[News] Flames recall Mangiapane. Frolik on IR

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Should we also blame Button solely for the draft of;
Nystrom
Chucko
Pelech
Irving
Nemisz
Erixon
Or do you think the GM might have something to say about the drafting philosophy, who's being drafted... you know things he's responsible for.

All sutter era picks. From what i understand sutter called the shots on the first rounder and scouting past that.

[Robbob]

Yeah, Sutter had the final say. I think the big reason Button is still around is because his evaluations of players would be noted and pretty easy to see how they progressed to the NHL.

Whether a GM decides to listen to the scouting staff is not the fault of the head scout. At that point all he can do is reflect back to his ranking and say I told you so. There is a reason Button has survived all the changes since he joined in 1997.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Should we also blame Button solely for the draft of;
Nystrom
Chucko
Pelech
Irving
Nemisz
Erixon
Or do you think the GM might have something to say about the drafting philosophy, who's being drafted... you know things he's responsible for.

GM does have something to say about drafting pholosophy, and Darryl made significant and well-known changes in the 2007 draft and forward.

Feaster/Burke/Treliving didn't change much outside of shuffling area scouts and other relatively minor tweaks. Tre's drafts have been about the same as Feaster and Sutter's post 2007 drafts.

No one is sayig Tre should get "zero" credit for Dube, Phillips, Tuulola, Kylington, Andersson, Rittich - he should get credit just as Feaster should get a small amount of credit for allowing Button to draft guys like Gaudreau, Lulak, and Jankowski. But it's not as if Tre inherited a broken amateur scouting department that needed to be corrected (Darryl Sutter did.)

Tod Button has survived three regimes for a reason. He has been doing a satisfactory or better job since the Backlund draft. If Tre replaced Button with his guy, it would earn Tre more credit. Not rocking the boat is hardly an indicator that a GM is, "undeniably the second best GM in our History, and close at that".

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You are getting too literal here.

Treliving inherited Backlund, Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Brodie, 2014 #4OA, Kulak, Jankowski, Ferland, Baertschi, Granlund, Hudler, Gillies, Poirier, Klimchuk. Tod Button does deserve more credit for drafting these guys but that doesn't change the fact that Treliving was not starting with a team devoid of talent, particularily young up-and-comers. He also inherited a lot of cap space from Feaster which is not something a next GM would be inheriting from Treliving right now.

I guess my point is whatever Treliving did inherit very little of it had anything to do with Feaster. Backlund, Gio, Brodie, Ferland are from Sutter. Monahan was an obvious selection at 6. Gaudreau found by Button. Jankowski found by Weisbrod. I guess he was able to provide a 4th overall pick by being terrible. The rest of those guys are pretty insignificant. I guess you can argue letting people do their jobs makes him a good GM but in that case you could hire a monkey and he could let people do their jobs. Don't think he really had a choice because he just didn't know the game well enough.

[greentree]

nm

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think everyone should ease back from making such definitive proclamations at this point in time regarding Treliving's reign.

Fletcher is without question the best GM that Calgary ever had. He built a team that won a cup. He didn't take over a team and win with what that team did. He built a team that had to go through the mighty Oilers (who were no good in sportsmanship, but were otherwise a dynasty at the time).

As for Treliving being next - way too early to say so. I like the work Treliving has done so far for the most part. However, Sutter was a FANTASTIC GM. Also, under his tenure, the Flames didn't pick in the first round just once. It will be twice under Treliving if he doesn't recoup another pick (which I don't think is crucial anyways). Sutter built a very good team, and he made a lot of other really good moves as well. He convinced ownership to invest in an AHL team again, he started to build the drafting and development program for the Flames again (which sucked absolutely, but it DID improve under him as the years went on) and he made a series of near brilliant trades that not only brought this team up into a phantom goal's breath of a Stanley Cup, but also turned this organization into a bona fide contender for at least a few seasons.

