I know where they worked together and he wasn’t being hired to coach an all star team with arguably the best roster in the world in a short tournament. I couldn’t care less if he played a mean trombone or could juggle. He was being hired as a NHL coach, at which he had no real success.
Yeah, I guess you have a point there. But the same could have been said about Craig Burube at one point.
I find it difficult to believe Rod Brind’amour, who openly confirmed he brought the issues up the chain, wouldn’t have mentioned to Tree that the issues existed. Or some player checks.
In the end though, Peters looked like every bit the bad hire when he got out coached handedly by the Avs in the playoffs and then looked like a dud coach right from the start of the 19/20 season.
The NHL is still very slowly changing from the old sweep everything under the carpet, keep it in the room attitude. that's still going to take many years to change.
I find it believable. Brind’amour would be under no obligation to tell Tre anything. if you want my problem coach, you can have him. I'm not going to give you reasons not to hire him.
The Following User Says Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.
And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.
The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.
So you didn't think they were good enough to be top line players before the Colorado series?
I know I didn't.
And I didn't say he shouldn't be accountable. I said if he tried to move them earlier and was blocked than they'd have a different view of firing him, wouldn't they?
Aren't you trying equally as hard to support an argument to fire him? You're even saying things are a given when they're not.
I think the guy does more good than bad, and learns from his mistakes. I wouldn't fire him.
You don't have to agree with me, but I think the reality will prove my side out ... they're not as disenchanted with him as you are.
Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.
And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.
The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.
until about the mid-point of the 2019/20 season I distinctly recall many people comparing Gaudreau to Patrick Kane, suggesting he was on par with Kane, more or less. I also recall that being the popular sentiment much more so than people saying he wasn't a top line player.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
The NHL is still very slowly changing from the old sweep everything under the carpet, keep it in the room attitude. that's still going to take many years to change.
I find it believable. Brind’amour would be under no obligation to tell Tre anything. if you want my problem coach, you can have him. I'm not going to give you reasons not to hire him.
Im not even sure BT would have talked to Brindamour before hiring Peters. Its not like RB was a superior to BP.
He would have talked to the GM likely and maybe a couple others in the game, but an assistant coach? Why? Particularly after already having worked together on Team Canada.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I believe it is has been reported widely that ownership was involved in the hiring of Sutter as coach, right? So it's really a question of what that means. I believe we'd agree it's unusual that ownership is involved in coaching hires, certainly in Calgary, Couple that with it being coach 5, I believe it is more likely than not that ownership getting more involved in decision making is a negative sign for the GM.
.
Not that I am aware of.
It has been speculated, and talked about by mostly fans, but i dont ever remember reading something concrete that ownership was involved in hiring him other than to sign off on the salary....which would be a huge increase from Ward.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I find it difficult to believe Rod Brind’amour, who openly confirmed he brought the issues up the chain, wouldn’t have mentioned to Tree that the issues existed. Or some player checks.
In the end though, Peters looked like every bit the bad hire when he got out coached handedly by the Avs in the playoffs and then looked like a dud coach right from the start of the 19/20 season.
You think Treliving was interviewing Peters’ then-current assistant coach about Peters?
Failures in the playoffs, and this season's series format seem like further confirmation that they are especially easy to game plan against.
What if BT has been telling ownership he thinks they need to move on from 13/23/5? But ownership has disagreed?
I suspect they agreed on one more kick for this group last year, but then COVID made it tough...
That’s right, you see these guys enough and it becomes more and more obvious how to stop them. If you know that puck will always go to Gaudreau, then right away coaches can game plan around how to stop him and because the Flames have no other outlet options (especially this season), then this line has no chance of being successful. Monahan never goes coast to coast with the puck so no need to defend that, Ritchie has virtually no puck skills either, so they can ignore him. Even prior to this season, Neal is a trigger man like Monahan, so he’s no threat with the puck, same goes for Brouwer and Chiasson who were limited with the puck.
