Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Feels like chicken and the egg though.  You didn't draft a RHS RW so you reach in UFA to sign Troy Brouwer.  That didn't work out so you reach in UFA again for James Neal.  That was disastrous so you sign a LW Coleman and throw him over to RW.

 

Coronato was a bit of a reach in his draft.  Ranked 15ish at the time.  But if you don't reach in the draft for RHS RW, then you reach in UFA.

 

So you target RS then what happens when you need a LW or a D? Coronato also wasn't a reach at all and Coleman played RW in Tampa. 

 

Point is, if you are not afforded patience to build through the draft then you need to add key pieces via UFA. That alone is going to lead to pricey contracts and then when you add in the fact your going to have to pay more to key players to Calgary you have your results we've seen here. Drafting more RS wouldn't have changed that. 

[jjgallow]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/maple-leafs-sign-goalie-martin-jones-to-one-year-850k-contract/

 

 Man I know it's only a one-year but I am just not missing Treliving at all, lol

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/maple-leafs-sign-goalie-martin-jones-to-one-year-850k-contract/

 

 Man I know it's only a one-year but I am just not missing Treliving at all, lol

 

Maybe we can shut this sucka down, since he's not the GM here.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe we can shut this sucka down, since he's not the GM here.

maybe!!! Can you move it to the general NHL section?

 

then we can be in awe with the way in which BT sees GM-ing, similar to the way I did in NHL '94! Without the reigns being pulled back he is quite the juggler... maybe he has a vision?

[conundrumed]

Anyone else think that he's looking to move Brody, possibly retaining 25%, to get cap compliant? Again, the Murray LTIR is yet another compounding stain on this #@%#ing league.

But do they mot have to be cap compliant WITH Murray on Day 1? He wasn't on the IR to end last year, last I remember it only carries over if that is the case. Some day I'll ask google.lol

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Anyone else think that he's looking to move Brody, possibly retaining 25%, to get cap compliant? Again, the Murray LTIR is yet another compounding stain on this #@%#ing league.

But do they mot have to be cap compliant WITH Murray on Day 1? He wasn't on the IR to end last year, last I remember it only carries over if that is the case. Some day I'll ask google.lol

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyone+else+think+that+he's+looking+to+move+Brody%2C+possibly+retaining+25%%2C+to+get+cap+compliant%3F+Again%2C+the+Murray+LTIR+is+yet+another+compounding+stain+on+this+%23%40%%23ing+league. But+do+they+mot+have+to+be+cap+compliant+WITH+Murray+on+Day+1%3F+&sca_esv=555458272&sxsrf=AB5stBj54LseEQ1t9EkF_x1mxSaHuRzMYQ%3A1691677005723&source=hp&ei=TfHUZPScKZrw0PEPzO2J4Ak&iflsig=AD69kcEAAAAAZNT_XbSaSBWJIT1jp_hbvFQJMB63QjPr&ved=0ahUKEwi09_33o9KAAxUaODQIHcx2ApwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=nyone+else+think+that+he's+looking+to+move+Brody%2C+possibly+retaining+25%%2C+to+get+cap+compliant%3F+Again%2C+the+Murray+LTIR+is+yet+another+compounding+stain+on+this+%23%40%%23ing+league. But+do+they+mot+have+to+be+cap+compliant+WITH+Murray+on+Day+1%3F+&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IvABbnlvbmUgZWxzZSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGhlJ3MgbG9va2luZyB0byBtb3ZlIEJyb2R5LCBwb3NzaWJseSByZXRhaW5pbmcgMjUlLCB0byBnZXQgY2FwIGNvbXBsaWFudD8gQWdhaW4sIHRoZSBNdXJyYXkgTFRJUiBpcyB5ZXQgYW5vdGhlciBjb21wb3VuZGluZyBzdGFpbiBvbiB0aGlzICNAJSNpbmcgbGVhZ3VlLgoKQnV0IGRvIHRoZXkgbW90IGhhdmUgdG8gYmUgY2FwIGNvbXBsaWFudCBXSVRIIE11cnJheSBvbiBEYXkgMT8gSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

 

huh

 

that actually worked.

