Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cross16]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am gonna give you an out. If NYI manage to swing the 1st pick overall, do you still support Treliving?

 

I don't understand why this matters. Optically sure but the pick is gone. Whether it winds up 1-2-3 is now up to luck. Makes no sense to me that luck is the final straw in your decision. 

[Cowtownguy]

40 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't understand why this matters. Optically sure but the pick is gone. Whether it winds up 1-2-3 is now up to luck. Makes no sense to me that luck is the final straw in your decision. 

If you constantly acquire players who are less talented than what you trade away, you become weaker relative to others. Treliving could have and should have made us stronger relative to others by simply protecting the pick. He just assumed that we would perform so well that a top pick would not be available to NYI. So, it is not just a matter of optics. It is a matter of very poor judgement. Surely, you agree that it is important for General Managers to ensure that we at least break even when trading players.

 

[Cowtownguy]

I am assuming that we are in agreement that Hamonic is not equivalent to a top pick.

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am assuming that we are in agreement that Hamonic is not equivalent to a top pick.

 

I thought they overpaid for him anyway. But here is my problem with saying this is an automatic fire, your are penalizing him for a situation so far beyond his control. I think we all agree this team should he in the playoffs no? I also think we would agree that the Hamonic trade made the flames better no? 

If the islanders wind up with a top 3 pick out of this it will be due to some of the worst luck we will have seen in sometime. In the last month and chance the flames have lost their 3 best offensive players, top 4 Dman, and their starting goalie. They follow that up with seeing a massive and unprecedented run of poor goaltending and poor shooting and then on top of that the islanders are going to have to turn a less than 25% chance or getting they pick into that pick. And we expect Treliving to have known this when he made the trade?

 

yea the response is going to be he "simply" should have protected the pick. Well we don't know he didn't try. Let's remember two things, 1 the smith trade was made with a condition of whether or not the flames would make the playoffs. 2 Treliving got a pick back in the deal also with condions around the playoffs. So I don't think this idea they had so much cconfidence in their team isn't quite accurate because it appears there were steps made with the provision of not making the playoffs in mind. Also remember there were a good 4 or 5 teams in on Hamonic so I think it's very possible that snow wasn't taking the deal is the pick was lottery protected. I know then pick is a later round pick but funny enough your odds of getting an NHL In the 4th rounder are not drastically different than the mid teens of the first round. So again certainly appears to me that some provision were built into this trade. 

 

i have heard Treliving say that yes when he made the deal he was thinking he had a playoff team but who didn't? And even if they did miss you wouldn't not expect them to miss like this. If this pick was in the 10-15 range so we still care? 

 

At the the end of the day I do think Treliving made a mistake and mis read his team, but that's a mistake you can learn from. If this turns into a lottery pick that sucks but it's due to factors way outside Treliving control. I disagree with the idea of firing people for that. I've never been a fan of the Hamonic trade but I just don't agree with firing him over it. All GMs make mistakes. 

[Cowtownguy]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I thought they overpaid for him anyway. But here is my problem with saying this is an automatic fire, your are penalizing him for a situation so far beyond his control. I think we all agree this team should he in the playoffs no? I also think we would agree that the Hamonic trade made the flames better no? 

If the islanders wind up with a top 3 pick out of this it will be due to some of the worst luck we will have seen in sometime. In the last month and chance the flames have lost their 3 best offensive players, top 4 Dman, and their starting goalie. They follow that up with seeing a massive and unprecedented run of poor goaltending and poor shooting and then on top of that the islanders are going to have to turn a less than 25% chance or getting they pick into that pick. And we expect Treliving to have known this when he made the trade?

 

yea the response is going to be he "simply" should have protected the pick. Well we don't know he didn't try. Let's remember two things, 1 the smith trade was made with a condition of whether or not the flames would make the playoffs. 2 Treliving got a pick back in the deal also with condions around the playoffs. So I don't think this idea they had so much cconfidence in their team isn't quite accurate because it appears there were steps made with the provision of not making the playoffs in mind. Also remember there were a good 4 or 5 teams in on Hamonic so I think it's very possible that snow wasn't taking the deal is the pick was lottery protected.

 

i have heard Treliving say that yes when he made the deal he was thinking he had a playoff team but who didn't? And even if they did miss you wouldn't not expect them to miss like this. If this pick was in the 10-15 range so we still care? 

 

At the the end of the day I do think Treliving made a mistake and mis read his team, but that's a mistake you can learn from. If this turns into a lottery pick that sucks but it's due to factors way outside Treliving control. I disagree with the idea of firing people for that. 