Realistically, the only players who did work with the Monahan-Gaudreau duo were Hudler, Ferland, and Lindholm who all carried their own weight. These guys were all different kinds of players, but they all could think the game at a high level, make plays and be a threat WITH the puck.
Going into this season, I think this organization thought, “who can we pick up that resembles Lindholm? Oh, Josh Leivo is a right handed shot who can shoot hard, that’ll work!” WRONG. Lindholm is a natural center who can hold on to the puck, draw defenders and make plays on the rush. That’s not Josh Leivo at all. That’s why these guys all failed with Gaudreau and Monahan, they generally do their damage on the rush and they’ve always needed a right winger who has skills on the rush.
Thank goodness Sutter reunited Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk because all 3 are very competent on the rush and it has shown in the 5 games they’ve been together.
Flames still had a decent record after the all-star game largely thanks to the emergence of the Mangiapane-Ryan-Hathaway line. The went 0-2-2 after the bye week then won 7 in a row, lost 4 in a row, won 3 in a row then went 6-5 the rest of the way. 16-11-2 after the break which is still 96pt pace.
That team had an elite goals for and goals against. They also had depth 5 players over 70pts, Backlund had 47, Ryan, Brodie, Hanifin, Jankowski all had over 30 and Bennett was close at 27. Insane depth if you ask me. Let’s not pretend that season was like 2015 this team produced and had the fancy stats to back it up. Having said that it is clear as day that season was an aberration based on the steep drop since.
Yes, the Flames played at a 96 point pace because that’s what they really are, a mediocre bubble playoff team. It was a new coach, new system and the players were playing with extreme confidence. But after the all star break, the top line was shut down once again, although that was mitigated by as you said, the emergence of the 4th line.
But that 4th line was dismantled the very next season and the top line continued their struggles at the start of the season. So they were really left with no lines. Although the Mangiapane-Backlund-Tkachuk line ended up being a real revelation and they carried the team against the Winnipeg series.
That’s right, you see these guys enough and it becomes more and more obvious how to stop them. If you know that puck will always go to Gaudreau, then right away coaches can game plan around how to stop him and because the Flames have no other outlet options (especially this season), then this line has no chance of being successful. Monahan never goes coast to coast with the puck so no need to defend that, Ritchie has virtually no puck skills either, so they can ignore him. Even prior to this season, Neal is a trigger man like Monahan, so he’s no threat with the puck, same goes for Brouwer and Chiasson who were limited with the puck.
Gaudreau is one of the most predictable players in the league. Watching games from home, even I know what he is going to do most of the time. He very rarely catches any anyone off guard anymore. He still has the skill to baffle average defenders, but when up against more elite and mobile defensive players, his effectiveness is limited.
Gaudreau is a very smart player though and I wouldn't be all that surprised if he adapts. Hopefully Sutter can help get him there.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 04-23-2021 at 01:10 PM.
So you didn't think they were good enough to be top line players before the Colorado series?
I know I didn't.
I have never thought you could compete for a SC if Sean Monahan was your best center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And I didn't say he shouldn't be accountable. I said if he tried to move them earlier and was blocked than they'd have a different view of firing him, wouldn't they?
Of course. What reason is there to believe that is what happened? That is all just speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Aren't you trying equally as hard to support an argument to fire him? You're even saying things are a given when they're not.
I try to be very careful about making assumptions or claiming things to be a "given" without evidence. As it relates to ownership's view of BT, I see three main pieces of data that lead me to believe they have lost more than a small amount of confidence in him.
The deterioration of the club's performance under his watch.
Ownership's involvement in the hiring of his fifth coach (believe Friedman referred to it as a joint decision.
The report that Treliving wanted to buy out Neal and ownership would not allow it.
However there is one big data point that supports the notion that he still has enough of their support. He is the still the GM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I think the guy does more good than bad, and learns from his mistakes. I wouldn't fire him.
This is a discussion about opinions and evaluations and wouldn't expect us all to see it the same way. I don't want him to be fired so much as I believe a new GM would likely be an upgrade. I don't see the more good than bad part because ultimately it comes down to the big league club's performance and the strength of the prospect base. Both are very disappointing.