 

https://puckinleafs.ca/no-a-move-isnt-necessary-to-become-cap-compliant/

 

google is scary

 

I think BT will stay under the cap for now, he can do math.     but he can't do risk management.  he's left zero room for error.    in hockey.

[jjgallow]

 

Signs Matthews to $53m, to ensure Toronto will be an old team for next 6 years

 

Says it's about long term security

 

Lets him play injured.

 

We seen all this before.

[Thebrewcrew]

I think Marner is going to be "ran out of town" by the media/fans. He has the NMC and holds all of the cards though.

 

If Marner agrees to move on, I think BT is forced into another Tkachuk trade. Player gives a very short list of teams, BT has little to work with. Gonna be really tough to get favorable reviews on a trade return, trading a hometown kid in THAT market. Even with the masses wanting Marner to be dealt.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

We seen all this before.

We have. That boner you have for BT must be really painful by now. Who needs Viagra? lol

[The_People1]

Marner needs to go.  Too much cap eaten by someone who doesn't play playoff hockey.  Flames should be interested this summer since the Flames aren't going to the playoffs next year.  Try to flip him at the next TDL.

 

Also looks like Leafs may be done with Samsonov.  Woll is probably their goalie moving forward... BUT maybe BT will target Markstrom to replace Samsonov.

 

BT needs to rebuild that entire Blueline and if probably starts with unloading Mariner's cap hit.

[sak22]

49 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Marner needs to go.  Too much cap eaten by someone who doesn't play playoff hockey.  Flames should be interested this summer since the Flames aren't going to the playoffs next year.  Try to flip him at the next TDL.

 

Also looks like Leafs may be done with Samsonov.  Woll is probably their goalie moving forward... BUT maybe BT will target Markstrom to replace Samsonov.

 

BT needs to rebuild that entire Blueline and if probably starts with unloading Mariner's cap hit.

You just answered the likelihood of acquiring Marner in the first paragraph.  NMC

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

Marner needs to go.  Too much cap eaten by someone who doesn't play playoff hockey.  Flames should be interested this summer since the Flames aren't going to the playoffs next year.  Try to flip him at the next TDL.

 

Also looks like Leafs may be done with Samsonov.  Woll is probably their goalie moving forward... BUT maybe BT will target Markstrom to replace Samsonov.

 

BT needs to rebuild that entire Blueline and if probably starts with unloading Mariner's cap hit.

 

If he's looking to rebuild the blue-line yeah.  we got some pieces.  and they got draft picks (a few left anyway).   

[cross16]

The axe to grind for some on BT is pretty weird and disappointing. Really don't understand at all why he has to come up so much. Feels awfully petty to me. 

 

I don't think Marner is the problem and I think he played better than most, just thought he was a bit snake bitten. I get the cap argument but IMO the biggest trap you can fall into is thinking that cap space is more valuable then talent. It's not a good FA crop this year so if you are going to move Marner you better get the right return. Moving him for cap is a big mistake IMO. 

 

I'd actually be more concerned about the Rielly deal than I would be about the Marner one if you want to talk cap space. Year 2 of an 8 year deal at 7.5 for a high end puck moving dman and PP QB and your PP was a huge factor in costing you the series and you had to amend your style of game in order to defend better. Yikes. 

 

I don't think the Leafs have the core (in particular the blueline) to win a cup and I don't see a great path to it. I do think if Matthews had of been healthy they likely win that series so I don't think it's as grim as it seems but the path to winning a cup is blurry because I don't see how they are going to build a championship caliber blueline with the assets available to them. 

[jjgallow]

59 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The axe to grind for some on BT is pretty weird and disappointing. Really don't understand at all why he has to come up so much. Feels awfully petty to me. 

 

I don't think Marner is the problem and I think he played better than most, just thought he was a bit snake bitten. I get the cap argument but IMO the biggest trap you can fall into is thinking that cap space is more valuable then talent. It's not a good FA crop this year so if you are going to move Marner you better get the right return. Moving him for cap is a big mistake IMO. 