I am not sure what to make of Hamonic at this point. He makes a lot of dumb plays in the defensive end. Frankly, I think Kulak is looking pretty good compared to these other Dmen given the price tags. Give me 5 Kulaks and a Gio, and blow the cash on players who can shoot the puck on net.

 

I would assume that Treliving wanted to protect the pick. Not doing so would be madness (like Chiapet madness). I assume that Snow was unwilling to do so. Thus, the trade became Hamonic for whatever lies behind door #2. That was a risky trade to make. Yes, I believed that we would likely make the playoffs and that the risk was lower than what it is turning out to be. Nevertheless, it is a major component of his job that take responsibility for trades. He has blown a few of them. It matters not as I think that you have answered my question at the very beginning of your post agreeing that we overpaid.

 

I would not fire Treliving myself, at least not yet. For some reason, I think that he is a relatively intelligent and hard working manager. He handled the expansion rather well IMO. As you have said, there would be a lot of turmoil if we changed the GM again. Having said that, every Brouwer or Hamonic trade reduces his hockey capital IMO. 

[xstrike]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

How is a lotto win by another team a fireable offence?

He brought in a top D-man onto a strong defensive team.

We were 19th in goals against, but 26th in goals for.

Most penalties (toss up with ANA) in the league.

We are bottom 5 in home wins.

 

You can blame the signings, trades, FA signings, etc. on the GM, but I think the blame for a lotto picks falls elsewhere. 

 

I see it differently. His failure to protect the pick was the mistake. You can argue if we were a playoff team then it wouldn't have mattered but that's the thing. No one is guaranteed to make the playoffs. Not lotto protecting the pick was a stupid mistake if the consequences of the mistake come to fruition then he's fired. If the consequences don't occur, then it will be brushed under the rug whether it should be or not.

 

It's the same as in a normal job, you do something stupid, you get fired if it hurts the company and forgiven if it does not. Sometimes you are fired either way.

[tmac70]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I thought they overpaid for him anyway. But here is my problem with saying this is an automatic fire, your are penalizing him for a situation so far beyond his control. I think we all agree this team should he in the playoffs no? I also think we would agree that the Hamonic trade made the flames better no? 

If the islanders wind up with a top 3 pick out of this it will be due to some of the worst luck we will have seen in sometime. In the last month and chance the flames have lost their 3 best offensive players, top 4 Dman, and their starting goalie. They follow that up with seeing a massive and unprecedented run of poor goaltending and poor shooting and then on top of that the islanders are going to have to turn a less than 25% chance or getting they pick into that pick. And we expect Treliving to have known this when he made the trade?

 

yea the response is going to be he "simply" should have protected the pick. Well we don't know he didn't try. Let's remember two things, 1 the smith trade was made with a condition of whether or not the flames would make the playoffs. 2 Treliving got a pick back in the deal also with condions around the playoffs. So I don't think this idea they had so much cconfidence in their team isn't quite accurate because it appears there were steps made with the provision of not making the playoffs in mind. Also remember there were a good 4 or 5 teams in on Hamonic so I think it's very possible that snow wasn't taking the deal is the pick was lottery protected. I know then pick is a later round pick but funny enough your odds of getting an NHL In the 4th rounder are not drastically different than the mid teens of the first round. So again certainly appears to me that some provision were built into this trade. 

 

i have heard Treliving say that yes when he made the deal he was thinking he had a playoff team but who didn't? And even if they did miss you wouldn't not expect them to miss like this. If this pick was in the 10-15 range so we still care? 

 

At the the end of the day I do think Treliving made a mistake and mis read his team, but that's a mistake you can learn from. If this turns into a lottery pick that sucks but it's due to factors way outside Treliving control. I disagree with the idea of firing people for that. I've never been a fan of the Hamonic trade but I just don't agree with firing him over it. All GMs make mistakes. 

Yes poor decisions can happen. However,whats Trevlings mandate 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, xstrike said:

I see it differently. His failure to protect the pick was the mistake. You can argue if we were a playoff team then it wouldn't have mattered but that's the thing. No one is guaranteed to make the playoffs. Not lotto protecting the pick was a stupid mistake if the consequences of the mistake come to fruition then he's fired. If the consequences don't occur, then it will be brushed under the rug whether it should be or not.

 

It's the same as in a normal job, you do something stupid, you get fired if it hurts the company and forgiven if it does not. Sometimes you are fired either way.

 

So, if NY wins the lotto he should be fired, but if they don't win the lotto he shouldn't be fired?

That makes no sense.  

