Brad Treliving needs to go

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

I'm just a fan, how should I know what the market is like? I care about the results, and Brad consistently fails to produce them and every year he drops the same lines on us about how making moves is hard. Like no **** it's hard, that's why you're paid to do it.

If I had to venture a guess, Brad's problem is that his assessment of "50 cents on the dollar" is warped. It's one thing to have a pair of shoes and say "I want to sell these shoes for elventy zillion bajillion dollars, PAY UP!" But if the market says they're worth one dollar and you say "no way, the deal has to make sense for me," well, I guess all you're going to have is a crappy pair of shoes you refuse to sell.

If your problem is that "you can't move players when their value is so low," what were you saying when they had that value but the cracks were beginning to show in the core? I'm willing to bet you were saying there's no way you trade these players now and you give them more time. Well, this is what happens when you sit on an asset for too long. You'd think Flames fans would know this better than most.

For sure.

And if you knew Monahan was heading for two injury filled seasons after the team won the West, and that Gaudreau would slip sharply in production due to Monahan's health and the league figuring him out you would have been ahead of the curve (and ahead of Treliving) in asset management.

I certainly wasn't.

I didn't like the Avalanche playoff series, and worried about the stones of the team's top players in crunch time, but I didn't think they'd fall off the face of the Earth as regular season players.

If you were on the case, take a bow though, because moving both of them then would have been pretty sharp.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think they felt that Tanev wouldn't be appealing even if exposed. And then he was damn good. Probably better than their highest expectations.

It's really hard to say but I would like to think that Treliving would have a higher opinion of a defenseman he just signed for 4 x $4.8 million than a guy that an expansion team would pass on if left available. Maybe they just decided to let things play out and deal with it at the crossroad like they are doing with Gaudreau.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's really hard to say but I would like to think that Treliving would have a higher opinion of a defenseman he just signed for 4 x $4.8 million than a guy that an expansion team would pass on if left available. Maybe they just decided to let things play out and deal with it at the crossroad like they are doing with Gaudreau.

Well given the fact that dmen go for $8M plus even at $4.8M he was supposed to be a solid 3, but turned into the league's number one defensive defenseman in year one of his contract.

That's probably above his expectation scale for a return on his investment.

I know at the time of signing my assumption was he'd be exposed over Giordano and if you lost the last three years on a 33 year old so be it ... free asset.

He played too well to do that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just keep coming back to how well that Giordano contract worked out.

Imagine the % of CPers that would have gladly taken 5 solid years and then not having to pay the guy for year six on a contract signed at 32-33?

The whole "we lost Gio" thing is pretty much not subject to a proper valuation right now. Let's see how he plays for the Kraken. It's not a huge leap to think he takes a significant step backwards this year. I mean, he did for quite a while last year, and it's arguable a lot of the rebound was Tanev's doing. And maybe Sutter as well.

I think he will play fairly well, but there's a good chance he won't be worth the money and an even bigger chance he will be be gone after a year.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

For sure.

And if you knew Monahan was heading for two injury filled seasons after the team won the West, and that Gaudreau would slip sharply in production due to Monahan's health and the league figuring him out you would have been ahead of the curve (and ahead of Treliving) in asset management.

I certainly wasn't.

I didn't like the Avalanche playoff series, and worried about the stones of the team's top players in crunch time, but I didn't think they'd fall off the face of the Earth as regular season players.

If you were on the case, take a bow though, because moving both of them then would have been pretty sharp.

Yeah this whole idea that it was clear we needed to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan after the 18-19 season is hindsight.

Even the playoffs were not entirely their fault, and their individual numbers weren't that bad. Here are Gaudreau and Monahan's numbers together at 5v5 that season.

Regular Season:

Corsi: 53.8%
xGF%: 53.1%
GF: 63
GA: 49
GF%: 56.3%

Playoffs:
Corsi: 51.4%
xGF%: 45.3%
GF: 2
GA: 1
GF%: 66.7%

We were outscored 6-2 at 5v5 when they weren't on the ice that playoffs. Big issue that playoff series was how passive we played, and Mackinnon just feasted on us.

Everybody was frustrated with the way that playoff series went, and I think we all wished we had a Nathan Mackinnon, but I don't think it was as cut and dry as people want to think that we should have moved on from Gaudreau and Monahan.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So what are you saying?

He's getting good offers and not taking them?

Or that he's getting bad offers and rejecting them, but he should just take them?

You honestly find it hard to believe that the core we don't particularly like isn't getting traction on the trade market at full value?

There are plenty of reasons (and I've said this about 4 dozen times) to let Treliving go. The Gulutzan hire. Trading futures to bet on Monahan and Gaudreau. Some free agent signings. Tenure ... he hasn't done enough.

