Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Vinny01]

The reason Burke was hired was to avoid a new captain of the ship changing course every 3-5 years. Burke is not going anywhere unless he wants out.

Treliving probably thought this team was top 10 after the Hamonic trade which many of us and the media also thought. If that pick was 20-31 and the 2nds are in the 50’s thst is not a terrible trade for a 27 year old Dman with 3 years left around 1-2M underpaid.

The risk was substantial and it did not pay off as the team will be giving up 1-3 or 10-14th overall plus a pick in the 40’s and next years 2nd wherever that lands.

I am not in the Fire Treliving group yet. I want to give him the summer and next season to try and fix things.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

14-15 Playoffs
15-16 Missed
16-17 Playoffs
17-18 Missed

You give the management team another year. If they miss next year time to clean house.

Looks okay on paper but lost 4 straight to the Ducks, beat Vancouver one of the weakest playoff teams in quite a while. If we get a legit head coach next season then I'll take a wait and see.

[DionTheDman]

Another thing to consider is the rumours that Tre's new agreement with the team stipulated that he be given free reign to transact with other teams without getting approval from King. This came up after a deal for Bishop reportedly fell through when King was on a plane and wasn't available to approve the deal, and Tampa was pushing for a deal to get done.

If there was any truth to that, I'm willing to give unleashed Treliving a bit more leeway to see if he can build things properly, and unencumbered.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

14-15 Playoffs
15-16 Missed
16-17 Playoffs
17-18 Missed

You give the management team another year. If they miss next year time to clean house.

Seems like a good ultimatum for shortsighted trades.

The worst thing you can ever say to a GM in the NHL is "make the playoffs this year or you're gone" if you care about the health of your franchise.

[taxbuster]

I am amazed - constantly - at the number of people on here who play Monopoly. As a REAL owner or manager of a business, one can't simply burn employees at will.

"Burke and Tre should be GONE!" = paying two guys (likely) millions for doing nothing. Not in my world of management. (In addition to paying the coach and whomever on staff one also needs to terminate.)

There are, undoubtedly, owners who will do that...but I don't believe that Murray Edwards is one of them. The resounding silence from the majority owner over the past year would indicate to me that he is fine with his POHO and GM. Remember - his first goal is to make money, not necessarily to win hockey games. Now the two of those are eventually somewhat incompatible....lose enough games and people stop coming (well, maybe not...look at Edmonton and Toronto).

So as much as many seem to think that running a business successfully can involve turfing management whenever one feels like it, the real world just doesn't work that way. And the guys who do work that way often are not successful.

Coaches might be in a bit of a different category - their timelines and leashes are shorter and the results are expected more rapidly. Not much different than a middle-manager in a business. But even those one doesn't just fire indiscriminately. Hockey is better paid, but the principles of success are still founded on building a good team around a good leader. But, as Scotty Bowman pointed out, pretty much all coaches now have a three-year tenure at minimum. So don't be too surprised if.......

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Seems like a good ultimatum for shortsighted trades.

The worst thing you can ever say to a GM in the NHL is "make the playoffs this year or you're gone" if you care about the health of your franchise.

Moreover, this organization, generally has demonstrated they will only give GMs a very small window to build a competitive team.
So should we be surprised that fosters shorter term thinking
Firing BT now would be a step to continue those bad practices that have produced those bad results over the long-term.
Give him time.

[Northendzone]

I think it is a perfect time for Burke to bow out, although I am not sure what exactly he does, but I feel his ideas on hockey are not in step with the game today

I think tre should get one more year at least

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I think it is a perfect time for Burke to bow out, although I am not sure what exactly he does, but I feel his ideas on hockey are not in step with the game today

I think tre should get one more year at least

If you tell him he gets one more year than again that promotes the short-term thinking. You need your GM to be taking a longer-view.

He's either a guy that is trusted to steer the ship or he's not. Half measures are only going to do more damage.

No different than managing a business. If you tell someone they have 3 months to raise revenue by 10%, they are more likely to take steps that assures that will happen, no matter what the long-term damage to the business is.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If you tell him he gets one more year than again that promotes the short-term thinking. You need your GM to be taking a longer-view.

He's either a guy that is trusted to steer the ship or he's not. Half measures are only going to do more damage.

No different than managing a business. If you tell someone they have 3 months to raise revenue by 10%, they are more likely to take steps that assures that will happen, no matter what the long-term damage to the business is.

I agree, that is why they need to get rid of the GM and the coach this offseason. Give the new GM a 5 year deal and ask him to do a couple things

1) rebuild the system. Explain that the last guy drafted more defencemen in the first 3 rounds (5) during his tenure than he did forwards (4). Have a chuckle about how there are twice as many forwards on a team as there are dmen. Talk about how even Nashville traditionally drafts twice as many forwards in the first 3 rounds as they do dmen, because that just makes mathematical sense.

