Give Treliving another 3 years and the Flames are likely just out of the playoffs and drafting 12th overall.
We need to have at least 15 solid years of playoff bubble finishes, mid-first round picks, and bottom 10 prospect pools to properly evaluate the results.
We need to have at least 15 solid years of playoff bubble finishes, mid-first round picks, and bottom 10 prospect pools to properly evaluate the results.
Yet another one.
Do any of you see those in favour of not dumping the GM talking down to or insulting those that don't disagree with them?
Well, we have had some posters on this board claim that they can read what Brad Treliving is thinking/feeling by his facial expressions during press conferences so, sure, why not?
It would be wise to listen to the face readers and internet forum psycho analysts.
Bolded: Pretty easy to ignore posters who make such claims but mostly it is just a few.
Lots of drive bys, over the top comments (for and against) Brad Treliving for sure, but lots of good discussion too. CP hardly never leaves a stone unturned and that is not always a bad thing.
I think sometimes posters vent and don't always express themselves very well, but from my experience on cp a lot do get better.
I have said multiple times on this forum that I believe team-building is a 10-year project—maybe longer.
Well 70% of that period has been provided to this gm. At this point, we don't have a top line C, don't have a top line d (other than the 39 year old captain the gm inherited from 2 regimes ago), and just signed a 30 year old starter just in time for a potential rebuild.
We have 1 top line, elite forward (thanks to the previous regime), who should realistically be moved this summer.
If middle line, #4-6 dmen are the bar, ya I suppose this gm has been passable.
I don't even think I disagree with your 10 year timeline, but 7 years in have provided average to below average results. Shall we wait this out?
There's something to be said about "failing fast" and the ability to manage the current trajectory of the franchise with a different voice and vision. 7 years of treliving have been more or less a waste of time.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bubbsy For This Useful Post:
Wait, what?????? That post is a direct insult to the idea of it taking 10 years or more not to the person saying it.
Come on ...
Anyone that doesn't want to fire him is moving beyond 7 years and towards 10, and with that are being talked down to as supporting ...
"We need to have at least 15 solid years of playoff bubble finishes, mid-first round picks, and bottom 10 prospect pools to properly evaluate the results."
As if there is no other way of thinking the guy shouldn't be fired. It's sarcastic and cheeky.
No, I wouldn't. I think the longest contract I have ever had was four years, and every position I have held has been subject to periodic evaluation. I think a GM can work productively under similar circumstances without the lingering anxiety of always being "on the clock," so to speak.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
It would avoid job saving short term fixes that ultimately harm organizations.
Would probably need a few timed off ramps in the tenure to give both sides some options though.
Remember when Darryl Sutter didn't have a contract, and instead was an employee without a set term?
Well personally I don’t think you need 10 years to figure out if your GM is on the right track. A 10 year deal with a club option after x years isn’t a 10 year commitment anyway. It’s just locking in your cost.
I don’t disagree that you want your GM to have a long term view, but that’s what you need from those who oversee the organization at the highest level. If you don’t think ownership has a long term view, then you don’t want them handing out 10 year contracts.
IMO it’s funny that one of the arguments against trying to upgrade the GM
position is that a new GM would need to take their time in evaluating the roster and that we wouldn’t have the moves needed before next season. A very short term view.
BTW on the Sutter front, was it ever reported what he received as severance?
Well personally I don’t think you need 10 years to figure out if your GM is on the right track. A 10 year deal with a club option after x years isn’t a 10 year commitment anyway. It’s just locking in your cost.
I don’t disagree that you want your GM to have a long term view, but that’s what you need from those who oversee the organization at the highest level. If you don’t think ownership has a long term view, then you don’t want them handing out 10 year contracts.
IMO it’s funny that one of the arguments against trying to upgrade the GM
position is that a new GM would need to take their time in evaluating the roster and that we wouldn’t have the moves needed before next season. A very short term view.
BTW on the Sutter front, was it ever reported what he received as severance?
Are there actually arguments against "upgrading the GM"? I think the difference of opinion is more centred on whether Treliving is the best available GM or not. From my perspective, I don't think there is a clear available upgrade. If there were, I would be all for it.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
If an "elite" GM said he wanted to be part of the Flames, id give them 10 years right away. When it's someone with 0 experience or hasn't even been a part of a winning organization then maybe you go short term.
7 years is a long time. There is no progress either direction and nothing to show for it. This team has no elite prospects and not even a lot of really good prospects. They don't have playoff experience to build on. They aren't even a bottom feeder team. They have 0 identity. They're just a disappointment.
That's what Treliving has built, a disappointing team.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Poe969 For This Useful Post:
Anyone that doesn't want to fire him is moving beyond 7 years and towards 10, and with that are being talked down to as supporting ...
"We need to have at least 15 solid years of playoff bubble finishes, mid-first round picks, and bottom 10 prospect pools to properly evaluate the results."
As if there is no other way of thinking the guy shouldn't be fired. It's sarcastic and cheeky.
Drive by 101
And what is this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yet another one.
Do any of you see those in favour of not dumping the GM talking down to or insulting those that don't disagree with them?
Pretty sad actually.
Another one? That is lumping people into a group and pointing the finger at the people in that group.
Are you actually going to blame people for being sarcastic considering the 7 years under Tre? If anything is wrong with this fanbase it's them being too patient.
Are there actually arguments against "upgrading the GM"? I think the difference of opinion is more centred on whether Treliving is the best available GM or not. From my perspective, I don't think there is a clear available upgrade. If there were, I would be all for it.
This seems very strange coming from someone who bangs the drum of how little we know as fans. If there were a clear, cut-and-dry upgrade out there how does a market like Calgary even become a part of the conversation? Realistically it probably doesn’t.
Our options come down to sticking with the guy we’ve got and just hoping the next 3 years are better than the first 7, or bring in a different vision from someone who probably comes under the radar. Which is how we ended up with Tre to begin with.
Well personally I don’t think you need 10 years to figure out if your GM is on the right track. A 10 year deal with a club option after x years isn’t a 10 year commitment anyway. It’s just locking in your cost.
I don’t disagree that you want your GM to have a long term view, but that’s what you need from those who oversee the organization at the highest level. If you don’t think ownership has a long term view, then you don’t want them handing out 10 year contracts.
IMO it’s funny that one of the arguments against trying to upgrade the GM
position is that a new GM would need to take their time in evaluating the roster and that we wouldn’t have the moves needed before next season. A very short term view.
BTW on the Sutter front, was it ever reported what he received as severance?
It's natural that a new GM would have a feeling out period that would take time for sure ... I haven't leaned on that one personally, but it's true to an extent.
The big issue for me is the assurance that the new GM is an upgrade.
There isn't a GM in hockey that I wouldn't dump if you could guarantee the next guy would be better. But given the fact that no one can give out such a guarantee I'd say my confidence in what Treliving does well and what he's learned and concern that it won't be an upgrade is enough to keep me happy with brining him back.
