Brad Treliving needs to go - Page 67 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Toonage · 03-23-2021, 07:53 AM

While I also feel its likely Treliving won't be fired, its worth pointing out that a lot of us also didn't think Ward would get canned just a few months into his deal because of money concerns.

At this point it would not shock me in the slightest to see him let go, but I would think if there was any genuine interest in removing him it would be done in advance of the deadline and it just doesn't feel like thats happening.

Strange Brew · 03-23-2021, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browntrout

Maybe I am on an island here, but this team has made the playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years...were people expecting a Stanley Cup here, this is a middle of the pack team, the GM made this team as competitive as he could. All this talk that I don't trust the GM and he gets a failing grade...give me a break, most of his moves were good, yeah sure a couple of moves he probably does not again, but you can pin that to every GM in the league. I would rather have a GM who has grown, learned from his mistakes, knows the organization strengths and weaknesses and his familiar with the players. So much of a GMs success is rooted in good luck and golden opportunities. Team has not drafted high, that's not the GM's fault, we have not drafted elite talent, where would Edmonton be without Draistle and McDavid?

Well we are staring at 3 out of the last 5.

It's the bolded I would question. A few more adjustments to the roster along the way would have been good for this team. Over reliance on UFA's to bring in change.

Now the GM is backed into a corner where he must absolutely make changes and the value of the roster has decayed considerably.

madmike · 03-23-2021, 08:19 AM

It's tricky now because the organization is committed to Sutter. If the Flames bring in a new GM I'm pretty sure ownership would not want the new GM to get rid of Sutter before his three years is up. And good GMs likely aren't going to want to come into a position where they can't name their own coach. So Tre may be around longer than expected.

Toonage · 03-23-2021, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmike

It's tricky now because the organization is committed to Sutter. If the Flames bring in a new GM I'm pretty sure ownership would not want the new GM to get rid of Sutter before his three years is up. And good GMs likely aren't going to want to come into a position where they can't name their own coach. So Tre may be around longer than expected.

The owners are still tight with Sutter and I suspect would take his recommendation on a new GM hire. People have suggested Lombardi and that might be the only guy they bring in much like Darryl was the only coach they wanted to bring in. Lombardi wouldn't get rid of Sutter obviously as the two are friends and have won together.

TOfan · 03-23-2021, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think many of you are setting up for disappointment if you think Treliving is getting axed at the end of the year.

Again:

Year one of a pretty healthy contract
No revenues from attendance this year
New coach getting a very healthy wage who did not sign up for a re-build which is what removing BT would indicate

I may be reading it entirely wrong but if you connect the dots so to speak, an expensive move like that simply isnt in the cards.

We could probably just re-post this comment at the beginning of each new page in this thread, because it is likely the most accurate.

Lotta emotions flying around over the past 12 hrs or so......

I would be surprised if Treliving is going anywhere until the end of next season. I don't think there is any beating around the bush with it at this point. He likely has this offseason to get things on the right track in a meaningful way. It is going to be interesting to see what happens here from now to the deadline and then into the offseason. I'm not sure how/what is going to happen, but patience must be wearing thin with a specific portion of this roster. At some point change is required and it seems we have hit that point.

Strange Brew · 03-23-2021, 08:36 AM

I see a difference between debating what you believe the ownership group will do vs. what you believe is in the best interests of the organization and its fans.

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saqe

Treliving failed to acquire elite talent when it was available, refused to pay the price. If you only wait for the great deal you'll never get anywhere.

That's rich. Who are we talking about, here? Stone? O'Reilly? Dubois? In each instance it was never just as simple as "pay this price." Stone and Dubois at least were well and truly not in range for the Flames to acquire.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Saqe · 03-23-2021, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's rich. Who are we talking about, here? Stone? O'Reilly? Dubois? In each instance it was never just as simple as "pay this price." Stone and Dubois at least were well and truly not in range for the Flames to acquire.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Stone and O'Reilly could've been had if he paid the price. Dubois debatable.

Flamenspiel · 03-23-2021, 10:10 AM

Not the Stone thing again, multiple blue chip prospects and picks for 3 months of Stone..

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saqe

Stone and O'Reilly could've been had if he paid the price. Dubois debatable.

You are just wrong about Stone. The cost was exorbitant. There was no surety that the Flames would have been able to meet his contract expectation. They almost certainly would not have been able to sign Tkachuk.

We simply do not know nearly enough about the O'Reilly situation to pin on the GM as a missed opportunity.

Scroopy Noopers · 03-23-2021, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Not the Stone thing again, multiple blue chip prospects and picks for 3 months of Stone..

Not this short sighted argument again, like the organization would have made this trade without being prepared to pay him accordingly.

Flamenspiel · 03-23-2021, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I see a difference between debating what you believe the ownership group will do vs. what you believe is in the best interests of the organization and its fans.

Personally, as a STH I am all in for the long term build, but let’s not have any illusions about what that means.Look at Buffalo, Florida, Detroit, and others so it’s probably a 10 year thing at a minimum. Chicago was 25 years, LA 40, the Leafs last had a good team in 1993.

I think the problem is that our rivals are coming out of rebuilds while the Flames have been treading water, so the cycle will begin again.

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I see a difference between debating what you believe the ownership group will do vs. what you believe is in the best interests of the organization and its fans.

I continue to think that Treliving should get another year. But for me, my responses about what I think ownership will do have a lot to do with countering those who seem to expect that the GM will be fired after every loss, and who appear ready to accept anyone in his place. Such suppositions are fairly irrational.

DeluxeMoustache · 03-23-2021, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are just wrong about Stone. The cost was exorbitant. There was no surety that the Flames would have been able to meet his contract expectation. They almost certainly would not have been able to sign Tkachuk.

We simply do not know nearly enough about the O'Reilly situation to pin on the GM as a missed opportunity.

You do know that if the Flames could have had him, Mark Stone would be a big upgrade on Tkachuk, yes?

Vinny01 · 03-23-2021, 10:21 AM

I think this team is on a 2.5 year timeline. They need to be a contender by the end of Sutter/Treliving’s deals are up or it will be a complete reset in my opinion.

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Not this short sighted argument again, like the organization would have made this trade without being prepared to pay him accordingly.

In am quite certain this is a big part of why this trade never happened. So, this was not by any measure a missed opportunity.

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You do know that if the Flames could have had him, Mark Stone would be a big upgrade on Tkachuk, yes?

In hindsight it sure looks like it. It was much less certain in February 2019. Besides, that was only one of many obstacles to making that trade happen.

Aarongavey · 03-23-2021, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmike

It's tricky now because the organization is committed to Sutter. If the Flames bring in a new GM I'm pretty sure ownership would not want the new GM to get rid of Sutter before his three years is up. And good GMs likely aren't going to want to come into a position where they can't name their own coach. So Tre may be around longer than expected.

Treliving came into a situation where he could not name his coach, but I take your point about good GM's maybe being reluctant.

Scroopy Noopers · 03-23-2021, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In am quite certain this is a big part of why this trade never happened. So, this was not by any measure a missed opportunity.

I agree with this. There was no rental plan though, and it’s brought up all the time. The trade and extension may as well be considered as a package deal, because one wasn’t happening without the other. Even if negotiations soured and they had to overpay, they were going to sign him had they traded for him. One or both sides of that cost were too much for the Flames.

Textcritic · 03-23-2021, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think this team is on a 2.5 year timeline. They need to be a contender by the end of Sutter/Treliving’s deals are up or it will be a complete reset in my opinion.

Agreed.