Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[sak22]

12 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

In the last tear down we didn't amass enough picks. Not enough over the few years we were rebuilding. 
 

it's tough to know what the last few years would have been like, but what about these drafts say they'll be good drafts to tank? 
 

last time we got Bennett but Tkachuk after, 

A case of quality vs. quantity.  I wouldn't say enough, they had a good amount in 2013 and 2014, but all that's left now is a broken Monahan from those 2 drafts, even if you hit on one of the other 2013 firsts or 2014 2nds and one 2016 pick decides to sign I think we are having different conversations.

[The_People1]

37 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

In the last tear down we didn't amass enough picks. Not enough over the few years we were rebuilding. 
 

it's tough to know what the last few years would have been like, but what about these drafts say they'll be good drafts to tank? 
 

last time we got Bennett but Tkachuk after, 

 

Well we traded a 1st + two 2nd round picks for Dougie Hamilton in the middle of a rebuild.  We could've drafted Barzal that draft + two more 2nd rounders... Hintz, Dunn, Cirelli were available had we kept our 2nd round picks.

[sak22]

19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well we traded a 1st + two 2nd round picks for Dougie Hamilton in the middle of a rebuild.  We could've drafted Barzal that draft + two more 2nd rounders... Hintz, Dunn, Cirelli were available had we kept our 2nd round picks.

Either way the team is benefiting today from that trade.  Unpopular opinion, but I find Barzal is presently very overrated, where the team today is benefitting from that trade, so I wouldn't point it out as part of the failure.  '13 and '14 for me is the failure 6 top 60 picks and only 1 solid NHLer and 1 bottom 6, not even a backup goalie or bottom pairing dman, or a anything that could be flipped, just complete wastes of picks.

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Either way the team is benefiting today from that trade.  Unpopular opinion, but I find Barzal is presently very overrated, where the team today is benefitting from that trade, so I wouldn't point it out as part of the failure.  '13 and '14 for me is the failure 6 top 60 picks and only 1 solid NHLer and 1 bottom 6, not even a backup goalie or bottom pairing dman, or a anything that could be flipped, just complete wastes of picks.

 

Yes timing of a rebuild is so important. I don't think it's a coincidence that more teams are tanking for this coming draft.  They know.

 

3 first round picks in 2013 turned out to be nothing much but 3 first round picks in 2023 might be franchise altering.

[sak22]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes timing of a rebuild is so important. I don't think it's a coincidence that more teams are tanking for this coming draft.  They know.

 

3 first round picks in 2013 turned out to be nothing much but 3 first round picks in 2023 might be franchise altering.

Could also be like 2013 in where the draft class doesn't live up to the hype, as 2013 was supposed to be a lot better than it was.

[jjgallow]

10 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes timing of a rebuild is so important. I don't think it's a coincidence that more teams are tanking for this coming draft.  They know.

 

3 first round picks in 2013 turned out to be nothing much but 3 first round picks in 2023 might be franchise altering.

 

In that sense, BT may be among those GMs with vision who is gearing us up for a potentially franchise-altering pick in 2023.

 

My concern is that he's not doing it on purpose

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

In that sense, BT may be among those GMs with vision who is gearing us up for a potentially franchise-altering pick in 2023.

 

My concern is that he's not doing it on purpose

 

If Tkachuk takes a 1-year deal then it's a rebuild that BT had no intentions of entering.  The team entered it for him.  BT will be forced to trade Tkachuk after losing Gaudreau for nothing.

 

Unfortunately, most of the other players like Backlund, Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson, etc still have 2 years remaining on their contracts and so won't be moved as part of this coming deep draft.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

Could also be like 2013 in where the draft class doesn't live up to the hype, as 2013 was supposed to be a lot better than it was.

 

Ya bad timing to choose 2013 to rebuild... Well, we didn't choose.  Laws of physics just forced it to happen.

 

This time however, we could choose.  We have a lot more valueable stuff to trade to setup for a quicker rebuild than last time.

[cross16]

49 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

If Tkachuk takes a 1-year deal then it's a rebuild that BT had no intentions of entering.  The team entered it for him.  BT will be forced to trade Tkachuk after losing Gaudreau for nothing.