But inactivity in the face of terrible offers shouldn't be one of them.

Treliving's ability to evaluate NHL talent is at best hit or miss (Neal, Hamonic, Brouwer etc). Therefore it's quite reasonable to assume he has been getting some fair offers that he hasn't been able to identify as such.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Treliving's ability to evaluate NHL talent is at best hit or miss (Neal, Hamonic, Brouwer etc). Therefore it's quite reasonable to assume he has been getting some fair offers that he hasn't been able to identify as such.

So we're really going with Treliving over valuing his players as the reason he hasn't made a move? Or is it that he's too stupid to know what offers he should accept?

Players that we all say had off years and wouldn't generate as much value as they would have in the past?

[Jiri Hrdina]

On the 30 thoughts podcast Friedman speculated that the Habs, when in the throws of the offer sheet week, were inquiring about virtually any center available.

So as a thought exercise what would people have been OK with.

Trading Monahan for
- a 2nd
- a 2nd and third
- a 1st
- a 1st and a third

I suspect given his season and hip concerns that perhaps you could have gotten a 2nd or a 2nd and 3rd.
I don't think I make that deal.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well given the fact that dmen go for $8M plus even at $4.8M he was supposed to be a solid 3, but turned into the league's number one defensive defenseman in year one of his contract.

That's probably above his expectation scale for a return on his investment.

I know at the time of signing my assumption was he'd be exposed over Giordano and if you lost the last three years on a 33 year old so be it ... free asset.

He played too well to do that.

Only Brad knows but if I'm him and I committing that much of my bosses money and term that affects the salary cap, I'm doing it because I think he's a good player and is going to be a quality asset and not a guy or contract that's bad enough to get passed on by an expansion team as that contract is a reflection of my work. I always felt Gio was going to get exposed going back to last year so it was never a surprise to me because it always made the most sense. There are no guarantees when players get on the back half of 35 and the Flames were probably going year to year with him.

I actually think everything played out for the best as if he declines badly in Seattle it's not going to be a major burden on that team or fan base and it saves the Flames from that awkward situation of having to bench or demote their captain. If he has a good season it's a win for him as the Seattle fans will love him while for the Flames even if he's okay he could be part of another disappointing Flames season if everything doesn't go right.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think Moneyball created a false impression that a GM can, through some sort of Green Lantern will power, force something to happen via trade. I sometimes is just not there. If, in that movie, one of the GMs on the phone with Brad Pitt says "no, we aren't making that trade", the scenario falls apart.

I agree - watch that movie again. In the beginning Pitt goes to Cleveland for a face to face and gets shot down with every name he says. Cleveland has no interest regardless how hard Pitt argues.

In the middle he trades and all-star player for soda pop. I bet if BT was willing to move JG for an arcade game every other GM would be on it like candy at fat camp. Then he makes a trade where he has to ask for more money, which he isn't given, and then barters with his owner. I don't think that kind of deal would work in hockey.



I am sure BT is all over everything. Everyone knows he wants to do something, it not a secret. But let's at least make a good deal, not just any deal.

[ComixZone]

People talk about "not paying the price" to protect him (Gio) being good, and I'd agree and be fine with that approach except he then turned around a sent a 3rd and a 4th for 1 year of Tyler Pitlick and Nikita Zadarov. Not keeping Giordano at the asking price? Fine, but realize that you just lost your #1 defenceman and weren't a playoff team the year prior. That means it is NOT the time to be spending futures on acquiring bottom pairing/bottom 6 players. That's just being cavalier with your assets, and it's death by a thousand cuts - which is pretty much what Treliving's time here has amounted to.

"We gained cap space by losing Giordano, and that matters!" we all hoped...and then we spent that cap space on Nikita Zadarov and Erik Gudbranson. Brilliant.

This was not a playoff team last year, and Treliving should have acknowledged that and managed proactively. Instead he lost his captain, community leader, and an on-ice player who will be/would have been worth at least a 1st round pick at the coming trade deadline (if not more). If the original plan was always to expose Tanev, why not trade him at the deadline and stick to your original plan?...I think it's pretty clear Treliving never had a plan, or if he did it was a garbage one that garnered garbage results - both are on him.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So we're really going with Treliving over valuing his players as the reason he hasn't made a move? Or is it that he's too stupid to know what offers he should accept?

Players that we all say had off years and wouldn't generate as much value as they would have in the past?

