Brad Treliving needs to go

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Treliving has made one msitake that is even greater than the Neal contract, Hamonic trade, Gulutzan hire, and failure to acquire a good long term goalie. It's the Matthew Tkachuk contract.

Tkachuk is a fantastic player. He should be by far the most valuable asset in the organization. He had very little leverage in the negotiation. Now Tkachuk gets 9 million next year, and is a 25 UFA the year after.
That utterly destroys the majority of his value.

Not only has he been the highest paid player on the team during this deal, but he gets to be overpaid next year, and he could leave the team right as he's entering his prime.

I still can't get my mind around it.
If your elite 23-26 years olds don't have good contracts, no one will. How are you supposed to win when you manage the cap like that

Treliving couldn't force Tkachuk to sign a different contract. It was either sign him or let him sit out and knowing Tkachuk, he would have sat out.

Which would have been perfect for a lot of people because it would have given them more ammunition to hate Treliving. Might have even been able to blame the leadership group like people did after Chucky had that meltdown.

[Hackey]

Tkachuk wanted a longer deal. They had to bridge him because of their cap situation. It was a bad gamble. Now you either gotta pay big or lose him.

Mangiapane is another guy that is going to get paid big and then will no longer be a value contract.

The Flames are slowly falling apart.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Treliving couldn't force Tkachuk to sign a different contract. It was either sign him or let him sit out and knowing Tkachuk, he would have sat out.

Which would have been perfect for a lot of people because it would have given them more ammunition to hate Treliving. Might have even been able to blame the leadership group like people did after Chucky had that meltdown.

I don’t get this. I don’t think people want to dislike Treliving.

I would much prefer he be a good GM and the Flames be successful.

But they aren’t.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Nm

[the_only_turek_fan]

IF Treliving were to get fired, who out there would be better?

Honest question.

The guys I would want are employed.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Nonis? Gillis? Futa? Lombardi? Gorton? Rutherford?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Nonis? Gillis? Futa? Lombardi? Gorton? Rutherford?

Ted Lasso.

[powderjunkie]

No. No. No difference. Sure. Maybe. Nah.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ted Lasso.

Hockey is life!

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Tkachuk wanted a longer deal. They had to bridge him because of their cap situation. It was a bad gamble. Now you either gotta pay big or lose him.

Mangiapane is another guy that is going to get paid big and then will no longer be a value contract.

The Flames are slowly falling apart.

I don't think it was a bad gamble. It was at the end of a season where your team finished 2nd in the NHL. Tkachuk had 77pts in 82games. Similar contracts signed in that same off-season:

• Rantanen - 21 y.o - 1.18PPG - 6 x 9.25M
• Point - 22 y.o - 1.16PPG - 3 x 6.75M
• Marner - 21 y.o - 1.15PPG - 6 x 10.9M
• Matthews - 20 y.o - 1.07PPG - 5 x 11.6M
• Aho - 20 y.o - 1.01PPG - 5 x 8.46M
• Teravainen - 23 y.o - .93PPG - 5 x 5.4M
• Guentzel - 23 y.o - .93PPG - 5 x 6M

Anyways the market for Tkachuk on a long term deal would've been similar to Aho's 8.5M x 5 years. Instead you get Tkachuk for 3 x 7 and one more year where you have to pay him at least $7.65M(not $9M). I remember the Flames looking for options, and considering moving Frolik, but they had no takers. Hindsight 20/20 Hamonic could've been dealt after a great season.




My point is that the Flames didn't gamble on Tkachuk, they gambled on a contender, and it wasn't much of a gamble at that. I was fooled just as much as management, thinking finally we got ourselves something special. The loss to the Avs seemed more like inexperience than anything else.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Nonis? Gillis? Futa? Lombardi? Gorton? Rutherford?

Gorton has a great track record as a seller and a builder

His fingerprints are all over the Bruins cup team and he got amazing value for the Rangers when they were selling off pieces

Brassard for Zibenajad is a franchise altering fleece job too

Fired by a meddling owner for not winning this year but the Rangers had a better record than us and a +25 better goal differential. Victim of being in a stacked division

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I don't think it was a bad gamble. It was at the end of a season where your team finished 2nd in the NHL. Tkachuk had 77pts in 82games. Similar contracts signed in that same off-season:

• Rantanen - 21 y.o - 1.18PPG - 6 x 9.25M
• Point - 22 y.o - 1.16PPG - 3 x 6.75M
• Marner - 21 y.o - 1.15PPG - 6 x 10.9M
• Matthews - 20 y.o - 1.07PPG - 5 x 11.6M
• Aho - 20 y.o - 1.01PPG - 5 x 8.46M
• Teravainen - 23 y.o - .93PPG - 5 x 5.4M
• Guentzel - 23 y.o - .93PPG - 5 x 6M

Anyways the market for Tkachuk on a long term deal would've been similar to Aho's 8.5M x 5 years. Instead you get Tkachuk for 3 x 7 and one more year where you have to pay him at least $7.65M(not $9M). I remember the Flames looking for options, and considering moving Frolik, but they had no takers. Hindsight 20/20 Hamonic could've been dealt after a great season.




My point is that the Flames didn't gamble on Tkachuk, they gambled on a contender, and it wasn't much of a gamble at that. I was fooled just as much as management, thinking finally we got ourselves something special. The loss to the Avs seemed more like inexperience than anything else.