Nor do I see the learning from mistakes argument. I see a GM that went into the season with an unproven coach and relied on two UFA signings of players over 30 to improve the roster. To me, that sounds very familiar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
You don't have to agree with me, but I think the reality will prove my side out ... they're not as disenchanted with him as you are.
I have consistently predicted that I believe he keeps his job for one more offseason so we are in agreement there. I do believe history will show that won't end up being the right decision. But I reserve the right to change my view of his performance based on what he does next.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
It has been speculated, and talked about by mostly fans, but i dont ever remember reading something concrete that ownership was involved in hiring him other than to sign off on the salary....which would be a huge increase from Ward.
I recall Friedman referring to it as a "joint decision".
Gaudreau is one of the most predictable players in the league. Watching games from home, even I know what he is going to do most of the time. He very rarely catches any anyone off guard anymore. He still has the skill to baffle average defenders, but when up against more elite and mobile defensive players, his effectiveness is limited.
Gaudreau is a very smart player though and I wouldn't be all that surprised if he adapts. Hopefully Sutter can help get him there.
Umm, dead wrong. Couldn't disagree with you more. These kinds of responses are why I think Gaudreau is so under appreciated. Gaudreau is one of the most unpredictable players in the league, that's why he's been one of the most prolific scorers since his arrival. He can juke left, juke right, curl back, hard stop, cut left, cut right, spinoramas, toe drags and etc. You never know if he's going to pass or shoot because he uses deception so well. He has an incredible arsenal of tools and that's why he makes players around him better.
Just look at the goals he scores as evidence. They're not just shots from the slot or cleaning up in front of the net. He can score off the rush, breakaways, from the flanks, from the side boards, wrap arounds, from 5 feet out, from the slot. Gaudreau is one of the few players on this team that can actually create his own high percentage shot and this team needs more of that, not less.
He might be more predictable playing on the Flames, but that's not his fault, that's this team's fault for poor slotting. If he played on say a Pittsburgh or a Toronto, he'd probably be a perennial 100 point player. Much like Phil Kessel who can score 90 points on a Pittsburgh playing on a line with Malkin, but he's never going to come close to that in Arizona playing with a Derek Stepan or Clayton Keller.
The Following User Says Thank You to Classic_Sniper For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I recall Friedman referring to it as a "joint decision".
Here is what he wrote on March 5.
Quote:
Well, first of all, we should let everyone know this is not an interim job. Darryl Sutter has been given a three year deal, including this season, which ties him to Brad Treliving, the general manager. They now both have the same term.
I think that this is something the Flames have kind of kicked around, the return to Sutter as a coach. And the reason I think that is that in the off-season there was a gap between when they were eliminated and when Geoff Ward was officially hired. And I think that the only person that was potentially going to leap-frog Ward for that job at the time was going to be Darryl Sutter.
And I think also last year, when they had to decide what to do after Bill Peters was out, I think the idea of potentially going to Sutter was there, too. So I think it’s something they’ve considered at times. They didn’t do it. And now I think Treliving has looked around and said “Alright, I can’t make a move with the team, but i have to change something because it’s not going very well.” So now he’s gone to a very demanding but very good head coach in Darryl Sutter.
Nothing about ownership making the hire...for sure they would have to of signed off on it with the huge salary Sutter would be commanding.
I don't know if any GM could have foreseen Gaudreau and Monahan's precipitous drop in production during what most would consider their prime years. Monahan's decline has been particularly alarming. I thought they were a dangerous top line, obviously BT did too, because they were, I can't blame him for their decline.
However, I have been thinking about what concerns me the most about Treliving's tenure and for me it's been that there has been really no coherent plan that is being adhered to during his time here. I mentioned in the past, and I am sure a lot can agree, but what I want is a sustainable, consistently competitive Flames franchise. To get there, in a salary cap world, you need to do that by focusing on drafting and development; you need a deep pool of prospects. Or at the very least build a team with a coherent identity, targeting players with specific attributes, that fits an organizational identity that he is trying to build. I haven't seen either a focus on drafting and development or a focus on team identity. I would describe Treliving's approach as scattershot.