 

I'd actually be more concerned about the Rielly deal than I would be about the Marner one if you want to talk cap space. Year 2 of an 8 year deal at 7.5 for a high end puck moving dman and PP QB and your PP was a huge factor in costing you the series and you had to amend your style of game in order to defend better. Yikes. 

 

I don't think the Leafs have the core (in particular the blueline) to win a cup and I don't see a great path to it. I do think if Matthews had of been healthy they likely win that series so I don't think it's as grim as it seems but the path to winning a cup is blurry because I don't see how they are going to build a championship caliber blueline with the assets available to them. 

 

I do understand your frustration (with me lol), and I admit it does seem like there's a vendetta.    But there's really not.   Treliving's being discussed across all of hockey right now, and not too favorably.

 

There's a lot of true gentlemen on here and that's why nobody "yet" bumped this thread.   

 

For me, it's not the man.    It the short-term moves.    Now if that's the owners, fine, but, man oh man it sure doesn't look like it now.

 

There is Sooo much...that I actually think we should learn from.     

 

7 years ago, we agreed on something.   😅    (I'm joking, it actually happens pretty often)

 

 

 

The first mention of Cale Makar on these boards, by you.   Our scouts knew what he was.   Draft was deemed week, and upgradeable.   We were artificially lower it in after numerous other short term decisions. You were intrigued, I was intrigued.     He was in our backyard.

 

But he was a "project".     Sure enough, Valimaki was ready sooner.

 

I don't totally discredit organisations like you think.   I think they knew very well of Makar's potential.   But they went with the D that would be ready the fastest.    Big, not bad at anything, all checkmarks, no uncertainties, no warts.   I feel the Flames knew, and went with the short term decision.   As they did 95% of the time.

 

We got a draft coming up where we get to pick from long-term and short term success.  We have a busy summer where we get to pick between long term and short term decisions.

 

All I am saying, is I hope we learn from it.     And yeah, if we don't learn from it, that does actually vindicate Treliving lol.   But hopefully we do.

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I do understand your frustration (with me lol), and I admit it does seem like there's a vendetta.    But there's really not.   Treliving's being discussed across all of hockey right now, and not too favorably.

 

There's a lot of true gentlemen on here and that's why nobody "yet" bumped this thread.   

 

For me, it's not the man.    It the short-term moves.    Now if that's the owners, fine, but, man oh man it sure doesn't look like it now.

 

There is Sooo much...that I actually think we should learn from.     

 

7 years ago, we agreed on something.   😅    (I'm joking, it actually happens pretty often)

 

 

 

The first mention of Cale Makar on these boards, by you.   Our scouts knew what he was.   Draft was deemed week, and upgradeable.   We were artificially lower it in after numerous other short term decisions. You were intrigued, I was intrigued.     He was in our backyard.

 

But he was a "project".     Sure enough, Valimaki was ready sooner.

 

I don't totally discredit organisations like you think.   I think they knew very well of Makar's potential.   But they went with the D that would be ready the fastest.    Big, not bad at anything, all checkmarks, no uncertainties, no warts.   I feel the Flames knew, and went with the short term decision.   As they did 95% of the time.

 

We got a draft coming up where we get to pick from long-term and short term success.  We have a busy summer where we get to pick between long term and short term decisions.

 

All I am saying, is I hope we learn from it.     And yeah, if we don't learn from it, that does actually vindicate Treliving lol.   But hopefully we do.

 

No frustration from me i just don't get it especially when (as this post shows) there is usually little logic behind it and rather some weird conspiracy style bulletin board rationale.  Someone not getting a dman taken 12 picks ahead of their draft spot is the GMs fault which is weird but i'm sure you'll connect the dots for me in some post that also makes no sense. 

 

As I've said for multiple years now if you want to lay this on the feet of the GM and ignore the pattern that is the Flames organization, go nuts if that is what makes you feel better. I'm sure you said the same thing about Sutter, the GM, and i'm sure you'll say it about Conroy soon enough too because I don't think the Flames (or really any organization for that matter) are capable of hiring a GM that will meet your approval. 