 

Unfortunately, most of the other players like Backlund, Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson, etc still have 2 years remaining on their contracts and so won't be moved as part of this coming deep draft.

 

This is true of every rebuild. 

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is true of every rebuild. 

 

Ya we talking about doing it on purpose though.

[cross16]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Ya we talking about doing it on purpose though.

 

I know, which is part of the reason it's not likely going to happen.  Doesn't really happen in pro sports and it's not hard to see why the owners would not want to. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I know, which is part of the reason it's not likely going to happen.  Doesn't really happen in pro sports and it's not hard to see why the owners would not want to. 

 

It happens in sneaky ways though.  Can't be too obvious about it.  Tanking is an art form.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It happens in sneaky ways though.  Can't be too obvious about it.  Tanking is an art form.

 

Ya I don't think so. It's very obvious IMO. 

 

And even if it weren't there is a difference between tanking and pulling your team apart. Tanking is common but pulling your team apart in order to drive it to the bottom basically doesn't happen. I think the closest you'll find is the Florida Marlins of the 90s and economics were a huge factor there. 

 

What is being suggested here isn't to tank, it's to pull the team apart. Not saying there isn't an argument for it just that it's a bigger leap than I think most suggest. 

[robrob74]

If they make it to arbitration and then only a 1 year deal, are they allowed to trade him at the trade deadline? Or is the one year a locked deal? If I remember correctly they can't trade him and it's a lock.

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

If they make it to arbitration and then only a 1 year deal, are they allowed to trade him at the trade deadline? Or is the one year a locked deal? If I remember correctly they can't trade him and it's a lock.

 

No restrictions on trading a player post arbitration. That is offer sheets you are thinking of. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

It happens in sneaky ways though.  Can't be too obvious about it.  Tanking is an art form.

 

I do actually feel that it is often (not always) accidental.

 

Combine what @cross16said about owners not wanting to tank.

 

Well, if you keep spending all your draft picks and prospects on "late season runs", and overspending on vets, you will eventually reach a point where you have no prospects, no affordable players.   And with the parity in the league that exists now, you may find yourself rebuilding.

 

If you're a Canadian team it's even easier because of the # of players who won't play up here (which is fine) but can leave us with nothing for the asset if our GMs aren't skilful (cough cough BT, Gaudreau, Fox, etc, etc).

 

Was our last rebuild intended?   No, it was the result of Sutter's GM trades.

 

Rebuild before that?  Debatable, but I think it was accidental.   People didn't understand concussions back then when we acquired Gary Leeman, as an example.

 

So imho, our last 2 rebuilds, and most rebuilds, are accidental.  For all our talk about whether we should decide to have one.

 

For everyone who says they're ok with us trading away draft picks, but they're not okay with rebuilds....I say...pick a lane lol

[robrob74]

20 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I do actually feel that it is often (not always) accidental.

 

Combine what @cross16said about owners not wanting to tank.

 

Well, if you keep spending all your draft picks and prospects on "late season runs", and overspending on vets, you will eventually reach a point where you have no prospects, no affordable players.   And with the parity in the league that exists now, you may find yourself rebuilding.

 

If you're a Canadian team it's even easier because of the # of players who won't play up here (which is fine) but can leave us with nothing for the asset if our GMs aren't skilful (cough cough BT, Gaudreau, Fox, etc, etc).

 

Was our last rebuild intended?   No, it was the result of Sutter's GM trades.

 

Rebuild before that?  Debatable, but I think it was accidental.   People didn't understand concussions back then when we acquired Gary Leeman, as an example.

 

So imho, our last 2 rebuilds, and most rebuilds, are accidental.  For all our talk about whether we should decide to have one.

 

For everyone who says they're ok with us trading away draft picks, but they're not okay with rebuilds....I say...pick a lane lol

 

i am starting to see similarities of the end of the Iginla era, not accepting to see reality, and what we are seeing now. 
 

crazy deals at the deadline to go for it. 
 

i was all in too. But like you I had my doubts.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well, if you keep spending all your draft picks and prospects on "late season runs", and overspending on vets, you will eventually reach a point where you have no prospects, no affordable players.   And with the parity in the league that exists now, you may find yourself rebuilding.