When BT was hired he mentioned identity multiple times and how important it is to have it. Hartley seemed to have established some sort of identity with this team, and Treliving took note of that.
I would say that since BT has taken over this team has almost no identity to speak of. They aren't fast, skilled, big, physical, hard working, or resilient. In fact I would describe this team as complacent and fragile. If BT was trying to establish an identity with this team I would have a hard time identifying what he was aiming for.
Also when he was hired he had 5 picks in the first three rounds, he promptly traded one of those thirds for Brandon Bollig. This was the first indication of BT's attitude towards draft capital, often deeming it expendable in order to acquire players whose time with the Flames ended up being short. In fact his reluctance to accrue draft capital and develop a deep pool of prospects meant that there were always holes to be filled in our pro group, which would see more draft picks being traded away for depth players to fill those holes, and the cycle continues and our pool of prospects never really develops. BT has only had 7 or more draft picks twice during his career, and our prospect pool is verifiably poor, which is not at all a surprise seeing how cavalier BT is with draft capital.
When BT was hired the Flames had 35 wins, and the Carolina Hurricanes had 36 wins. Since then the Flames have drafted 43 players and Carolina has drafted 59 players, they are currently leading their division, are third overall in the NHL in P%, have a top 5 prospect pool and have about 20 million in cap space next year. They are set up for success for a long time. They are also there without a first overall pick, and have not been afraid to move on from top picks if they feel it makes their team better, Lindholm, Hanifin and Fleury have all been moved. I don't think I need to examine the Flames current situation relative to Carolina's.
Steve Yzerman had an incredibly successful tenure as a GM with Tampa. Since his arrival in Detroit in 2019 he had 11 picks in 2019 Draft, 12 in the 2020 draft, he has 12 picks in the 2021 draft and 10 picks in the 2022 draft. That speaks to me of having a coherent plan in place.
Its' not really a secret that the path to success is drafting and development, why can't the Flames take this approach? Will BT ever actually take this approach?
Then there is his process in regards to coaching hires. When he first hired Gulutzan he spoke about it being an exhaustive process, leaving no stone unturned.
Quote:
“It’s one of Calgary’s worst-kept secrets over the last couple of days,” Treliving admitted.
“We went through a real thorough process in this search. This is an important person we need to bring into our organization. We spent the first while building a profile. What is it we’re looking for in a coach? What’s the best fit? You talk about who the best coach is for a particular team. What kind of coach was our team ready for? We went through a lot of those attributes before we got into the field and the market and talking to people.
“We built a real in-depth profile and started going through the process.
“As you went through it, it became very clear meeting with Glen early that this was a perfect match.”
We all know how Gulutzan turned out. Then the process for Peters was a stark reversal. No one else interviewed, simply targeting Bill Peters as his guy. Then with Ward it was simply succession, perhaps the decision to hold onto Ward was a bit of trepidation in having a revolving carousel of coaches, hoping for continuity, that's just speculation on my part. Then of course Sutter, and in fairness I don't know what process BT used for hiring Sutter, if he interviewed other candidates. If Sutter is not here for a rebuild, as some have mentioned, and this team is in desperate need of a rebuild, then is that even the right guy for the job? With BT I see someone constantly changing their process and still getting the results wrong. Sutter, I really hope, works out.
Outside of Treliving, the processes in general for this team doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Burke said they interviewed one person for the GM role, Treliving, and no one else. Treliving had no full time NHL GM experience and came from an organization that is basically a complete mess. And that was their only interview.
I already voted and made my point that he should get fired, and hoped that he would, but I don't think he will actually be fired. I think he gets at the very least the next year to right this ship, I don't agree with it, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that he will be fired.
Sorry for the long winded post.
Last edited by flames_fan_down_under; 04-23-2021 at 03:25 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to flames_fan_down_under For This Useful Post:
Pointing exclusively to disintegration of 13 and 23's play does not justify what is, IMO, a poorly constructed roster. Many people questioned whether those two could ever form the top line on a contending team.
