Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

I mean this isn't a new problem. Chris Drury, Adam Fox, Tim Erixon all wanted out and that stretch's back over sometime. This may feel like a new problem but i'm not really sure it is, nor do I think it's a problem that only the Flames face. Outside of Toronto this happens pretty regularly to all Canadian teams. It's pretty well known that a lot of US players prefer playing close to home rather than play in Canada so I think a lot of this is outside the Flames control. 

 

I think the arena and the facilities are a major factor and the Flames really need to figure that out but outside of that i'm skeptical there is an organizational problem here that is leading to this. 

 

I get that but years ago many canadian players would not venture to the states, till things changed. I had a conversation with Jared Stoll,  Neidermeiier, Getzlaf, Point spoke with them about this at a golf event years back. Lots of Canadain guys would rather play in the states because nobody knows who they are. Made millions could walk down the street like the average Joe..Tampa  has built a franchise and culture that guys know that each have to make a sacrfice in pay to stay competitive, have been extremely succussful and still can walk down the street as a normal person.  Kadri is willing  rumoured to sign at a discount to win another cup in COL rather than take a big pay day here. However if we were 1 pce away he may have said sign me up.  For the love of god players have choosen EDM its a Satoshi Nakamoto hole worse place to be if your a hockey player, but because of McJesus and they believe the coilers may take a run, not casue they got a nice shining new toy, but I will agree a good facility helps.

 

I guess in short we need to build a more competive team and culture, we can't be know as oh god I don't want to go there. I do believe Tre seen this and got Sutter in here. If JG and MT want to leave for personal reasons and money than you don't want them here anyway. If Mags is willing to take on the responsiblity of trying to make a differance here, thats the individual I want, same with Blake Coleman, Zadorov, thats the attitude you want in your room. 

[cross16]

26 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

I get that but years ago many canadian players would not venture to the states, till things changed. I had a conversation with Jared Stoll,  Neidermeiier, Getzlaf, Point spoke with them about this at a golf event years back. Lots of Canadain guys would rather play in the states because nobody knows who they are. Made millions could walk down the street like the average Joe..Tampa  has built a franchise and culture that guys know that each have to make a sacrfice in pay to stay competitive, have been extremely succussful and still can walk down the street as a normal person.  Kadri is willing  rumoured to sign at a discount to win another cup in COL rather than take a big pay day here. However if we were 1 pce away he may have said sign me up.  For the love of god players have choosen EDM its a Satoshi Nakamoto hole worse place to be if your a hockey player, but because of McJesus and they believe the coilers may take a run, not casue they got a nice shining new toy, but I will agree a good facility helps.

 

I guess in short we need to build a more competive team and culture, we can't be know as oh god I don't want to go there. I do believe Tre seen this and got Sutter in here. If JG and MT want to leave for personal reasons and money than you don't want them here anyway. If Mags is willing to take on the responsiblity of trying to make a differance here, thats the individual I want, same with Blake Coleman, Zadorov, thats the attitude you want in your room. 

 

Have they though? Have they really been more successful than Calgary in getting players to play there? I'm not seeing that to be the case. 

 

I think Canadian teams will always have challenges retaining talent. Calgary will always have problem (travel, weather etc) but are certainly falling behind in terms of facilities and I think that matters. 

 

I mean yes having an elite talent will always help but it hasn't exactly moved the needle in Edmonton.

 

 

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Have they though? Have they really been more successful than Calgary in getting players to play there? I'm not seeing that to be the case. 

 

I think Canadian teams will always have challenges retaining talent. Calgary will always have problem (travel, weather etc) but are certainly falling behind in terms of facilities and I think that matters. 

 

I mean yes having an elite talent will always help but it hasn't exactly moved the needle in Edmonton.

 

 

The only reason they sign there is because of Mc Jesus, there is no other reason, players have said they wish to be around that. Your correct its a huge struggle for any Canadian team, it comes down to recreating a new atmosphere as well as new facility. You can have a great facility and crappy team its more the element of winning that creates the movement to clubs. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Have they though? Have they really been more successful than Calgary in getting players to play there? I'm not seeing that to be the case. 