 

I recently learned about "the Fourth Turning" and stuff like "Generations" and "Seasons of Life" and I thought, wow that is exactly pro-sports and how the Flames fail so hard at building a winner.

 

Basically, teams go through "seasons":

 

Spring:

- plant the seeds.

- amass picks and prospects

- get coaching and team systems and philosophy nailed down

 

Summer:

- see what is sprouting

- begin to assess how the picks and prospects are turning out

- make trades to fill final holes to prepare for Cup runs

 

Autumn

- harvest.  Reap (or weep)

- team should be in prime and contending constantly

- enjoying success from years of planning

- go all in to win the Cup

 

Winter:

- a time of conflict 

- cap problems

- core players leave one after another

- no more young kids coming up the system because traded away picks and prospects for playoff pushes.

- time to tank hard and rebuild

- fertilize for spring

 

This is the four seasons of NHL teams.  But guess what.  The Flames try to reject all of this.  As the team moves from Autumn to Winter, they are in denial.  They cannot or refuse to accept the fact that Winter has come (Winter comes for every franchise).  It's the natural cycle of life.

 

What I'm trying to say is, there is a time and place to go all in. There is a right time and place to trade away all picks and prospects to win now.  Because no team can reap yields for eternity.  Winter must come.  The better one prepares and embraces Winter, the better their Spring will be.  The better a team's Spring is, then the better their Summer, etc, etc.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i am starting to see similarities of the end of the Iginla era, not accepting to see reality, and what we are seeing now. 
 

crazy deals at the deadline to go for it. 
 

i was all in too. But like you I had my doubts.

I see very no similarities right now, right now the majority of the defense is under 27, with only 1 being over 30, I would think none of the contracts there would be immovable.  For forwards, after this year there shouldn't be any anchors for contracts, and then in net we have a solid performing starter to go with a minor league goalie of the year and a young backup with upside, add in the prospect pool is significantly better on paper at this point and the farm team is coming off a really strong year, and we have all our first and 2nds.    The only similarities I see is how the fanbase thinks we sink or swim based on one forward.

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I recently learned about "the Fourth Turning" and stuff like "Generations" and "Seasons of Life" and I thought, wow that is exactly pro-sports and how the Flames fail so hard at building a winner.

 

Some additional background for those who are interested... Give it 5-minutes to see if it's for you.  Whole thing is over 1-hour long... 

 

 

[jjgallow]

27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I recently learned about "the Fourth Turning" and stuff like "Generations" and "Seasons of Life" and I thought, wow that is exactly pro-sports and how the Flames fail so hard at building a winner.

 

Basically, teams go through "seasons":

 

Spring:

- plant the seeds.

- amass picks and prospects

- get coaching and team systems and philosophy nailed down

 

Summer:

- see what is sprouting

- begin to assess how the picks and prospects are turning out

- make trades to fill final holes to prepare for Cup runs

 

Autumn

- harvest.  Reap (or weep)

- team should be in prime and contending constantly

- enjoying success from years or planning

- go all in to win the Cup

 

Winter:

- a time of conflict 

- cap problems

- core players leave one after another

- no more young kids coming up the system because traded away picks and prospects for playoff pushes.

- time to tank hard and rebuild

- fertilize for spring

 

This is the four seasons of NHL teams.  But guess what.  The Flames try to reject all of this.  As the team moves from Autumn to Winter, they are in denial.  They cannot or refuse to accept the fact that Winter has come (Winter comes for every franchise).  It's the natural cycle of life.

 

What I'm trying to say is, there is a time and place to go all in. There is a right time and place to trade away all picks and prospects to win now.  Because no team can reap yields for eternity.  Winter must come.  The better one prepares and embraces Winter, the better their Spring will be.  The better a team's Spring is, then the better their Summer, etc, etc.

 

That is interesting.

 

I do fundamentally believe it is possible to avoid rebuilds by simply Always investing in the future.

 

That means you don't pick up that extra player for your playoff run.   But it means you have so many great prospects you can easily call a prospect up for your playoff run.  Same effect.

 

In theory if you constantly invest in the future you should have a massive advantage over other teams in about 5-8 years and going forward.   Cheaper salaries, younger better players, better prospects.

 

But in practice, we rarely see it.   Possibly because the tenure and contract of a GM is usually a shorter duration than what it takes to draft and develop a meaningful impact defenseman or goalie from draft day to their prime.

