Brad Treliving needs to go

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red

Then add something.

Or bail.

Well, on that criteria, yes, he didn’t offer a blank cheque to other teams just to make a trade - any trade.

But you can’t just ignore what was actually received for these trades in looking at what Treliving did or didn’t do. It’s common sense to assume he had to beat it. So in his quest to get bigger and harder to play against and get, say PLD, in order to beat Winnipeg, he trades Tkachuk who is pretty big and hard to play against and Monahan. That’s not an imaginary trade proposal - it’s an estimate of what it takes to beat what we know was accepted.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

We know what they got. Therefore to get the player, you have to beat that bid. So to get PLD you have to do better than Laine+Roslovic. To get Anderson you have to do better than Domi (and you have to be confident about signing Anderson). Miller - well everyone sneered at that trade at the time. Big contract, low production. Stone would have been a dumb trade. Kane was a 1st, a 4th and a plug. The pick was 20th. Calgary’s was 29th (Pelletier). So you’d have to add.

So, no, he didn’t get one of those guys.

The pick that Buffalo received for Kane was the 29th overall pick. Pelletier was 26th. So it is doubtful that they would have had to add. It was unlikely that we could afford a 1st rounder and a conditional 4th for Kane because we had just got rid of our 2018 1st and 2nd and our 2019 2nd for Hamonic. The real problem was that we had already decided to burn through a bunch of picks for Hamonic and I doubt even Brad would want to go 3 out 5 drafts without a first rounder.

Not really sure folks sneered at Miller's big contract, he makes 5.25 million and had 56, 58 and 47 points over the previous 3 seasons. A comparable would be Brad giving a young player 4.85 million after seasons of 45 and 44 points the previous two years. 100K a point is not a big contract low production situation.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

On paper Neal was fine. 20+ goals every year, including rookie. Higher in many. Success on successful teams. Played on teams with speed games like Vegas and Pittsburgh.

What Treliving didn’t do was inquire as to why Vegas (and other teams) were so prepared to lose him. Or, for example, why Neal missed a bunch of games for Vegas in March and was pretty invisible when he came back.

And why was that?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The pick that Buffalo received for Kane was the 29th overall pick. Pelletier was 26th. So it is doubtful that they would have had to add. It was unlikely that we could afford a 1st rounder and a conditional 4th for Kane because we had just got rid of our 2018 1st and 2nd and our 2019 2nd for Hamonic. The real problem was that we had already decided to burn through a bunch of picks for Hamonic and I doubt even Brad would want to go 3 out 5 drafts without a first rounder.

Yeah, I totally mixed up picks - I was looking at Winnipeg picking 20th because my brain went Kane/Winnipeg.

The Sabres ended up with Montour for that pick. IIRC.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Red

I don't play silly trade proposal games.

Point is, players were available to be signed or traded for. He got cold feet and bailed.
He had outside forces nick the Bishop and Zucker deals. Could things have been different there? No one is asking why the Bishop deal was so last minute. The guy was on the radar for how many months? Could he not have made some pre-talks with King? I don't know, but throwing it out there as an odd reason to miss out.

You make a bad point. You have no argument other than players were traded and the Flames didn’t make the deal. You refuse to try and use logic to come to a conclusion and throw around questions you know no one can answer. Try using some critical thought to understand why the Flames didn’t or couldn’t make those deals. The problem with that though is it shreds the point you are trying to make.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, on that criteria, yes, he didn’t offer a blank cheque to other teams just to make a trade - any trade.

But you can’t just ignore what was actually received for these trades in looking at what Treliving did or didn’t do. It’s common sense to assume he had to beat it. So in his quest to get bigger and harder to play against and get, say PLD, in order to beat Winnipeg, he trades Tkachuk who is pretty big and hard to play against and Monahan. That’s not an imaginary trade proposal - it’s an estimate of what it takes to beat what we know was accepted.