 

If you want to talk about what lessons you want the Org to learn or do differently I'd be here for that discussion but linking it all back to Treliving (especially when didn't do any of the complaints you have differently from the last several GMs) is where it makes no sense IMO. 

 

[jjgallow]

25 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

No frustration from me i just don't get it especially when (as this post shows) there is usually little logic behind it and rather some weird conspiracy style bulletin board rationale.  Someone not getting a dman taken 12 picks ahead of their draft spot is the GMs fault which is weird but i'm sure you'll connect the dots for me in some post that also makes no sense. 

 

As I've said for multiple years now if you want to lay this on the feet of the GM and ignore the pattern that is the Flames organization, go nuts if that is what makes you feel better. I'm sure you said the same thing about Sutter, the GM, and i'm sure you'll say it about Conroy soon enough too because I don't think the Flames (or really any organization for that matter) are capable of hiring a GM that will meet your approval. 

 

If you want to talk about what lessons you want the Org to learn or do differently I'd be here for that discussion but linking it all back to Treliving (especially when didn't do any of the complaints you have differently from the last several GMs) is where it makes no sense IMO. 

 

 

 

If we were so far away, then, how'd we get Tkachuk?

 

We were absolutely right there.   We picked up Hamilton, Elliot, Stone, for....how many draft picks?
        And we didn't stop there.   Kept going, Smith...Hamonic (NYI used that to get Noah Dobson), 

 

Just a constant stream of selling picks for short term solutions at a time when we should have been acquiring more picks and prospects.   We played guys injured, we switched up coaches, and we achieved....

regular-season mediocrity.

 

For the price of an arguably generational  home-grown player whom they were fully aware of.

 

Following season we were right back down there.

 

You yourself were frustrated by the direction.  Very frustrated, you've said many times.    You gave Treliving the enormous benefit of the doubt that he was made to be a puppet.   But now we see the same behaviour in Toronto.

 

The way I see it, we should be happy because if Treliving was a big part of the problem, then we are Not doomed.

 

What you see as pessimistic, I do not.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I'd actually be more concerned about the Rielly deal

My Leafs friends and family have one consistent hate. That's the guy. The media is relentless with Marner though.

I heard Tavares' name in the 3rd period of game 7 (ESPN feed). I'm certain that was the first time that I heard it.

It was that signing by Dubas that was completely unnecessary, and I've always maintained that. Ahh the things $11mil could have gotten them.

[robrob74]

24 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

My Leafs friends and family have one consistent hate. That's the guy. The media is relentless with Marner though.

I heard Tavares' name in the 3rd period of game 7 (ESPN feed). I'm certain that was the first time that I heard it.

It was that signing by Dubas that was completely unnecessary, and I've always maintained that. Ahh the things $11mil could have gotten them.

makes sense! Divide that up and that's 3-4

very good depth players that win cups. 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

My Leafs friends and family have one consistent hate. That's the guy. The media is relentless with Marner though.

I heard Tavares' name in the 3rd period of game 7 (ESPN feed). I'm certain that was the first time that I heard it.

It was that signing by Dubas that was completely unnecessary, and I've always maintained that. Ahh the things $11mil could have gotten them.

 

Very fair. I understood it and probably would have done it myself but the counter argument is very valid. 

 

The Riely one felt to me like they knew they wre overpaying but felt they had to keep him because he was their defacto number 1 d. Think they fell into that trap but that was Dubas for you. He sure isn't making friends fast in Pittsburgh. 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

If we were so far away, then, how'd we get Tkachuk?

 

We were absolutely right there.   We picked up Hamilton, Elliot, Stone, for....how many draft picks?
        And we didn't stop there.   Kept going, Smith...Hamonic (NYI used that to get Noah Dobson), 

 

Just a constant stream of selling picks for short term solutions at a time when we should have been acquiring more picks and prospects.   We played guys injured, we switched up coaches, and we achieved....

regular-season mediocrity.