 

Raising the draft age would help this.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

i am starting to see similarities of the end of the Iginla era, not accepting to see reality, and what we are seeing now. 
 

crazy deals at the deadline to go for it. 
 

i was all in too. But like you I had my doubts.

 

It's a pretty huge difference and this is coming from someone who advocated hard for a rebuild in that era. Once they traded Phaneuf and got no young impact players/prospects back in the deal I was out but even still it's not hard to see the difference. Post Phaneuf trade here are the Flames who were under the age of 29 at the end of 09/10:

Rene Bourque, Curtis Glencross, Nigel Dawes, Gio, JBow, Moss, Stajan, Ian White, Backs, Adam Pardy Fredrik Sjostrom, Chris Higgins.

That is it. 1 top 6 forward 2 top 4 dman (1 of whom was a terrible fit with the coach) and the rest depth. In the system at the time was the likes of Bouma, Brodie, Baertschi, Irving, Nemisz, Hanowski, Tyler Wotherspoon etc. 

Compare that to now:

Tkachuk, Lindholm, Mangiapange, Dube, Hanifin, Andersson, Zadorov, Kylington. I mean this alone is more impressive that what they were working with in 09/10 but then consider the prospects:

Valimaki, Connor Mackey, AHL Rookie of the year, AHL goalie of the year, Rory Kerins, Connor Zary, Phillips, Ruzicka. 

 

It really is night and day. 

 

Now I get it that people are looking at the Flames without Gaudreau and seeing a bleak future in terms of winning a cup. I get it and it's a fair argument and if your angle is cup or bust and you want to pull it all apart that is fair, there is an argument to be made and heard there. I don't think it's going to happen so i'm not sure there is value in putting it in every thread but I get the argument behind it. 

But I also think we need to see the other side to this. When you look at that core, it's age, it's contract situation, and the prospects coming it's not hard to see a competitive team there. Sure it's likely a team that will nip into the playoffs, maybe win a round or 2 here and there but it's a competitive team and who knows what can happen. Maybe you get lucky and a prospect like Kerins winds up a Point, maybe a FA hits the market or a trade potential. Yes i get that relies on luck, but so does pulling your team apart and tanking and I think we can and should acknowledge there are pros and cons to both sides and to both sides. 

 

That's where this is completely different for me. At the end of the Iginla era there was no plan you could show that had the Flames being competitive. This go around I think that's very different. Yes some of this analysis changes if Tkachuk isn't signed but Tkachuk isn't going to leave for nothing so i'm not sure it changes it drastically. 

 

So i'm not sure what "reality" there is to accept. Accept that this core won't win a cup? OK but what guarantees do you have the next one will?

 

[travel_dude]

45 minutes ago, cross16 said:

But I also think we need to see the other side to this. When you look at that core, it's age, it's contract situation, and the prospects coming it's not hard to see a competitive team there. Sure it's likely a team that will nip into the playoffs, maybe win a round or 2 here and there but it's a competitive team and who knows what can happen. Maybe you get lucky and a prospect like Kerins winds up a Point, maybe a FA hits the market or a trade potential. Yes i get that relies on luck, but so does pulling your team apart and tanking and I think we can and should acknowledge there are pros and cons to both sides and to both sides. 

 

 

Just going to focus on this part here.  Every team that wins (maybe one or two anomolies) has luck riding on it.  STL got a hot goalie at the right times, after almosy selling off.  COL got Makar and managed to get rid of Barrie for a pleyer that helped them, plus puick up Nichushkin for a song.  As well as making a few timely additions at TDL.  How many times did they get the goalie they thought was it?  Just happened to get one to get them to the finals and it was less critical then.  TBL won two cups in qhat could only be described as abnormal seasons.  Managed to have Kucherov on the bench for the first one until the playoffs.  

 

My point is that teams that win these days have to have something go extremely right.  Saros being injured just before the playoffs killed any chance they had of beating or slowing down COL.  The Flames losing a top 4D and Zaddy breaking his ribs, among other things.  We looked like crap against EDM, but should have had their number.  

 

There are things to be said, like Johnny was never going to be able to show the heart that a player like Point or Kadri showed.  He's an amazing talent, but he is a 180 foot player.  Doesn't attack the net directly and doesn't defent the last 10 feet.    