[xstrike]

44 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, if NY wins the lotto he should be fired, but if they don't win the lotto he shouldn't be fired?

That makes no sense.  

He might deserve to be fired either way but if it's a top 3 pick he's not going to be forgive due to the terrible results in caused. If it's not a top 3, he still put the team in a precarious position. But because the result wasn't as bad as it could be, he may be forgiven.

[tmac70]

6 hours ago, xstrike said:

He might deserve to be fired either way but if it's a top 3 pick he's not going to be forgive due to the terrible results in caused. If it's not a top 3, he still put the team in a precarious position. But because the result wasn't as bad as it could be, he may be forgiven.

One bad decision doesn't define the whole. What is more alarming is his inability to provide a good roster, multilpe poor choices on UFA contracts inept player choices, poor selection of coaches, player personal ect. Trevling took a gamble in Hamonic and we git the player but the end result of playoffs is missing. I am fine with the risk reward, however when you look at the whole, his track record is not good on player selection, contract extension are his only strong suit 

[phoenix66]

16 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am gonna give you an out. If NYI manage to swing the 1st pick overall, do you still support Treliving?

I do..  its hindsight , and I dont believe for a moment he "forgot" to Lottery protect the pick.. it was part of the negotiation .I dont know if you watched the draft when that trade went down, it showed BT and Snow , both exhausted back at their tables.. it was a grind

Worst case, NYI get first and take Dahlin .. we essentially then traded a prospect (albeit a high profile one ) for an established, proven, top 4 Dman , who I still believe will show us better then he showed this year .

And again , still respecting the detail that he is a high profile prospect,  do we need more D prospects ??

Its no different than Burke essentially trading Seguin for Kessel.. he bet on his team , his team let him down in this case.

[cross16]

10 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Yes poor decisions can happen. However,whats Trevlings mandate 

 

This is not talked about enough IMO.

 

I think it's pretty well known that this ownership groups mandates playoffs every year and views any season that is not playoffs, for any reason, a failure. Puts a ton of pressure on your hockey ops because you need to get them help every year, especially when this core really isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.  

 

So even for me, who was preaching patience, i'm not sure I can lay all the blame on Treliving for being aggressive because I think he has to be. 

[MAC331]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is not talked about enough IMO.

 

I think it's pretty well known that this ownership groups mandates playoffs every year and views any season that is not playoffs, for any reason, a failure. Puts a ton of pressure on your hockey ops because you need to get them help every year, especially when this core really isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.  

 

So even for me, who was preaching patience, i'm not sure I can lay all the blame on Treliving for being aggressive because I think he has to be. 

I think when you talk about this core one should use the word "yet". There has been some bumps along the way to be absorbed with Bennett not progressing as one would have wanted. Tkachuk is good but still only in his 2nd season and Jankowski in his rookie season. Six of the core Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Ferland, Giordano and Hamilton had good seasons however the support players did not do their part. BT has some important dealing to do this offseason if we want a better team next season.

[The_People1]

Well, here's my dilemma with BT. 

 

He needs to get this team back into the playoffs next season or the hammer falls on him.  Yet, the smart thing to do is to use this year's failure to justify a retool, as in, 

 

1) Trade Giordano for picks or a young piece or two.

2) Tank it next year.

3) Get Tkachuck signed long term on a good deal because the team sucked and dragged down his stats.

4) Come back super strong in 2019/20. 

--> Valimaki, Fox, and Dube NHL ready.

--> one of Rittich, Gillies, or Parsons emerges as starter.

[redfire11]

18 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

I am assuming that we are in agreement that Hamonic is not equivalent to a top pick.

 

4 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

I do..  its hindsight , and I dont believe for a moment he "forgot" to Lottery protect the pick.. it was part of the negotiation .I dont know if you watched the draft when that trade went down, it showed BT and Snow , both exhausted back at their tables.. it was a grind

Worst case, NYI get first and take Dahlin .. we essentially then traded a prospect (albeit a high profile one ) for an established, proven, top 4 Dman , who I still believe will show us better then he showed this year .

And again , still respecting the detail that he is a high profile prospect,  do we need more D prospects ??

Its no different than Burke essentially trading Seguin for Kessel.. he bet on his team , his team let him down in this case.

Harmonic in my books was a good trade. BT made a mistake 1) Not protecting 1st 2) Putting complete trust in GG and his failed system

So we got Harmonis 3.85 mil for 3 years

Similar trades that have Recently Happened that we can gauge Harmonics trade value.