 

I think Canadian teams will always have challenges retaining talent. Calgary will always have problem (travel, weather etc) but are certainly falling behind in terms of facilities and I think that matters. 

 

I mean yes having an elite talent will always help but it hasn't exactly moved the needle in Edmonton.

 

 

 

i think this is why Canadian teams need to build through the draft more patiently...

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Have they though? Have they really been more successful than Calgary in getting players to play there? I'm not seeing that to be the case. 

 

I think Canadian teams will always have challenges retaining talent. Calgary will always have problem (travel, weather etc) but are certainly falling behind in terms of facilities and I think that matters. 

 

I mean yes having an elite talent will always help but it hasn't exactly moved the needle in Edmonton.

 

 

 

Agreed.  Always a problem,  but it can be managed.   Most of the hockey players still come from Canada.

 

One of the solutions is to make Calgary and Alberta hockey centers.  I don't agree this has anything to do with an event center.

 

For this, I do extend some level of credit to the Flames and the Oilers. 

 

Having a WHL team here was a must, and welcomed.  Ajhl team, check.

 

The Flames recent move of their AHL team to Calgary is really exciting.

All of this brings hockey expertise, hockey resources, development resources, minds, and I initiatives into the city.

 

It has already paid some dividends.   Sorry to talk about Makar in every single post but it speaks volumes that a generational player has come out of our city.   

 

Would love to see more work going into a US college competitor or alternative.   I know the ajhl has worked on this.

 

The Flames have also done a lot at the community level.   There is still a need for more.   

 

The above is how you grow new local fans, new local players, and a commu ity that real hockey players can't resist.

 

On the scouting and drafting side....

 

I think we did, for a while, preferentially draft local talent.   But we drafted entirely the wrong kind of player.    

 

We should draft and acquire more local talent.    Don't think we'd have a cup without Vernon.    But the key word here is talent.  Not local goons.  That was weird.

 

So, to accomplish the above, we need way,  way, better local scouting.   Simply put, no excuses for missing Makar in our own backyard.    True, we had him ranked a bit higher than  others, but not enough to show real due diligence.

 

So...should we have drafted Gaudreau,  not being from Alberta/Canada?   

Obviously yes.   You still mostly BPA.

 

Should we have kept him that long?  The answer is just as obvious.  And always has been.

 

Our problem is that we have actually dismissed incredible talents out of Canada and Western Canada.

 

Cough.  Cough.  Bedard.    An obvious target for a western Canadian team to build around.  Anything is possible if you want it bad enough.

 

So in short,

 

Make more Makars.

Draft more Makars.

Acquire more Makars.

Get Makar married to a Calgarian

Trade players who don't want to be here

Bedard.

 

 

[cross16]

42 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i think this is why Canadian teams need to build through the draft more patiently...

 

Agreed. IMO it's the biggest reason why no Canadian team has won the cup since 93. Canadian owners and teams have far less patience, IMO, than most US teams. 

[sak22]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Agreed. IMO it's the biggest reason why no Canadian team has won the cup since 93. Canadian owners and teams have far less patience, IMO, than most US teams. 

Yeah the leveling of the field after the lockout and the deep playoff runs for the Flames, Oilers, Sens and Canucks helped change the economics to the point that those teams that were basically in survival mode prior to the lockout were for the most part profitable annually after.  I think Canadian owners are a little more hands on, due to it being the big ticket, US owners often vary based on how many other teams they operate, for example I think Stan Kroenke is more hands on with the operations of the Rams than he is the Avs.

[rickross]

Not pulling the trigger on acquiring Eichel is looking more and more like a lost opportunity. That hindsight is a real bish! 

[Heartbreaker]

7 minutes ago, rickross said:

Not pulling the trigger on acquiring Eichel is looking more and more like a lost opportunity. That hindsight is a real bish! 

 

I like how we say things like "not pulling the trigger" like as if there wasn't some other offer from some other team.

 

Love.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I like how we say things like "not pulling the trigger" like as if there wasn't some other offer from some other team.

 

Love.

 

pretty hard to "pull the trigger" when the other side doesn't say ok. 

[conundrumed]

Just a question and not an attack.

Is there a point here where BT has become a lame duck?

We're sitting at 0-for-2 heading into Mangia & Kyl.

