kehatch

Of course it's a mess. We are neck deep in a rebuild. But that doesn't mean you give the coach a free pass. Too many people seem to think a bad roster = bad GM which = coach has no accountability. Treliving has improved the talent pool and is moving the team in the right direction. Apparently Treliving didn't believe Hartley was the coach for the direction they were moving. Fair enough. Move on.

I will say this. If you wait to fire the coach until everyone is happy about the firing then you probably waited too long.

I agree that this team isn't a strong puck possession team or one that should be shocked they didn't make the playoffs, regardless of coach. I disagree on two key points. The first (and this isn't a disagreement with you) is that just because the Flames aren't world beaters on paper that a coaching change shouldn't have been done. If the coach and the GM are not on the same page about how players should be used or how the team should play then changing the coach is the right thing to do. Even if you have the worst roster in the NHL. The second is that Hartley is taking a bullet for the failure of the GM. This isn't a decision based purely on season end results. There is clearly a disconnect between GM and coach, from everything I have heard the players weren't responding to the coaches message anymore (guys like Hartley have a shelf life), and the Flames did under perform using a lot of metrics unrelated to goal tending or season finish. Could they have said in the media that there were philosophical differences and left it at that? I guess. But that is only because some of the hard core fans are hyper sensitive and taking under performing = taking bullet for a poor finish with bad goal tending. Which isn't what the Flames are saying at all.

That is all accurate. But coaching does have a huge impact on the play of a young player. Baertschi doesn't look like a superstar but he does look like an NHL player in Vancouver. I really do wonder what Baertschi might look like if there was another coach in Calgary. That said, other young guys are flourishing in Calgary and did under Hartley so I am not saying it's all on the coach. But Hartley didn't seem to give Baertschi the same opportunities that he is getting in Vancouver.

Absolutely. Especially since he knocks the big deals out of the park. His biggest fault was his free agent signings early + the Bollig trade. At the time he was fresh into the league and dealing with a team in full rebuild that didn't know what they had in their young guys. He was a rookie GM and he overpaid for placeholder players to fill spots. Since then the only issue I had was the Bouma extension. His ability to address the goaltending, sign Monahan/Gaudreau, and find the right coach will be his next big tests. If it was Feaster in charge I personally would be nervous. I am not with Treliving.

Focusing on just the major moves and singings TRADES: 3-round pick for Bollig: D - Gave up a good asset for a fourth line player on a bad contract Glencross for a 2-round and 3-round pick: A - Great return on a rental player having a poor season Baertschi for a 2-round pick: D - Baertschi couldn't get ice time from the coach and wasn't going to sign in Calgary. That backed Treliving into a corner. Still, I would have preferred to see him develop in the AHL and traded in the summer then give a bargain to a rival. 1-round and two 2-round picks for Hamilton: A - Picked up a potential franchise D man for a mid round first and a couple of seconds. Stellar. Hudler for a 2-round and 4-round pick: B - Given how he had played most of the season this was a good return for a rental. Granlund for Shinkaruk: B - Granlund wasn't going to find a spot in Calgary and was about to be waiver eligible. Shinkaruk is a good add to the prospect pool. Russell for Jokipakka, Pollock, and a 2-round (or 1-round) pick: A - Fantastic return on a rental player FREE AGENTS: Raymond 3x3.2: F - I didn't mind taking a flier on Raymond. But not on a three year deal. Hiller 2x4.5: C - Obviously this wasn't a good season. But he got us in the playoffs last season. Short term deal. Not a bad deal. Engelland 3x2.9: C - I HATED the Engelland deal when it was signed. I still don't love it. But he is playing much much better as of late. Solid veteran on a rebuilding team that didn't have a lot of prospect depth at the position. Frolik 5x4.3: A - Great pick up EXTENSIONS: Brodie 5x4.7: A - One of the best value contracts in the NHL Hamilton 6x5.8: B - Solid deal Bouma 3x2.2: D - Too much money paid to a depth player following an abnormal year. Giordano 6x6.8: B - Keeping this contract under 7 and at 6 years was a big accomplishment In general Treliving has nailed it in trade. He has struggled in free agency, but most of those mistakes were made in his first season before the new generation of players has proven anything. His extensions on our key players have been very reasonable. I really don't see anything pantie knotting here. Someone can complain about what hasn't been addressed sure. But this is a rebuilding team and Treliving has had two season (one off season) to work. That is a heck of a resume for that time frame, especially considering the fact the Flames aren't contenders right now. EDIT: Removed some of the smaller moves, fixed the Russell trade, and added the Hudler trade.

Except we are a rebuilding team. Veterans usually want a good deal with term / dollar or a chance at the cup. Would you be happy if we signed some of those guys to three year deals with a bunch of cap? I wouldn't.