Ryan McDonagh  4.7 for 2 years

Tomas Tatar 5.3 for 4 years

Rick Nash 3.9 for 1 year

Vegas got future consideration from NYI

Matt Duchene 6.0 2 years

We got nearly Harmonics trade value from Kris Russel

[Flyerfan52]

6 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

I do..  its hindsight , and I dont believe for a moment he "forgot" to Lottery protect the pick.. it was part of the negotiation .I dont know if you watched the draft when that trade went down, it showed BT and Snow , both exhausted back at their tables.. it was a grind

Worst case, NYI get first and take Dahlin .. we essentially then traded a prospect (albeit a high profile one ) for an established, proven, top 4 Dman , who I still believe will show us better then he showed this year .

And again , still respecting the detail that he is a high profile prospect,  do we need more D prospects ??

Its no different than Burke essentially trading Seguin for Kessel.. he bet on his team , his team let him down in this case.

C'mon, top 3 protected wouldn't have been the breaker unless BT is very naive. Top 3 protected might cost a 3rd some other year with the 1st being postponed but with everyone in the hockey world knowing about Dahlin BT failed by not protecting it. Even safegaurding only for 1st over all should have been a given. (& I liked the trade otherwise. But I never expected the Flames to be a lotto team. BT is paid to protect against even what he hoped were slim chances of a lottery pick.)

 

Even in the trade for Stastny when there was no chance of the Jets missing the playoffs Chevy got top 3 protection.

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

 

 

Even in the trade for Stastny when there was no chance of the Jets missing the playoffs Chevy got top 3 protection.

 

Which would have made it pretty easy for the Blues to agree to. Much harder for Snow when it was far from a given the Flames would be in the playoffs. Every negotiation is different. 

 

This is a GM who put a playoff condition on the Smith trade, refuses to give out NMC, has been very schrewed in contract signings, has the reputations of being one of the more thorough GMs in the league and we are now going to believe he forgot to, or neglected to, protect a 1st round pick he was giving up? Hard for me to believe that. 

[The_People1]

27 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Which would have made it pretty easy for the Blues to agree to. Much harder for Snow when it was far from a given the Flames would be in the playoffs. Every negotiation is different. 

 

This is a GM who put a playoff condition on the Smith trade, refuses to give out NMC, has been very schrewed in contract signings, has the reputations of being one of the more thorough GMs in the league and we are now going to believe he forgot to, or neglected to, protect a 1st round pick he was giving up? Hard for me to believe that. 

 

The Islanders were asking for two first round picks.  I wouldn't be surprised if BT countered with two second rounders and then one first round pick, lottery unprotected with full confidence his team would be playoff bound.

 

Unfortunately, BT misdiagnosed his own team and most importantly for me, misrated Hamonic.  Where in hindsight, the Hamilton trade was a good one and we'd do it again if given the chance, we can say the Hamonic trade is not good.  And we are still to find out how much worse it will be once the lottery happens.

[Cowtownguy]

13 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Which would have made it pretty easy for the Blues to agree to. Much harder for Snow when it was far from a given the Flames would be in the playoffs. Every negotiation is different. 

 

This is a GM who put a playoff condition on the Smith trade, refuses to give out NMC, has been very schrewed in contract signings, has the reputations of being one of the more thorough GMs in the league and we are now going to believe he forgot to, or neglected to, protect a 1st round pick he was giving up? Hard for me to believe that. 

It is equally difficult for me to believe that the entire trade hinged on what both GMs must have believed was a very remote possibility. That is, that the Flames could draft that highly. It is still remote, but the deeper we sink, the more attention this will draw, and deservedly so. I think that this was poor judgement on his part. The fact that you were not exactly thrilled about the trade when it was made suggests to me that you agree to some extent.

 

In the end, I suppose that it matters not what we think. If you own the Flames, however, and the unlikely scenario arises that we traded away our highest pick in the history of the organization for Hamonic, do you just say that, "meh, Satoshi happens"? The same logic is true for the Brouwer trade. It was unlikely that Brouwer would play this poorly, but he has. A general manager is not evaluated on the basis of making logical trades. Any of us could do that. He is assessed on deeper ice hockey insights that are ultimately successes. He is not that different from a stock broker who deals with risk on a daily basis, and you fire a broker who makes logical trades that ruin you financially. He could have hedged that bet. I think that ownership has to start thinking that the problems in the organization run deep from the roster into management. 

 

[Cowtownguy]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The Islanders were asking for two first round picks.  I wouldn't be surprised if BT countered with two second rounders and then one first round pick, lottery unprotected with full confidence his team would be playoff bound.