2) Then have a discussion about the trades that have been completed over the past 4 years. Point out we feel comfortable short term with the goaltending situation, made a couple trades to shore that up. Point out that we need to improve the forward position. Obviously we did not draft any forwards (or not nearly the ratio of forwards to defencemen that we should have) but we also did not trade for any of substance either (biggest impact forward acquired in 4 years was Alex Chiasson). Point out that we did make 3 other major acquisitions, all on defence. New GM will probably be like "wow, you really got defence covered, you have 4 of your top 6 prospects are defencemen and you have 6 NHL dmen, which really is an impressive array of defensive talent.

3) point out that you have 1 world class forward, 2 very good forwards, 4 ok forwards and Lazar, Shore, Hathaway, Bennett, Brouwer filling out the remaining starting 12 going into 2018/2019. Have the guy grimace. Have him ask "why did you need to draft and trade for so many goddamn defencemen"? Shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know, but we did". Tell the new GM we could really use a more balanced approach to our drafting, trading, development. Suggest that we try to do it all in moderation, and use advanced math models like this one

Forwards are 60 percent of your NHL roster so try to have 6 out of every 10 top prospects be forwards and 3 out of your top 5

Defencemen are 30 percent of your NHL roster so try to have 3 out of your top 10 prospects be dmen and at most 2 out of your top 5.

Goalies are 10 percent. Since goalies are wildcards to develop always have at least once legit NHL goalie prospect under 22 in your system, ideally two.

Let the guy know that despite your desire to win as an owner, you did not order the last guy to only acquire defencemen, that was his own choice.

That is what I would do. If we kept BT I would be worried he would make up for lost time in 2019 and use his 1st on another dman.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I think it is a perfect time for Burke to bow out, although I am not sure what exactly he does, but I feel his ideas on hockey are not in step with the game today

I think tre should get one more year at least

He seems to just have a Gretzky like role of an ambassador for the Flames. Except only in Toronto. He comes onto that snooze fest Sportsnet radio program out here (you know, the guy who looks like a boring Bono) and talks about the Flames sometimes. I’d personally keep him around just for that.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I agree, that is why they need to get rid of the GM and the coach this offseason. Give the new GM a 5 year deal and ask him to do a couple things

1) rebuild the system. Explain that the last guy drafted more defencemen in the first 3 rounds (5) during his tenure than he did forwards (4). Have a chuckle about how there are twice as many forwards on a team as there are dmen. Talk about how even Nashville traditionally drafts twice as many forwards in the first 3 rounds as they do dmen, because that just makes mathematical sense.

2) Then have a discussion about the trades that have been completed over the past 4 years. Point out we feel comfortable short term with the goaltending situation, made a couple trades to shore that up. Point out that we need to improve the forward position. Obviously we did not draft any forwards (or not nearly the ratio of forwards to defencemen that we should have) but we also did not trade for any of substance either (biggest impact forward acquired in 4 years was Alex Chiasson). Point out that we did make 3 other major acquisitions, all on defence. New GM will probably be like "wow, you really got defence covered, you have 4 of your top 6 prospects are defencemen and you have 6 NHL dmen, which really is an impressive array of defensive talent.

3) point out that you have 1 world class forward, 2 very good forwards, 4 ok forwards and Lazar, Shore, Hathaway, Bennett, Brouwer filling out the remaining starting 12 going into 2018/2019. Have the guy grimace. Have him ask "why did you need to draft and trade for so many goddamn defencemen"? Shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know, but we did". Tell the new GM we could really use a more balanced approach to our drafting, trading, development. Suggest that we try to do it all in moderation, and use advanced math models like this one

Forwards are 60 percent of your NHL roster so try to have 6 out of every 10 top prospects be forwards and 3 out of your top 5

Defencemen are 30 percent of your NHL roster so try to have 3 out of your top 10 prospects be dmen and at most 2 out of your top 5.

Goalies are 10 percent. Since goalies are wildcards to develop always have at least once legit NHL goalie prospect under 22 in your system, ideally two.

Let the guy know that despite your desire to win as an owner, you did not order the last guy to only acquire defencemen, that was his own choice.

That is what I would do. If we kept BT I would be worried he would make up for lost time in 2019 and use his 1st on another dman.

You certainly have a wild imagination, don't you?

[TheScorpion]

I saw it posted earlier but it should be clarified that the Flames did not use a buyout on Brandon Bollig.

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Seems like a good ultimatum for shortsighted trades.

The worst thing you can ever say to a GM in the NHL is "make the playoffs this year or you're gone" if you care about the health of your franchise.

Well usually when people get fired it comes out of nowhere. I doubt ownership is going to tell Treliving make the playoffs next year or you're done.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

1) rebuild the system. Explain that the last guy drafted more defencemen in the first 3 rounds (5) during his tenure than he did forwards (4). Have a chuckle about how there are twice as many forwards on a team as there are dmen. Talk about how even Nashville traditionally drafts twice as many forwards in the first 3 rounds as they do dmen, because that just makes mathematical sense. .