And suggesting the only way Treliving should be is accountable is if ownership told him to move on from Gaudreau and Monahan and he resisted seems like an example of trying too hard to absolve the General Manager of responsibility.
The GM is much more of a CEO and ownership is a BOD in a typical public company construct. I haven't seen many CEO's successfully pass off responsibility for business failure to their Board.
I think the signs of disintegration from 13 & 23 was there right from the start and I don't Treliving and co realized it until 2020 when they tried to trade Monahan last offseason. Their inability for these 2 to perform in the playoffs or when checking gets tighter was a massively glaring issue and they probably could've looked into it earlier. I mean, maybe some GMs might have seen it, maybe some not. But these executives get paid huge $$ to look into this and figure it out. It seems like Treliving took the route of, "they'll be ok, I'm just going to find them help by adding more depth" which he attempted to be fair, but it didn't work.
What comes to mind for me right now is the Toronto Maple Leafs of a decade ago. They went in to it with the core of Phil Kessel and Dion Phaneuf, sort of got "lucky" in that the group failed so spectacularly in such a short amount of time that they were able to quickly pivot and pick up William Nylander (drafted), Mitch Marner (drafted), Auston Matthews (drafted) and John Tavares (UFA) in the process. Now they've got Morgan Reilly and 4 stud forwards to go along with everything else and they're ready to take the next step. The Flames on the otherhand, tied their horses to their own versions of "Kessel and Phaneuf" and never pivoted. Now it's too late as sweetheart contracts are just about finished and this core accomplished nothing.
When BT was hired the Flames had 35 wins, and the Carolina Hurricanes had 36 wins. Since then the Flames have drafted 43 players and Carolina has drafted 59 players, they are currently leading their division, are third overall in the NHL in P%, have a top 5 prospect pool and have about 20 million in cap space next year. They are set up for success for a long time. They are also there without a first overall pick, and have not been afraid to move on from top picks if they feel it makes their team better, Lindholm, Hanifin and Fleury have all been moved. I don't think I need to examine the Flames current situation relative to Carolina's.
Carolina and Calgary are very different organizations. Different market, different ownership, different expectations I would bet. It's no surprise the Canes have had that amount of draft capital, they are a budget team who had an ownership change during the time frame you are looking at. They compile picks by trading players they don't want or can't afford to pay. If the Flames were in sell mode as often as the Canes have historically been, they would likely have a similar amount of draft picks, but, again, what's the mandate from ownership? Part of the reason behind the Lindholm Hanifin trade was Carolina didn't want to pay them what they were worth. As for the return for those two assets, the Canes may only have a second and a third to show for it by this offseason. So, let's wait and see there.
Also, you correctly point out that they haven't ascended to their spot with the benefit of a 1OA pick, but they did win the lottery and jump 10 spots to pick 2OA. The Flames haven't had that good fortune yet.
I'm not convinced the Canes model is all that relevant, or should be followed, when looking for franchises to compare.
Carolina and Calgary are very different organizations. Different market, different ownership, different expectations I would bet. It's no surprise the Canes have had that amount of draft capital, they are a budget team who had an ownership change during the time frame you are looking at. They compile picks by trading players they don't want or can't afford to pay. If the Flames were in sell mode as often as the Canes have historically been, they would likely have a similar amount of draft picks, but, again, what's the mandate from ownership? Part of the reason behind the Lindholm Hanifin trade was Carolina didn't want to pay them what they were worth. As for the return for those two assets, the Canes may only have a second and a third to show for it by this offseason. So, let's wait and see there.
Also, you correctly point out that they haven't ascended to their spot with the benefit of a 1OA pick, but they did win the lottery and jump 10 spots to pick 2OA. The Flames haven't had that good fortune yet.
I'm not convinced the Canes model is all that relevant, or should be followed, when looking for franchises to compare.
An ECF run and beating Toronto with an EBUG is about as much fun as you can have without winning a cup...
