounder as well.

Since becoming a full time NHL player in 14/15 he is 63rd in the entire NHL in goal scoring....thats missing a bunch of time as well.

Average of 25 goals scored every 82 games over that same time frame.


Mediocre according to you.

He is not, he is a pretty good player in this league.

I opposed his being acquired as well because he is yet another LS/LW which this club was (and is) full up of, but fully understood he was an above average NHL goal scorer.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Since becoming a full time NHL player in 14/15 he is 63rd in the entire NHL in goal scoring....thats missing a bunch of time as well.

Average of 25 goals scored every 82 games over that same time frame.


Mediocre according to you.

He is not, he is a pretty good player in this league.

I opposed his being acquired as well because he is yet another LS/LW which this club was (and is) full up of, but fully understood he was an above average NHL goal scorer.

That is fair in that time frame he has averaged 25 goals for every 82 games played. He was also 139th in total points during that period and is tied for 183rd over the past 2 years in points in the NHL (albeit being a bit more of a sniper over the past 2 years tied for 109th in goals scored)

Pretty sure my original point was that Zucker is a 40 point man, but nonetheless I still think trading a first rounder for the 92nd highest paid forward in tbe league who in recent history has performed at around the level of the 150th best forward from a point production perspective is a perplexing move. But I will concede that a player that you can expect to be amongst the average teams top 4 goal scores and their top 6 point producers may be slightly better than mediocre.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No, it's dead real money, too.

A Neal BO would have cost $15.3M and given an 8 year cap it of 1.915. So that's $15.3M for 15.3M against your cap (at a somewhat palateable 1.9M over 8 years). But you still need to fill a roster spot, so the cap impact is really 2.6 for those first 4 years where the player would otherwise be on your roster. $18M total cap impact/8years.

Lucic was owed $19M total salary for the 4 years. The Oilers will pay $3M of that. So that Flames are on the hook for a similar $16M as a Neal buyout.

As it's played out, Lucic's probably been at least a 3M+ player these last 2 years, and should be a 2M+ for the last 2 years, so in the grand scheme Flames are overpaying by ~$6M cash, and around 2.75, 2.75, 3.75, 3.75 in 'dead' cap space (~13M cap impact over 4 years). And a 3rd round pick. And our rival has 750k dead cap.


The trade has turned out better from both a cash and cap perspective. Admittedly, I didn't like the trade at the time, albeit for several other reasons, and I'll gladly eat crow that it has worked out in our favour.

I agree the Lucic trade is much better than a buyout. Treliving asked the owners for a buyout (although unlikely the Lucic trade was on the table at the time).

When you are a cap team, the real dollars are going to roughly be the same, whether you have dead money or not. Forgetting about timing of salary payments your player costs are roughly set. It's all about managing value for your cap which in most clubs, is under the GM's purview.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree the Lucic trade is much better than a buyout. Treliving asked the owners for a buyout (although unlikely the Lucic trade was on the table at the time).

What was the owners's response to Treliving's request? Was it a simple "No"? or was it along the lines of "find a cheaper option, if you can"?

I am guessing that buyout/trade was all part of a larger, more nuanced conversation which ultimately ended with the Lucic trade.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What was the owners's response to Treliving's request? Was it a simple "No"? or was it along the lines of "find a cheaper option, if you can"?

I am guessing that buyout/trade was all part of a larger, more nuanced conversation which ultimately ended with the Lucic trade.

How would any of us know that? All that was reported was that Treliving wanted to buy Neal out and owners said no. The rest is, as you say, guessing.

[FlamesAddiction]

I would still like to know the whole story behind the failed Zucker trade. It was reported that Treliving was furious when it didn't go through. I recall a lot of speculation. Some people thought it was as simple as missing the deadline to file the trade, although I think it was LeBrun that dismissed that. Some people said that Minnesota pulled the deal at the last second and Treliving was angry because he had a contingency trade set-up, but not enough time to execute it. Then I remember someone saying that Zucker has a personal or family issue that complicates moving to Canada and when he disclosed that to the Wild, they had to pull the deal.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How would any of us know that? All that was reported was that Treliving wanted to buy Neal out and owners said no. The rest is, as you say, guessing.