Why blank check? Do you go Ferrari shopping when all you can offer is your welfare checks? If he isn't willing to give, he is not going to get. If Tkachuk is the main piece then you have to look at that. Maybe you can upgrade? Monahan? Well, you know how I feel about him. Gone!!! Make the team better is the priority, not fleecing another GM.

And what does "beat it" mean? We don't know what Winnipegs first offer was. Things evolved to become that trade. But it didnt start there, of that you can be sure. That's when you make your play. But when Tre goes in with Bennett + Kylington (hypothetical) as main pieces then he is no longer in the conversation. Because it's not a serious offer.

When a guy asks so much, like Tre, maybe the GMs don't really listen to him anymore? They know he is only looking for bargain deals so why bother?

And this is my point, he had his eyes on some of the big name forwards but failed to close the deal. On all of them. Not one or two, every.single.one.

What does that tell you? Afraid to pull the trigger? Penny pincher?

And now we hear he is asking for the moon for Bennett. Again, overvaluing his players.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Red

Do you go Ferrari shopping when all you can offer is your welfare checks?

Sometimes I do.

[Finger Cookin]

I'm fine with Treliving being let go and a clean sweep in the front office and coaches. I'm not convinced the next people are going to get any more done within the mandate and restraints of ownership. It will take a lot of luck, old regime or new.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Red

And now we hear he is asking for the moon for Bennett. Again, overvaluing his players.

I haven't heard. What is he asking for?

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

I'm fine with Treliving being let go and a clean sweep in the front office and coaches. I'm not convinced the next people are going to get any more down within the mandate and restraints of ownership. It will take a lot of luck, old regime or new.

These owners are winners in everything they do outside the Flames.

It bothers them 1000x more than it bothers you that their names are associated with this mess.

IMO

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I haven't heard. What is he asking for?

Probably a second.

You have to take what those ####### GM's leak to the press with a grain of salt.

#### them.

For as long as Tre is our guy, he is our guy. Anything he asks for is reasonable because his goal is improving the Flames.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

You make a bad point. You have no argument other than players were traded and the Flames didn’t make the deal. You refuse to try and use logic to come to a conclusion and throw around questions you know no one can answer. Try using some critical thought to understand why the Flames didn’t or couldn’t make those deals. The problem with that though is it shreds the point you are trying to make.

Logic is all I used. Players that fit Treliving's vision are being moved. He inquired, but whiffed on ALL OF THEM. A critical thinking person would ask why this one GM gets out bid every time.

I am not suggesting he failed to trade for McKinnon or Makar. THAT would lack logic.

And here is a funny scenario for you, say McKinnon is made available. Guess which GM gets outbid once again? Sakic hangs up when he hears the name Sam Bennett

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

Why blank check? Do you go Ferrari shopping when all you can offer is your welfare checks? If he isn't willing to give, he is not going to get. If Tkachuk is the main piece then you have to look at that. Maybe you can upgrade? Monahan? Well, you know how I feel about him. Gone!!! Make the team better is the priority, not fleecing another GM.

And what does "beat it" mean? We don't know what Winnipegs first offer was. Things evolved to become that trade. But it didnt start there, of that you can be sure. That's when you make your play. But when Tre goes in with Bennett + Kylington (hypothetical) as main pieces then he is no longer in the conversation. Because it's not a serious offer.

When a guy asks so much, like Tre, maybe the GMs don't really listen to him anymore? They know he is only looking for bargain deals so why bother?

And this is my point, he had his eyes on some of the big name forwards but failed to close the deal. On all of them. Not one or two, every.single.one.

What does that tell you? Afraid to pull the trigger? Penny pincher?

And now we hear he is asking for the moon for Bennett. Again, overvaluing his players.

He's proven he can complete deals. Multiple times.
Including Elias Lindholm (big name forward). So he hasn't failed every single time.
Almost everything you are posting above is made up and guesswork.

[Red]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I haven't heard. What is he asking for?

They didn't get in to specifics but GMs around the league say that his ask is nothing close to what they'd offer. This from Friedman I think.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

Logic is all I used. Players that fit Treliving's vision are being moved. He inquired, but whiffed on ALL OF THEM. A critical thinking person would ask why this one GM gets out bid every time.