Yes, he made some mistakes, especially near the end of his tenure, but he was absolutely brilliant for a while. I like Treliving, and I think he has been really good so far, but let's wait until either his tenure is done or at least until he has achieved some significant milestone first. He may surpass Fletcher, or he may yet make us yearn for ANYONE this organization has previously employed.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

GM does have something to say about drafting pholosophy, and Darryl made significant and well-known changes in the 2007 draft and forward.

Feaster/Burke/Treliving didn't change much outside of shuffling area scouts and other relatively minor tweaks. Tre's drafts have been about the same as Feaster and Sutter's post 2007 drafts.

No one is sayig Tre should get "zero" credit for Dube, Phillips, Tuulola, Kylington, Andersson, Rittich - he should get credit just as Feaster should get a small amount of credit for allowing Button to draft guys like Gaudreau, Lulak, and Jankowski. But it's not as if Tre inherited a broken amateur scouting department that needed to be corrected (Darryl Sutter did.)

Tod Button has survived three regimes for a reason. He has been doing a satisfactory or better job since the Backlund draft. If Tre replaced Button with his guy, it would earn Tre more credit. Not rocking the boat is hardly an indicator that a GM is, "undeniably the second best GM in our History, and close at that".

Holy ***** Let it go.

That's definitely not a direct quote so don't use quotations like it is. I stated my opinion of him as our best GM and then admitted that saying there was "no denying" that he was at least our second best GM was too strong a choice of words when speaking about opinions.

I generally like and agree with most of your takes but you just can't seem to get past the fact that I have a different opinion than you in this case.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I think everyone should ease back from making such definitive proclamations at this point in time regarding Treliving's reign.

Fletcher is without question the best GM that Calgary ever had. He built a team that won a cup. He didn't take over a team and win with what that team did. He built a team that had to go through the mighty Oilers (who were no good in sportsmanship, but were otherwise a dynasty at the time).

As for Treliving being next - way too early to say so. I like the work Treliving has done so far for the most part. However, Sutter was a FANTASTIC GM. Also, under his tenure, the Flames didn't pick in the first round just once. It will be twice under Treliving if he doesn't recoup another pick (which I don't think is crucial anyways). Sutter built a very good team, and he made a lot of other really good moves as well. He convinced ownership to invest in an AHL team again, he started to build the drafting and development program for the Flames again (which sucked absolutely, but it DID improve under him as the years went on) and he made a series of near brilliant trades that not only brought this team up into a phantom goal's breath of a Stanley Cup, but also turned this organization into a bona fide contender for at least a few seasons.

Yes, he made some mistakes, especially near the end of his tenure, but he was absolutely brilliant for a while. I like Treliving, and I think he has been really good so far, but let's wait until either his tenure is done or at least until he has achieved some significant milestone first. He may surpass Fletcher, or he may yet make us yearn for ANYONE this organization has previously employed.

Sutter as GM was such a mixed bag. Getting Kipper was genius. Drafted Backlund, but also a bunch of duds. Signing Gio was smart, but playing hardball and almost losing him wasn't. Generally he lost trades IMO.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sutter as GM was such a mixed bag. Getting Kipper was genius. Drafted Backlund, but also a bunch of duds. Signing Gio was smart, but playing hardball and almost losing him wasn't. Generally he lost trades IMO.

I would say he generally won trades. Considering how awful the scouting seemingly was at the time, I don't begrudge all his 2nd round picks he traded either, especially earlier in his tenure.

His biggest mistake(s) was his inability to hire a decent coach, and then panicking and trying to plug holes at the end of his tenure to compensate. He tarnished his legacy because of those things, but you can be sure that he (and probably along with Feaster and Burke) still has a lasting legacy behind the scenes that we as fans aren't privy to. For instance, the entire draft philosophy on what characteristics a prospect should have to be drafted by Calgary was developed/identified during Sutter's tenure (as per an article interviewing Todd Button).

At the end of the day, you can't argue against 1 Stanley Cup win and another finals (Fletcher) and one Stanley Cup finals (Sutter - and add a 'phantom goal' to the mix on that one). The Flames play to win the cup, and under no other GMs have they came close.