I think this is the sort of information that would be crucial to any conclusion that this suggests there is a strain between ownership and the GM.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think we know with some level of certainty that ownership and management were not entertaining the idea of moving Monahan and/or Gaudreau at the TD. And quite frankly, I disagree that this was tbe right time to do it. Young players with term are almost never traded at the TD because these sorts of deals are always more complex, requiring more active NHL players involved. The best time to have traded them was last offseason, but the flat cap and the pandemic no doubt badly interfered with any efforts to do so. They can still be moved this summer, although in there will also be the obstacle of a NTC to contend with.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

To clarify, I would argue that last TDL was the best time to get good value out of JG (for myriad reasons). I would have hoped that BT/ownership were soberly evaluating the team from that 2019 off-season and throughout the bizarre season last year. Notable breaks like Xmas and All-star would have been opportunities to make a sober assessment and strategize accordingly (giving a full month to explore major moves).

For me, it was fairly simple to identify two different paths (ie. two groups of players to choose to bet on; naturally with some overlap) - snapshot in time say Jan. 2020:

1. Win by 2022 group (but more realistically have to win by 2021):
Gio 36
Backlund 30
Lucic 31
Gaudreau 26
final year Brodie
final year Hamonic
final year Talbot
1 more year Ryan 33
1 more year Rittich 27
2.6M then 1.5M buyout cap hits
final year ELC value for Mangi + Andersson
1 more year ELC value Valimaki + Dubé

Monahan 25
Lindholm 25

2. Contend 2022-25ish:
Tkachuk 22
Andersson 23
Hanifin 23
Valimaki 21
Mangiapane 23
Dube 21
Bennett 23
Kylington 22

Pelletier 2022?
Ruzicka 2021?
Phillips 2021?
Wolf 2024?
etc


Group 1 has a history of playoff failure, and general inconsistency in reg. season. Major immediate question marks in goal and RD (of course he resolved these beautifully). Gio likely to decline. C's are okay, but trending a tier below 'elite'. Bad cap lingering for another 3 years. For this to work you're really betting on group 2 progress and pull a lot of weight...it will be great if they do, but then they become more expensive and there's a bit of a gap before anyone else graduates to the big club and provides ELC value. So even if things start going in the right direction with some series wins, are you able to sustain it?


For me, betting on group 2 was the obvious move. re-stock the cupboards and work towards sustainable success. Buy some more lottery tickets at C and G. Extend the window. Group 1 was flawed as it entered it's prime window. Don't chase false hope; fix the flaws and set the next group up for success as they hit their prime.


I don't know if it's now too late to change course or not, but it's harder for me to envision a path to sustainable success throughout the '20s now than it was 14 months ago.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I agree the Lucic trade is much better than a buyout.

Are the Flames going to be a contender next year? Or the year after that? Realistically? No. Might as well just let his contract play out. (But leave him exposed to Seattle obviously)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Are the Flames going to be a contender next year? Or the year after that? Realistically? No. Might as well just let his contract play out. (But leave him exposed to Seattle obviously)

He meant the Lucic trade was better than a Neal buyout.

[keenan87]

Can't wait for this horrible GM to be gone. This is the roster he built. Full of losers.

[TheChief]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would still like to know the whole story behind the failed Zucker trade. It was reported that Treliving was furious when it didn't go through. I recall a lot of speculation. Some people thought it was as simple as missing the deadline to file the trade, although I think it was LeBrun that dismissed that. Some people said that Minnesota pulled the deal at the last second and Treliving was angry because he had a contingency trade set-up, but not enough time to execute it. Then I remember someone saying that Zucker has a personal or family issue that complicates moving to Canada and when he disclosed that to the Wild, they had to pull the deal.

Im fairly certain it broke down because Frolik wouldn't waive.

[flamingred89]

Glad to see this thread get bumped after that game. Amazing to think Treliving has conned ownership to pay 3 coaches to coach this roster right now. How he still has a job is baffling at this point.