The gamble was that the team would be good and Tkachuk would want to stay after his bridge. Now the team is sinking fast and the worst case scenario could possibly happen. Tkachuk could take the qualifying offer and leave. That is the absolute worst case scenario but the Flames gambled when they made that deal. Now Tkachuk holds all the leverage and the Flames are basically at his mercy if they want to sign him. The way they structured his deal hurts his trade value as well. I think it was a pretty big blunder.

This team is now in a position where they lost Brodie for nothing, lost Gio for nothing, could potentially lose Johnny and Tkachuk for nothing or next to nothing.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

IF Treliving were to get fired, who out there would be better?

Honest question.

The guys I would want are employed.

If ownership continues to demand pushing forward with this group or some alteration of it, it won't matter who the GM is. A GM is going to have to pull multiple rabbits out of his arse to get this team to be competitive with the top teams.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Hackey

The gamble was that the team would be good and Tkachuk would want to stay after his bridge. Now the team is sinking fast and the worst case scenario could possibly happen. Tkachuk could take the qualifying offer and leave. That is the absolute worst case scenario but the Flames gambled when they made that deal. Now Tkachuk holds all the leverage and the Flames are basically at his mercy if they want to sign him. The way they structured his deal hurts his trade value as well. I think it was a pretty big blunder.

This team is now in a position where they lost Brodie for nothing, lost Gio for nothing, could potentially lose Johnny and Tkachuk for nothing or next to nothing.

If Brad would’ve sold all of Tkachuk/Gaudreau/Giordano/Brodie after 2018/19, he would’ve been a genius! He would also likely have been fired. The Flames were actively looking to make moves before this season. The problem was that nobody had cap space! There weren’t very many Blockbuster deals over the summer, and there was a reason for that. As for Brodie he was shopped, see Kadri.

You play it as though the player doesn’t have a choice as to what contract he signs. Would the Flames have been better off playing hard ball with Tkachuk? have him miss half a season? all season? so they can sign him long term? The bottom line is that a team only has control of a drafted player for 7 pro seasons(or until the player turns 27), then the player decides where to play. If a player doesn’t want to stay there’s nothing you can do. Now you have to pay young players, and their agents are the ones fighting for every UFA year.

I think it’s irrational to hold losing a player to free agency as this management’s pit fall. If they think they won’t be able to re-sign Gaudreau or Tkachuk long term they will be traded, that’s simple enough. This management made bad moves with the likes of Neal/Brouwer/Stone/Hamonic etc. The names you mentioned don’t count among them as blunders. If we’re using your strategy we’re probably better off selling every player that has a career year, then we would certainly maximize return.

[powderjunkie]

I only see 3 conceivable landing spots Tre might have sold Gio to, the last being the only realistic option:

NJD - moo since Graves became available

WAS - they ended up protecting bargain contract Trevor Van Riemsdyk over Schultz and Dillon. I doubt they had an appetite to take on significant risk for a modest asset gain.

NAS - Gio would be their 6th D protected in place of 24 yo undrafted forward Tanner Jeanot


The only play I could see is NAS paying a 3rd+prospect for Gio pre ED. Then hoping to flip him for a 2nd+prospect at full salary (or 1st+ if retained) post ED. Essentially a short-term investment play...high risk-low reward for a team like NAS, hence the low acquisition cost.

Gio + Kylington (etc) out
3rd + prospect in

vs.

Gio out

The margins are thin on any deal to recoup value.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I only see 3 conceivable landing spots Tre might have sold Gio to, the last being the only realistic option:

NJD - moo since Graves became available

WAS - they ended up protecting bargain contract Trevor Van Riemsdyk over Schultz and Dillon. I doubt they had an appetite to take on significant risk for a modest asset gain.

NAS - Gio would be their 6th D protected in place of 24 yo undrafted forward Tanner Jeanot


The only play I could see is NAS paying a 3rd+prospect for Gio pre ED. Then hoping to flip him for a 2nd+prospect at full salary (or 1st+ if retained) post ED. Essentially a short-term investment play...high risk-low reward for a team like NAS, hence the low acquisition cost.

Gio + Kylington (etc) out
3rd + prospect in

vs.

Gio out

The margins are thin on any deal to recoup value.

As strange as it sounds he could’ve probably sent Gio to Vegas for a 2nd then sent two 2nds back a couple of days after the expansion draft to get Gio back. Not sure if the league would’ve approved, but I thought there could’ve been a Vegas loophole for this expansion draft because they were exempt.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

As strange as it sounds he could’ve probably sent Gio to Vegas for a 2nd then sent two 2nds back a couple of days after the expansion draft to get Gio back. Not sure if the league would’ve approved, but I thought there could’ve been a Vegas loophole for this expansion draft because they were exempt.

Clever. I wonder if the league would approve the trade back. No more nefarious than what MTL did though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Clever. I wonder if the league would approve the trade back. No more nefarious than what MTL did though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am almost certain that someone would’ve used it, or at least used it as leverage if it was allowed. There are many bright minds working in the NHL, and someone would’ve noticed it. I think it would’ve drawn even more attention to the fact that it’s ‘unfair’ Vegas is exempt.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

As strange as it sounds he could’ve probably sent Gio to Vegas for a 2nd then sent two 2nds back a couple of days after the expansion draft to get Gio back. Not sure if the league would’ve approved, but I thought there could’ve been a Vegas loophole for this expansion draft because they were exempt.

I could be wrong, going off of memory, but I thought I had heard that a player can not be traded back to the team that had traded him in the first place for one year.

[Wolfman]

Could have just pulled a Habs and said Gio might not play next year due to injuries.