 

For the price of an arguably generational  home-grown player whom they were fully aware of.

 

Following season we were right back down there.

 

You yourself were frustrated by the direction.  Very frustrated, you've said many times.    You gave Treliving the enormous benefit of the doubt that he was made to be a puppet.   But now we see the same behaviour in Toronto.

 

The way I see it, we should be happy because if Treliving was a big part of the problem, then we are Not doomed.

 

What you see as pessimistic, I do not.

 

I've never discounted the short term thinking and for sure I'm frustrated about it. I was frustrated when Sutter did it, I was frustrated with Feaster did it, was frustrated when Treliving did it (albeit yes a little less so because at least I thought he had some pieces worth betting on) and now i'm frustrated to hear/see Conroy do it too. I don't like hearing about the Dallas model, didn't like that he didn't deal Markstrom and didn't like that they went into the season talking playoffs. Not gonna hide from that at all because its the truth, but it's more true of the organization then it is the GMs. 

 

Difference between you and I is you seem to really like to make this personal towards the GMs themselves. Treliving was the short term thinker and reckless with picks whereas I look at the environment and the mandate.  The Flames did not hire Treliving to oversee a patient rebuild and nor did the leafs so why be surprised the behavior is different? In the first year on the job Treliving acquired multiple draft picks and came very close to adding 2 more 1st rounders in the 2014 draft until the clubs balked at the deal (mostly due to who was available to them). So this idea that he has this reckless mindset isn't really there and the behavior is consistent with the mandate and the environment .

[jjgallow]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I've never discounted the short term thinking and for sure I'm frustrated about it. I was frustrated when Sutter did it, I was frustrated with Feaster did it, was frustrated when Treliving did it (albeit yes a little less so because at least I thought he had some pieces worth betting on) and now i'm frustrated to hear/see Conroy do it too. I don't like hearing about the Dallas model, didn't like that he didn't deal Markstrom and didn't like that they went into the season talking playoffs. Not gonna hide from that at all because its the truth, but it's more true of the organization then it is the GMs. 

 

Difference between you and I is you seem to really like to make this personal towards the GMs themselves. Treliving was the short term thinker and reckless with picks whereas I look at the environment and the mandate.  The Flames did not hire Treliving to oversee a patient rebuild and nor did the leafs so why be surprised the behavior is different? In the first year on the job Treliving acquired multiple draft picks and came very close to adding 2 more 1st rounders in the 2014 draft until the clubs balked at the deal (mostly due to who was available to them). So this idea that he has this reckless mindset isn't really there and the behavior is consistent with the mandate and the environment .

 

Markstrom should have been traded, we 100% agree.   But, totally different spectrum, right?

 

In 2016, Giordano should have been traded. Imho   But nobody wanted that, everyone wanted to forge ahead, even though it may have cost us a cup by now.   We're not complaining about that though, we're complaining about all the picks that were sold.

 

Here's the thing.    I fully admit there's truth in what you're saying and that ownership has a role here.    Conroy for sure wanted to trade Markstrom, and for sure told Markstrom he would be dealt.   Something happened.  And I don't like it.

 

But, Conroy's not selling out.  He's not giving up.  He's publicly said that his mandate is to have a contender when the new arena is built.    Well hello that is a rebuild mandate if I ever heard one, and for anyone else who's ever been involved in construction lol.

 

So what happened?   Did the owners have an afterlife experience and change perspective?

 

In my brief experience in management, I pushed back on owners.   You would be surprised to learn that I was not fired.   You would not be surprised to learn that I didn't like it.  So I run things myself now with nobody above me to answer to.  Just a team and customers to answer to.     

 

It's possible to push back.   In my limited experience.   And I appreciate people who do push back.   Conroy, I feel, is extremely skilled at this, to the point that he can push back without owners even knowing he's pushed back.

 

Case in point, his mandate of putting together a contender in the new arena.   Who's mandate really was that?    IMHO, a good GM helps make that mandate happen.   What we are seeing in Toronto, is the opposite of that.  Again.   It looks, to me, like a GM trying to build a legacy in the shortest amount of time possible.