 

Unfortunately, BT misdiagnosed his own team and most importantly for me, misrated Hamonic.  Where in hindsight, the Hamilton trade was a good one and we'd do it again if given the chance, we can say the Hamonic trade is not good.  And we are still to find out how much worse it will be once the lottery happens.

I thought the same thing. If we accept that Treliving misdiagnosed his own team, and Hamonic, the converse is also true. That is, that Snow more accurately assessed our chances and Hamonic's value. 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The Islanders were asking for two first round picks.  I wouldn't be surprised if BT countered with two second rounders and then one first round pick, lottery unprotected with full confidence his team would be playoff bound.

 

Unfortunately, BT misdiagnosed his own team and most importantly for me, misrated Hamonic.  Where in hindsight, the Hamilton trade was a good one and we'd do it again if given the chance, we can say the Hamonic trade is not good.  And we are still to find out how much worse it will be once the lottery happens.

 

I think we are sitting at 2.5% chance of 1st overall right now.

If you look at the month of March, I would classify it as 50% team, 50% coach fails.

Part of that team failure is key injuries.

 

Forget Match and we are a playoff team.  Even with all the struggles with the team though the year.  The PP failed us in March.  Goatending failed us in March.  Everyone was aware of Smith's injury and yet he was left to start when he looked very rusty.  Goal scoring dried up.  Strangely enough, the coach was well aware of Monahan's injuries.  Nothing different was done.  

 

How could BT have predicted this?  

[tmac70]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is not talked about enough IMO.

 

I think it's pretty well known that this ownership groups mandates playoffs every year and views any season that is not playoffs, for any reason, a failure. Puts a ton of pressure on your hockey ops because you need to get them help every year, especially when this core really isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things.  

 

So even for me, who was preaching patience, i'm not sure I can lay all the blame on Treliving for being aggressive because I think he has to be. 

 So based on your assessment and his mandate, we can agree he has not obtained that objective.

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Which would have made it pretty easy for the Blues to agree to. Much harder for Snow when it was far from a given the Flames would be in the playoffs. Every negotiation is different. 

 

This is a GM who put a playoff condition on the Smith trade, refuses to give out NMC, has been very schrewed in contract signings, has the reputations of being one of the more thorough GMs in the league and we are now going to believe he forgot to, or neglected to, protect a 1st round pick he was giving up? Hard for me to believe that. 

 

Then you don’t make the deal. Continue to be schrewed in negotiations. He failed plain and simple. Fine, he safeguarded in another deal, but didn’t with the most our most important pick in this draft. It is why it is a bad move.

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think we are sitting at 2.5% chance of 1st overall right now.

If you look at the month of March, I would classify it as 50% team, 50% coach fails.

Part of that team failure is key injuries.

 

Forget Match and we are a playoff team.  Even with all the struggles with the team though the year.  The PP failed us in March.  Goatending failed us in March.  Everyone was aware of Smith's injury and yet he was left to start when he looked very rusty.  Goal scoring dried up.  Strangely enough, the coach was well aware of Monahan's injuries.  Nothing different was done.  

 

How could BT have predicted this?  

This team wasn’t a playoff team before March. We haven’t really been a playoff team since the 7 game winning streak. And we were mostly healthy until recently. We’ve had a bad season and saying without March we are a good enough team is sugarcoating it. We had one really good stretch and one more ok stretch and the rest was subpar. That doesn’t cut it, and is not playoff caliber. 

 

Cant blame injuries. Look at other teams who’ve had it worse for most of the season, and yet we failed to distance ourselves when we were actually really healthy.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

This team wasn’t a playoff team before March. We haven’t really been a playoff team since the 7 game winning streak. And we were mostly healthy until recently. We’ve had a bad season and saying without March we are a good enough team is sugarcoating it. We had one really good stretch and one more ok stretch and the rest was subpar. That doesn’t cut it, and is not playoff caliber. 

 

Cant blame injuries. Look at other teams who’ve had it worse for most of the season, and yet we failed to distance ourselves when we were actually really healthy.

 

Doesn't matter where we were.  8 losses out of 9 and we are dead n the water.  2 of 18 points.  2x losses to SJS, 1 loss to ANA and 1 loss to LA.  Wins in those 4, plus 1 against the Yotes, and we have 90, ANA has 89, SJS has 94 and we have 90.  Makes for a different finish doesn't it.

 

Regardless of the rest of the season, March was the dagger.  Technically, the first game after TDL, we started down the road to oblivion.  15 games played.  3 wins. 1 OTL.

30 points possible.  7 points gained.