Yes, he is a below average GM, so assuming he isn't able to correctly evaluate the value of his players (and other teams players) is more likely than assuming that all 31 other GMs only make terrible offers to him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Only Brad knows but if I'm him and I committing that much of my bosses money and term that affects the salary cap, I'm doing it because I think he's a good player and is going to be a quality asset and not a guy or contract that's bad enough to get passed on by an expansion team as that contract is a reflection of my work. I always felt Gio was going to get exposed going back to last year so it was never a surprise to me because it always made the most sense. There are no guarantees when players get on the back half of 35 and the Flames were probably going year to year with him.

I actually think everything played out for the best as if he declines badly in Seattle it's not going to be a major burden on that team or fan base and it saves the Flames from that awkward situation of having to bench or demote their captain. If he has a good season it's a win for him as the Seattle fans will love him while for the Flames even if he's okay he could be part of another disappointing Flames season if everything doesn't go right.

It's interesting to look back at some of the projections from before the season.

Some chump named Mike predicted they would protect Gio over Tanev but even then Kylington would be picked. Though if I recall Mike also didn't like the Tanev signing at all:

https://flamesnation.ca/2020/10/12/t...-agency-moves/

Some other chump named Ryan predicted they would also expose Tanev and Kylington
https://flamesnation.ca/2020/10/12/t...-agency-moves/

Not saying these guys are gospel but I think it is a good indication of where the general thought was at the time.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Only Brad knows but if I'm him and I committing that much of my bosses money and term that affects the salary cap, I'm doing it because I think he's a good player and is going to be a quality asset and not a guy or contract that's bad enough to get passed on by an expansion team as that contract is a reflection of my work. I always felt Gio was going to get exposed going back to last year so it was never a surprise to me because it always made the most sense. There are no guarantees when players get on the back half of 35 and the Flames were probably going year to year with him.

I actually think everything played out for the best as if he declines badly in Seattle it's not going to be a major burden on that team or fan base and it saves the Flames from that awkward situation of having to bench or demote their captain. If he has a good season it's a win for him as the Seattle fans will love him while for the Flames even if he's okay he could be part of another disappointing Flames season if everything doesn't go right.

I don't think we're saying a lot different.

At Giordano's age it was always expected that he'd fall off on this contract. The fact that it only happened for a half (mini) season before rebounding in year five is pretty impressive.

But if he hits the wall you expose him.
If Tanev turns out to be even better than expected that just raises the Giordano bar to protect him, which is what happened.

Bottom line ... it took a good free agent signing to make the Giordano exit happen, not poor expansion draft planning.

[Flamesfan05]

I thought Tanev replaced Brodie?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Yes, he is a below average GM, so assuming he isn't able to correctly evaluate the value of his players (and other teams players) is more likely than assuming that all 31 other GMs only make terrible offers to him.

So you think there's a lineup of good offers for

Monahan coming off two years of injury

or

Gaudreau after back to back seasons of disappointing results

or

Tkachuk who listed his way through a season and had his stats come off

and the current GM is saying no?

OK ...

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

On the 30 thoughts podcast Friedman speculated that the Habs, when in the throws of the offer sheet week, were inquiring about virtually any center available.

So as a thought exercise what would people have been OK with.

Trading Monahan for
- a 2nd
- a 2nd and third
- a 1st
- a 1st and a third

I suspect given his season and hip concerns that perhaps you could have gotten a 2nd or a 2nd and 3rd.
I don't think I make that deal.

I would need the 1st to be honest.

If the package doesn't include a first then I roll the dice on him hopefully being healthy and scoring 25 goals and hopefully you can get more with 1 year left on his deal next offseason.

And I still think that not protecting Gio was the right move, but the mistake he made there occured 3 months earlier.

He should have had the discussion with Gio at the trade deadline and if the plan wasn't to protect Gio then he should have moved him. I still think you could have gotten something valuable from Toronto who would have had a protection spot for him and he would have filled a need for them.

[Saqe]

It incredible how much support and backing up Treliving still gets from major community members here after seven years of delivering absolutely nothing. It's almost like there is a massive astroturfing campaign going on lol. It really boggles my mind.

[Strange Brew]

I've been very critical of Treliving and believe he has performed well below average despite inheriting a good situation compared to most new GM's.

But I'm giving him an A for how he handled Gio. He got a reduced AAV on the contract by giving term to an older player. Then was able to walk away from the last year of the deal for free.

When teams are giving up first round picks to shed one year of a bad contract, I'm totally fine with how Gio played out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Saqe

It incredible how much support and backing up Treliving still gets from major community members here after seven years of delivering absolutely nothing. It's almost like there is a massive astroturfing campaign going on lol. It really boggles my mind.

What amazes me is that some people can't imagine how others hold a different view - to the point that they get accused of silly things such as astroturfing.

THAT is what boggles the mind.