I am not suggesting he failed to trade for McKinnon or Makar. THAT would lack logic.

And here is a funny scenario for you, say McKinnon is made available. Guess which GM gets outbid once again? Sakic hangs up when he hears the name Sam Bennett

He gets outbid when other teams can offer more.
What is the Flames equivalent offer to beat Laine+Roslovic? Specifics please. What would you have specifically given up to try and beat that offer?

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Red

Logic is all I used. Players that fit Treliving's vision are being moved. He inquired, but whiffed on ALL OF THEM. A critical thinking person would ask why this one GM gets out bid every time.

I am not suggesting he failed to trade for McKinnon or Makar. THAT would lack logic.

And here is a funny scenario for you, say McKinnon is made available. Guess which GM gets outbid once again? Sakic hangs up when he hears the name Sam Bennett

We can all agree his time is up without ignoring all the good things Tre did for this team and there were a few (some awesome contracts, some great acquisitions). Come on man.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He's proven he can complete deals. Multiple times.
Including Elias Lindholm (big name forward). So he hasn't failed every single time.
Almost everything you are posting above is made up and guesswork.

Elias Lidholm was a big name forward? A guy that had yet to score 20G in a season?

Nope.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Former 5th overall pick with a high degree of two-way skill? Yup.
Dubois had 49 points last year. Similar to Lindholm's pre Calgary production. He had one season in the 60s.
Not too different.
But I get it. Only include if it suits your argument.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Red

Elias Lidholm was a big name forward? A guy that had yet to score 20G in a season?

Nope.

He is now. So Tre saw something no one else did. That's a bad thing in your book?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Red

Why blank check? Do you go Ferrari shopping when all you can offer is your welfare checks? If he isn't willing to give, he is not going to get. If Tkachuk is the main piece then you have to look at that. Maybe you can upgrade? Monahan? Well, you know how I feel about him. Gone!!! Make the team better is the priority, not fleecing another GM.

And what does "beat it" mean? We don't know what Winnipegs first offer was. Things evolved to become that trade. But it didnt start there, of that you can be sure. That's when you make your play. But when Tre goes in with Bennett + Kylington (hypothetical) as main pieces then he is no longer in the conversation. Because it's not a serious offer.

When a guy asks so much, like Tre, maybe the GMs don't really listen to him anymore? They know he is only looking for bargain deals so why bother?

And this is my point, he had his eyes on some of the big name forwards but failed to close the deal. On all of them. Not one or two, every.single.one.

What does that tell you? Afraid to pull the trigger? Penny pincher?

And now we hear he is asking for the moon for Bennett. Again, overvaluing his players.

Your point remains weak as you fail to truly look at each scenario.

Dubois- I doubt there was a single fan on here that would have traded Tkachuk for PLD prior to the deal. It was reported that was the ask. It was speculated by Friedman and Lebrun that Gaudreau or Monahan were offered but the Jackets wanted Tkachuk.

Stone- wasn’t going to sign here and they didn’t have the room to make the deal. We can discuss why they weren’t in a position to make that trade but the fact is had they moved Valimaki++ to get him it would have been a rental and the fans would lose it over giving up a piece like Vali for 20 games of a great player.

Kane was another rental trade with no guarantee he stays. In fact the Shakes overpaid on term and money to keep him. If the flames did the same you would just be complaining about the loss of assets and boat anchor contract on the team

Anderson it was reported that he was looking for either a 1 year deal straight to UFA or a 7 year deal. That was all his camp was willing to discuss. He scored 1 goal last season and was going to cost Monahan in a deal. I don’t blame him for not taking the risk there.

Toffoli was a cap issue just didn’t have the money to offer him.

Laine is a head case and would have cost Tkachuk at minimum. Not interested in that price.

Again you are trying to make a point without any critical though whatsoever. Just stating a fact but not looking at the supporting information. That crap works on Facebook but be prepared to get challenged on it here.