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

That is interesting.

 

I do fundamentally believe it is possible to avoid rebuilds by simply Always investing in the future.

 

That means you don't pick up that extra player for your playoff run.   But it means you have so many great prospects you can easily call a prospect up for your playoff run.  Same effect.

 

In theory if you constantly invest in the future you should have a massive advantage over other teams in about 5-8 years and going forward.   Cheaper salaries, younger better players, better prospects.

 

But in practice, we rarely see it.   Possibly because the tenure and contract of a GM is usually a shorter duration than what it takes to draft and develop a meaningful impact defenseman or goalie from draft day to their prime.

 

Raising the draft age would help this.

 

Yups I get that perspective. 

 

Essentially, trade one star player before he leaves via UFA or exits his peak years for two high end assets (pick and/or prospect).  Develop the two assets, then trade them for four.  Then trade the four for eight.  Then eight for sixteen, etc etc.

 

At some point, you'll have so many quality young assets developing that you will have an endless supply of youth to draw from to keep the team young, good, and cheap.

 

It's just never been done before (at least not successfully) so there is no history to learn from.  It's theoretical only.

 

What I'm saying with the concept of "Seasons" is that it's historical, has happened to all franchises good and bad for over a hundred years.  There is a lot of history to learn from throughout the eras.  What CHI, LAK, and PIT Are going through, teams like DET, COL, and NJ went through in the previous era.  And before them, EDM, PIT, and even the Flames of the 80s, etc.  The cycle of life of NHL teams.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

It's a pretty huge difference and this is coming from someone who advocated hard for a rebuild in that era. Once they traded Phaneuf and got no young impact players/prospects back in the deal I was out but even still it's not hard to see the difference. Post Phaneuf trade here are the Flames who were under the age of 29 at the end of 09/10:

Rene Bourque, Curtis Glencross, Nigel Dawes, Gio, JBow, Moss, Stajan, Ian White, Backs, Adam Pardy Fredrik Sjostrom, Chris Higgins.

That is it. 1 top 6 forward 2 top 4 dman (1 of whom was a terrible fit with the coach) and the rest depth. In the system at the time was the likes of Bouma, Brodie, Baertschi, Irving, Nemisz, Hanowski, Tyler Wotherspoon etc. 

Compare that to now:

Tkachuk, Lindholm, Mangiapange, Dube, Hanifin, Andersson, Zadorov, Kylington. I mean this alone is more impressive that what they were working with in 09/10 but then consider the prospects:

Valimaki, Connor Mackey, AHL Rookie of the year, AHL goalie of the year, Rory Kerins, Connor Zary, Phillips, Ruzicka. 

 

It really is night and day. 

 

Now I get it that people are looking at the Flames without Gaudreau and seeing a bleak future in terms of winning a cup. I get it and it's a fair argument and if your angle is cup or bust and you want to pull it all apart that is fair, there is an argument to be made and heard there. I don't think it's going to happen so i'm not sure there is value in putting it in every thread but I get the argument behind it. 

But I also think we need to see the other side to this. When you look at that core, it's age, it's contract situation, and the prospects coming it's not hard to see a competitive team there. Sure it's likely a team that will nip into the playoffs, maybe win a round or 2 here and there but it's a competitive team and who knows what can happen. Maybe you get lucky and a prospect like Kerins winds up a Point, maybe a FA hits the market or a trade potential. Yes i get that relies on luck, but so does pulling your team apart and tanking and I think we can and should acknowledge there are pros and cons to both sides and to both sides. 

 

That's where this is completely different for me. At the end of the Iginla era there was no plan you could show that had the Flames being competitive. This go around I think that's very different. Yes some of this analysis changes if Tkachuk isn't signed but Tkachuk isn't going to leave for nothing so i'm not sure it changes it drastically. 

 

So i'm not sure what "reality" there is to accept. Accept that this core won't win a cup? OK but what guarantees do you have the next one will?

 

 

You're going to have to bear with us for another couple weeks until this Tkachuk situation is resolved.  The tear it down argument makes way too much sense... And by that I mean trade everyone over 24-years-old.  We can keep our rookies and young kids.