 

When he signed Matthews, he said his main objective in signing him was to "remove a distraction" and "focus on winning".   Literally did not even mention the long term as a reason for signing the guy.   If find that weird.  And I was not surprised that he was played sick and injured from game 2 onward despite rumours that it was dangerous to do so.   Like, sorry, but it sounds a lot like a guy who was born into wealth and had these things come easy to them.  The picks sold...so much more...

 

You're right, Conroy's not perfect but I feel like he's shifted the whole conversation.   Something which was supposed to be impossible to do.

 

 

 

 

[cross16]

34 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Markstrom should have been traded, we 100% agree.   But, totally different spectrum, right?

 

In 2016, Giordano should have been traded. Imho   But nobody wanted that, everyone wanted to forge ahead, even though it may have cost us a cup by now.   We're not complaining about that though, we're complaining about all the picks that were sold.

 

Here's the thing.    I fully admit there's truth in what you're saying and that ownership has a role here.    Conroy for sure wanted to trade Markstrom, and for sure told Markstrom he would be dealt.   Something happened.  And I don't like it.

 

But, Conroy's not selling out.  He's not giving up.  He's publicly said that his mandate is to have a contender when the new arena is built.    Well hello that is a rebuild mandate if I ever heard one, and for anyone else who's ever been involved in construction lol.

 

So what happened?   Did the owners have an afterlife experience and change perspective?

 

 

He's never publicly said this implicitly no. I do believe that ownership did relax on the win every year because of the new arena (just like they put pressure on Treliving in his last summer to not rebuild in order to get the deal done) but I don't thikn this is as implicit as you make it sound. 

 

but either way to answer your question, yes I do believe the owners did relax their perspective once the got the deal done but it should also be pointed out that a lot of this is being driven by the players saying no to them to. 

 

I also think this is a lot of semantics. I don't believe the mandate here is win every year or playoffs every year.  I do think there is an understanding of if you miss the playoffs, ok that happens but how do we get back in next year? The idea that this club can spend 2 or more years out of the playoffs is where the mandate starts IMO. I think the new arena changes that slightly be we are talking about the allowance of essentially 1 extra year (especially when you consider their goal was playoffs this year). If we want to call that a rebuild fine but I woudln't. 

 

34 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

In my brief experience in management, I pushed back on owners.   You would be surprised to learn that I was not fired.   You would not be surprised to learn that I didn't like it.  So I run things myself now with nobody above me to answer to.  Just a team and customers to answer to.     

 

It's possible to push back.   In my limited experience.   And I appreciate people who do push back.   Conroy, I feel, is extremely skilled at this, to the point that he can push back without owners even knowing he's pushed back.

 

Case in point, his mandate of putting together a contender in the new arena.   Who's mandate really was that?    IMHO, a good GM helps make that mandate happen.   What we are seeing in Toronto, is the opposite of that.  Again.   It looks, to me, like a GM trying to build a legacy in the shortest amount of time possible.

 

 

I'm in management and I push back all the time but did you work for Murray Edwards? I know I haven't but i know people who have. 

 

time will tell but i'm not seeing the changes you are and the ones I am, dealing players for picks, is being dictated by the players and not the club. I am 100% of the belief that the Flames put big deals on the table for both Lindholm and Hanifin and the players said no. They wanted both here gave them market value deal to try and keep them and ultimately the players said no. Hard for me to suggest change is a foot when the behavior is consistent. 

[jjgallow]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I'm in management and I push back all the time but did you work for Murray Edwards? I know I haven't but i know people who have. 

 

I know just one, and they would agree with you.

 

Yeah things are not where I want them to be, it's true.   

 

Your point...Conroy may have gotten lucky with arena deal:  Maybe.   But I dunno, this is the 2nd deal and they never let up for the 1st deal before it fell through 🤷‍♂️

 

 

I think you were right here.   You look back at that thread, Conroy literally did everything we were moaning about him not doing.  And the return was pretty decent.   We had no idea then that Markstrom could have value.   He started his tenure with "if you don't like it, that's okay, you won't be here".      And he was extremely nice, he was very Conroy.    But that's exactly what he did.