If it was easy to sign key veterans to short term deals on rebuilding teams then there wouldn't be any teams in rebuilds. Who are these vets you speak of? Trading assets or committing to more bad contracts is the wrong thing to do. There isn't a short term fix.

Your identifying holes like special teams, goal tending, lack of size, face offs, etc and being critical because they aren't addressed. Nobody is disputing those as issues. The point is that Treliving inherited a rebuild and he has done a lot of positive things in the limited time he has. It seems really silly to be critical because there are still issues on the team. Of course not all problems have been eliminated. In fact, going out and spending a bunch of resources to try and patch all of those issues is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is what a crappy GM would have done. Much better to stockpile long term resources and let your young guys develop then try and chase a quick fix.

Your one of the few people I have heard anywhere this critical of Treliving. You want to stand on an island then feel free. But maybe tone the condensation down a bit if that's your plan. I don't like some of the depth contracts he has signed. I don't like how he addressed the goaltending last season. I have been consistent saying that. But he has done much more good then bad. He has considerably added to the talent pool in his short time here and given up very little to do it. His drafts look solid. He has signed our best players to value contracts. You seem hung up on the fact we weren't great last season and you seem to think Hartley is taking the fall for it. The reality is a rebuild doesn't happen overnight and Hartley was let go for many reasons that go beyond last seasons results. You also seem hung up on the "black and blue" comments. I think you (and others) are making way to much out of that. The Flames want to get bigger and they want to be tougher to play against. That isn't exactly a revelation and it certainly isn't something to get upset about. It isn't like Treliving has went out and sacrificed talent for a goon squad. Despite his reputation Burke never did that either. He was as big on skill players as anyone. Doesn't mean he doesn't want to pad them with some size throughout the line up though.

If you think I drink the koolaid then clearly you aren't familiar with my posts. But the reality is the Flames are rebuilding and getting bent out of shape over a poor season is silly.

Treliving inherited a team in a rebuild. I think your expectations are way out of alignment if you think a lack of success is Treliving fault. The Flames have explained why they terminated Hartley and it wasn't because of standings results. Your way to hung up on the standings. If the coach isn't a fit he isn't a fit.

I said it in another thread, but this wasn't just about the roster or the success of Hartley. Treliving wants the Flames to play a certain way and the players to be deployed in a certain way. Hartley and Treliving clearly didn't see it the same way so there is a split. Hartley has also had an expiry date everywhere he has coached in the NHL. You don't have to read that hard between the lines to see he was starting to lose the room. Neither is necessarily an indictment of his ability as a coach.

Flames recent drafts since the dreadful drafts of 2006 and prior. 2014: Best player: Bennett (4) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Top 4 Other players of note: McDonald (34), Hickey (64) Overall: Too early to tell, but I give it a B- so far. Bennett was obvious, but Hickey looks like a good late pick-up. McDonald was a risk but so far the return looks good. The Smith pick is questionable (even though I liked it) but its too early to rule on that one. 2013: Best player: Monahan (6) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Top 2, possibly first overall Other players of note: Poirier (22), Klimchuk (28) Overall: I give this one a D. Monahan was a GREAT pick-up, but there was a set top 6 and we picked 6. So far the Poirier and Klimchuk don't look good and there were no hits in the later rounds. 2012: Best player: Gilles (75) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: First round Other players of note: Jankowski (21) Overall: If Gilles turns into the pro we think he can be this draft will be a B. Until then I call this a C-. Jankowski was an unnecessary gamble, fortunately it looks like he could be a decent pro. The jury is out on a few of the D but this is really a two pick draft for us and the jury is out on both players. 2011: Best player: Gaudreau (104) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Top 3, possibly first overall Other players of note: Wotherspoon (57) Overall: This one has to be an A. When you get a top 3 talent with a late draft pick you hit a home run even without any other hits. But we had other hits. Wotherspoon could be an NHL player and we traded every other player picked for real assets. Great draft. 2010: Best player: Ferland (133) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Second round Other players of note: Arnold (108) Overall: This is a tough draft to rank since we didn't pick in the top 60. Call it a C. Ferland looks like an NHL player and the jury is out on Arnold. That is reasonably okay without top 60 picks. 2009: Best player: Ortio (171) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Fourth round Other players of note: None Overall: This wasn't a great draft year. I will call it an F. Ortio was a good pick-up in the sixth round, but I don't see him as a full time NHL player. The jury is out on Erixon but he has really struggled to make the NHL (and not with the Flames). Everyone else is a bust. 2008: Best player: Brodie (114) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Top 10 Other players of note: Bouma (78) Overall: The Flames bombed on their top 60 picks but made up for it in the later rounds with one of our core players (Brodie) and a good depth guy (Bouma). Call it a B+. 2007: Best player: Backland (24) Where he would be drafted in a redraft: Top 15 Other players of note: None Overall: You could nit pick and say the Flames missed out on Subban or Brendan Smith but that would seriously be using hindsight to your advantage. Backlund was a great pick at 24. Unfortunately the rest of the draft was a bomb. Still, any draft you get a core player outside of the top 10 is a good one. Call it a B-. In general we managed to draft Bennett, Monahan, Gaudreau, Gilles, Backlund, and Brodie in 8 drafts with only two top 10 picks. That is a lot of top end talent. Unfortunately we haven't done as well in bringing in depth players. We have also struggled to pick well in the first round when the pick isn't in the top 10. Since 2006 I think the Flames get an unearned bad rap for drafting and development, but I do think there is plenty of room for improvement.