When it comes to the draft it should be BPA, and I think that's the general approach the Flames have followed.
You are cherry picking the draft breakdowns to fit your point.
Let's look at some other cuts

Under BT
- The Flames have drafted 2 forwards in the first 1 and just 1 d
- The Flames have drafted 3 forwards in the first 2 rounds, 2 goalies and 3 dmen
- Overall BT has drafted 8 D, 12 F, 2 G

Seems like a very reasonable breakdown.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Also which forwards do you think they should have drafted after Fox, Kylington, and Andersson they have developed better than those guys?
Awful take

[timbit]

It’s always about each team’s perceived asset value when it comes to the picks in the first few rounds .

Rarely does position enter into the discussion.

[Hackey]

Maybe Aarongavey doesn't realize you can make trades in the NHL.

[Strange Brew]

You keep BT if you like the plan he has laid out for the franchise and how he has gone about carrying it out. It is very hard to evaluate a GM if you aren't privy to the longer term vision.

Can't say I think very highly of the moves this organization has made over the last couple of years but without an insider's view it's hard to make a reasonable evaluation.

If I am the owner and BT has been telling me that we are just a piece or two away from being a SC contender, then I am skeptical. If he tells me that again this summer and that he wants to mortgage more of the future to acquire said pieces, then I'm probably looking for a new GM. Conversely, if I'm the owner telling him we need a playoff team now and once we are in that position consistently then he can start filling the cupboards, I probably like the chances he has taken a little more.

As I am typing this, I am getting frustrated again at the organization's ongoing lack of willingness to actually commit to drafting and development.

Build a team whose prospect base is ranked top 5 in the league. Experience some on ice success, show some flashes of brilliance. Then trade some of your top picks to get you in the conversation for a title if that's what's needed.

You should have three Curtis Lazar's chomping at the bit in Stockton to make the team. Whereas we trade our 2nd round pick for one. We're a supposedly rebuilding team that pays other teams to retain salary in trades. We covet and overpay for Hamonic because he has three years on his deal at a reasonable cap hit. But we are likely not contending during that period and should not have cap concerns.

Sigh...

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Maybe Aarongavey doesn't realize you can make trades in the NHL.

NHL players that BT has picked up via trade

Alex Chiasson
Dougie Hamilton
Travis Hamonic
Michael Stone
Niklas Backstrom
Shore
Bollig
Smith
Elliott

It seems like we trade for number one dmen, number 4 dmen, 4th line forwards, NHL forwards on their way to the AHL and goalies.

To Jiri's point, even if you are counting all picks, he drafts more dmen than he does forwards vis-a-vis their percentage of the overall roster. I guess one can assume that the 5th round and beyond (where he has 8 forwards and 4) have the same probability of becoming NHL players as rounds 1-3 do.

Last year I would have taken any of the forwards taken betwen 19-30 rather than another dman. I would have possibly traded down and recouped a 2nd rounder rather than taking yet another dman. Jiri you cherry pick the 2015 and 2016 drafts, would you have taken another dman last year with Fox, Kylington, and Anderson already in the system? It defies logic (as evidenced by the fact that most teams do not use such a high percentage of their first 3 round picks on dmen as we did over a 4 year period).

Unless the argument is that the Flames have a balanced system. Perhaps folks think that we have the same percentage of NHL forwards as we do NHL dmen (relative to the number of positions in the lineup), the same percentage of NHL forward prospects as we have NHL dmen prospects. The entire Flames system is unbalanced, a bounty of dmen and a dearth of forwards.

The Flames are 5 points better this year than the year before BT became GM, 5 years ago. They are worse than they were in his first year. 4 years is plenty of time to identify trend lines, be it in drafting and trading priorities or just trajectory of your team. The trend lines for all of those are poor for BT.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

To Jiri's point, even if you are counting all picks, he drafts more dmen than he does forwards vis-a-vis their percentage of the overall roster.

No that's NOT my point as that is a terrible way to think about the draft.

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I guess one can assume that the 5th round and beyond (where he has 8 forwards and 4) have the same probability of becoming NHL players as rounds 1-3 do.

Also not my point. I was just showing the FULL view of how his drafts break down instead of an editorialized version.

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Last year I would have taken any of the forwards taken betwen 19-30 rather than another dman. I would have possibly traded down and recouped a 2nd rounder rather than taking yet another dman. Jiri you cherry pick the 2015 and 2016 drafts, would you have taken another dman last year with Fox, Kylington, and Anderson already in the system? It defies logic (as evidenced by the fact that most teams do not use such a high percentage of their first 3 round picks on dmen as we did over a 4 year period).

I'm not cherry picking anything. I showed the full view of his drafts.
I'm of the mind that you take BPA. I'm also not convinced you've actually looked across all teams to see how they break down relative to the Flames. If so - show your work.

The Preds are actually an example of why you should take BPA. They have been always STOCKED at D to the point that they were over flowing, so they traded Jones for a Ry-Jo and Girard (plus other pieces) for Turris.

Take the BPA, build the asset base, and use that as currency.