 

Maybe...just maybe, this stuff takes longer than we want it to.   I don't like it...but I can live with it.   Conroy is a guy that I believe is good at making people think decisions were theirs.  Making owners think decisions were theirs, making players think decisions were theirs.   I might be wrong, but,

 

Either way, you can only fault him with hypotheticals.  He got that job done.  Let's see what he does now.   Most importantly, he didn't go veering off in the opposite direction.

 

Now if he messes up the draft, my love-in is over.     But, this is an arguement about Conroy not going far enough, versus Treliving going in the opposite direction.

[cross16]

54 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I know just one, and they would agree with you.

 

Yeah things are not where I want them to be, it's true.   

 

Your point...Conroy may have gotten lucky with arena deal:  Maybe.   But I dunno, this is the 2nd deal and they never let up for the 1st deal before it fell through 🤷‍♂️

 

 

As i've been saying circumstances. The first arena deal was never finalized to the level this one is (there was a final out clause and COVID was happening right in the middle of it) but the organization looked quite different. Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Monahan, Anderson, Hanifin all 26 or less. You can have the argument that they bet too much on that core but to pull that down and start a rebuild I don't think any logically or sane organization was doing that. That isn't the case this go around where they core of the team is all at the tail end or past their prime. Big change in circumstances. 

 

 

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I know just one, and they would agree with you.

 

Yeah things are not where I want them to be, it's true.   

 

Your point...Conroy may have gotten lucky with arena deal:  Maybe.   But I dunno, this is the 2nd deal and they never let up for the 1st deal before it fell through 🤷‍♂️

 

 

I think you were right here.   You look back at that thread, Conroy literally did everything we were moaning about him not doing.  And the return was pretty decent.   We had no idea then that Markstrom could have value.   He started his tenure with "if you don't like it, that's okay, you won't be here".      And he was extremely nice, he was very Conroy.    But that's exactly what he did.

 

Maybe...just maybe, this stuff takes longer than we want it to.   I don't like it...but I can live with it.   Conroy is a guy that I believe is good at making people think decisions were theirs.  Making owners think decisions were theirs, making players think decisions were theirs.   I might be wrong, but,

 

Either way, you can only fault him with hypotheticals.  He got that job done.  Let's see what he does now.   Most importantly, he didn't go veering off in the opposite direction.

 

Now if he messes up the draft, my love-in is over.     But, this is an arguement about Conroy not going far enough, versus Treliving going in the opposite direction.

 

Actually it's not it's a discussion around how circumstances matter.  As I pointed out when Treliving got the job he was in pick acquisition mode. he did the same things Conroy is doing right now.

 

As I said above if you want to levy critique on Treliving is that IMO he bet on the wrong players. I personally would argue that's hindsight bias but I could see that discussion, that he did too much to build around Gaudreau Monahan, Tkachuk. The "he's a short term thinker" is IMO  product of the circumstances. 

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

As I said above if you want to levy critique on Treliving is that IMO he bet on the wrong players. I personally would argue that's hindsight bias but I could see that discussion, that he did too much to build around Gaudreau Monahan, Tkachuk. The "he's a short term thinker" is IMO  product of the circumstances. 

 

Whether it was the pro scouts or the players brought in over time that just didn't quite fit, the results were a lot of wasted picks for what Connie had left to use.  The Gustophson, Forbort, Jatnkrok, etc trades were the ones that bothered me, since we just took on TDL players for the playoffs.  Jarnkrok should have been a better fit, but perhaps the wrong players on a line with him.  A lot of picks for a 12 playoff games.  

 

What is funny that the pro scouts looked at Sharky and saw something there.  Or the right time to call up Pospisil and Zary.  I'm not exactly sure how the D that we got from DAL and SJS will work out, but only the Dallas trade is a costly one.  I liked so far what I have seen, but who knows.