I agree with the hindsight argument most of the time. But some of the picks the Flames made were huge "whatza" picks the day they made them. I don't think it's just hindsight talking. That said, I think the Flames have been good for the last while. I have seriously disagreed with the Jankowski, Sieloff, Poirier, and Kanzig picks at the time they were made. They reeked of "I am smarter then you" picks from Weisbrod and Feaster. But outside of that they have made a lot of smart moves that we are benefiting from.

Certainly not for Niemi. He is an average goalie, 32 years old, and has 2-years left under contract. If your talking someone like Ben Bishop I am listening because I think you acquire him with the intent of signing him long term. But not Niemi. That said, if that Dallas 1st becomes a late second I would consider it. Niemi is a decent enough plan C to tandem with Ortio and buy you some time. His salary and term fits very well and he is an upgrade over Hiller/Ramo. But I would look at other options first.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But it will have an impact. For example, no expansion draft and the Flames could very well go after Hamonic. If there is an expansion draft we can't. If an expansion draft is announced that doesn't mean all of a sudden all of Murray/Fleury, Bishop/Vasilevskiy, Andersen/Gibson, Elliot/Allen, etc become available. But it does mean that there is a better chance that Treliving can find a goalie because more teams will be open to the possibility of trading their second goalie. I really don't know why anyone would want to shut down off season speculation. Especially over a legitimate discussion like the availability of a goalie for the Flames.

Sure, he could do a lot of things. Lots of other factors also come into play. In Tampa's case the two biggest factors are how the rest of the playoffs go and if they can sign Stamkos. But that doesn't mean that the expansion draft doesn't improve the chance that the player becomes available or that we shouldn't speculate. I am looking at all of the teams with two good goalies. They have the luxury of moving one and if the expansion draft happens they will have a requirement to move one. Sure they can wait until the season or even into next off season. But the longer they wait the more their backs will be against the wall. Definitely. If the Flames win one of the top 3 spots then we don't have a first to trade and it changes what we do at forward. But if we don't that first could end up on the table and we still need to bring on another forward.

The expansion will be announced in June if it's going to happen. If it is announced it will impact what happens over the summer. If it is announced it will change which goalies are available.

True, unless the expansion draft goes through. Then there is pressure to move him. They could still keep him for next season, but then they are backing up against the wall because they will have a time limit to move him. Varlamov is a good comparison. But he had better numbers, a bit more experience, and there wasn't an expansion draft forcing teams to move goalies. That said, I don't think your far off. I think a 1st and a 3rd or something like that. At least in terms of value. Tampa might be looking for roster players instead.

On the first paragraph, totally agree. On the second, I didn't see anyone say that. There were a lot of concerns with guys like Wideman and Hudler being able to duplicate their seasons and the possibility of team regression, but that's another topic!

I think he played pretty well in a limited call-up. The question is whether he could do that over a full season on a playoff bound team. We see a lot of players look good in short call-ups but fail to handle a full competitive season. His season reminded me a bit of Derek Smith's. Lots of supporters since he came out of nowhere and showed he could play the game. But at the end of the day he is an AHLer. That said, this is his first season on North American ice and he at least proved he can play the game at the top level. I would love to see him back on a small short term contract to see if he can take another step. He can play the 5/6/7 spot or play well in the AHL if someone passes him.

You said it. But I don't agree with any of it. Teams can't afford to keep two starting caliber goalies even without an expansion. To suggest that goalies wouldn't become available if the league only allows you to protect one is wrong imo.

There are plenty of teams that have two good goalies that need to be protected. Andersen + Gibson. Bishop + Vasilevskey. Fleury + Murray. Etc. There will be more teams selling then teams buying if expansion goes through because nobody wants to lose a great asset for nothing. There will also be goalies available that otherwise wouldn't be. Even without expansion there are goalies available. But if expansion happens the Flames are in great shape as buyers.

If expansion happens there will be a number of goalies available and not a lot of buyers. The limited market usually makes it a buyers market for goalies. Which is why you rarely see them go for very high prices.