Until Treliving gets as close, he will always be a tier below IMO.

Also, under Fletcher, he was a maverick. He got his scouting staff to scout the NCAA and turned up more than a few gems there. Other teams simply didn't scout the NCAA much at the time (not a whole lot of players were coming out of the NCAA). Fletcher seemed to always find an edge back in the day, and he was widely considered one of the better GMs of the day.

One way I like to gauge a GM strictly on his performance as far as we as fans can see it is this way - did the GM leave the team BETTER or WORSE than when he first got hired? I would say that Sutter - even including the 'crazy 48 hour' trades - left the team a more talented squad than when he first took it over.

It isn't a completely fair way to judge - a GM brought in to build a championship team is probably going to come closer than a GM that is brought in to tear it down (like Feaster). Many ways to try an analyze how good or bad a GM was, but we as fans aren't always privy to the decisions made (including the decisions not to make a 'x' move). For instance, Button wanted to trade Iginla for Peca back in the day - it didn't happen, but it made me think less of Button as a GM, even though I do think he did some of really good things too as a GM.

I find coaches are easier to judge. GMs are always a mixed bag unless they either fall on either the extreme side of the spectrum. They are always a mixed bag because their tenures are longer and are more apt to see the cycle of a team, as well as only being able to judge them on some of what they do.

[Geeoff]

Are we still talking about Mangiapane? Because I think the Flames should waive Stajan when Frolik gets back so we can keep this guy up.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Are we still talking about Mangiapane? Because I think the Flames should waive Stajan when Frolik gets back so we can keep this guy up.

They are more likely to rewaive Hamilton (I think his waiver expired).

[killer_carlson]

Why is Stajan more deserving of waivers than Brouwer?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I would say he generally won trades. Considering how awful the scouting seemingly was at the time, I don't begrudge all his 2nd round picks he traded either, especially earlier in his tenure.

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/...ryl_Sutter/165

I think he lost when he traded Jokinen/Prust; Phaneuf; Primeau/2nd (and then turns and trades Stralman); Clark; Tanguay; Reinprecht; White; McIlhenny; Lydman.

I think Kipper was a huge win, and he did well on trades for Bourque, Langkow, Aucoin, Huselius, Reinprecht/Warrener.

I guess I'm thinking mostly of his last 2 years when I talk about his bad trades.

[Toonage]

Hate to say it but I could see them sending Mangiapane back down when Frolik returns, unless he really lights it up. I mean, who do they sit otherwise? Sure they can waive Hamilton but Mangiapane isn't a center so Lazar or Stajan plays. Brouwer seems to have a no demotion clause so he isn't leaving the bench. I guess Jagr is likely to be hurt or rested again at some point this season but he isn't sitting otherwise.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Why is Stajan more deserving of waivers than Brouwer?

Because Stajan is UFA at the end of the season and Brouwer has 2 more seasons under contract. It's really as simple as that as there's no way they put Brouwer on waivers unless they were positive a team would snap him up which is pie on the sky at this point.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Why is Stajan more deserving of waivers than Brouwer?

I am a bigger Stajan fan than Brouwer. But I think Brouwer has played better this season. But neither is going to Stockton.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They are more likely to rewaive Hamilton (I think his waiver expired).

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=166211

[Da_Chief]

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...

[Hackey]

Sutter made a lot of good trades. They probably get over shadowed by time and his bad trades but some I can think of...

Kipper for a 2nd
Huselius for Montador and Johner
Langkow for Gauthier and Saprykin
Tanguay for Leopold and a 2nd.
1st and 2nd for Tanguay
Bourque for a 2nd
Ference for a 3rd
McAmmond for a 5th
Reinprecht and Warrener for Drury

He made a bunch of smaller moves that really helped like Donovan, Niemenen, Nilson, Commodore, Simon, etc.

[Brick]

Hopefully Mangiapane gets to play higher up the lineup to see if he can add any offence.