This offseason has been a disaster. One could say he just ran out of time/bought himself no time by not reaching any extensions last year.

"See what happens" approach is now officially a nightmare.

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

pretty hard to "pull the trigger" when the other side doesn't say ok. 

 

Ya agreed.  At no time did it ever feel like BUF was looking at our players.  Flames didn't have the high end prospect to compete with Plebs or Zegras.

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Just a question and not an attack.

Is there a point here where BT has become a lame duck?

We're sitting at 0-for-2 heading into Mangia & Kyl.

This offseason has been a disaster. One could say he just ran out of time/bought himself no time by not reaching any extensions last year.

"See what happens" approach is now officially a nightmare.

 

Considering BT only has 1-year remaining on his contract... Maybe he has always been a lame duck.

[jjgallow]

11 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Just a question and not an attack.

Is there a point here where BT has become a lame duck?

We're sitting at 0-for-2 heading into Mangia & Kyl.

This offseason has been a disaster. One could say he just ran out of time/bought himself no time by not reaching any extensions last year.

"See what happens" approach is now officially a nightmare.

 

As in, when will this be popular opinion, or when did it start?

 

Disclaimer:  We ignore the owner theory below, which has its own validity but leads us nowhere

 

Popular opinion:   I think the moment Gaudreau left, the pivot happened.  If there is any question remaining, the outcome of Tkachuk will probably solidify it, as he has boxed himself out of good options.

 

When did it start?   I think Peeps suggested the Vancouver series, when we officially decided to stop thinking past the next 10 games out.  The vast majority of his trades past that point were future-sacrificing, bringing this day nearer and nearer.

[cross16]

55 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Just a question and not an attack.

Is there a point here where BT has become a lame duck?

We're sitting at 0-for-2 heading into Mangia & Kyl.

This offseason has been a disaster. One could say he just ran out of time/bought himself no time by not reaching any extensions last year.

"See what happens" approach is now officially a nightmare.

 

I mean he is a "lame duck" already given only 1 more year under contract but Im' pretty sure the Flames don't work that way. They don't seem too concerned about the lame duck idea. 

 

I still dont' think the decision changes for me. You can do a whole lot worse than Treliving IMO so if the Flames want to go in a different direction I still ask the same questions. Who is it and what are they going to do differently?

 

I'm fine with a new leader but I don't personally think we are at the "anyone is better than Treliving" stage. If you are going to make a change it better be the right one and IMO the talent pool looks thin out there. 

 

I'm just skeptical a new GM is going to produce different results unless the process and or mandate changes. 

[flames for life]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I mean he is a "lame duck" already given only 1 more year under contract but Im' pretty sure the Flames don't work that way. They don't seem too concerned about the lame duck idea. 

 

I still dont' think the decision changes for me. You can do a whole lot worse than Treliving IMO so if the Flames want to go in a different direction I still ask the same questions. Who is it and what are they going to do differently?

 

I'm fine with a new leader but I don't personally think we are at the "anyone is better than Treliving" stage. If you are going to make a change it better be the right one and IMO the talent pool looks thin out there. 

Hey, I hear Feaster could be had!🥴

[phoenix66]

15 minutes ago, flames for life said:

Hey, I hear Feaster could be had!🥴

Be careful what you wish for.. so Can Sutter 

[conundrumed]

28 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I mean he is a "lame duck" already given only 1 more year under contract but Im' pretty sure the Flames don't work that way. They don't seem too concerned about the lame duck idea. 

 

I still dont' think the decision changes for me. You can do a whole lot worse than Treliving IMO so if the Flames want to go in a different direction I still ask the same questions. Who is it and what are they going to do differently?

 

I'm fine with a new leader but I don't personally think we are at the "anyone is better than Treliving" stage. If you are going to make a change it better be the right one and IMO the talent pool looks thin out there. 

 

I'm just skeptical a new GM is going to produce different results unless the process and or mandate changes. 

Thanks cross, this is where I was going. Who knew we'd miss Ken King so much as a buffer? Is this the idea?

This thing is getting run into the ground in every way imaginable.

Are we at toxic level with ownership?

[cross16]

41 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Thanks cross, this is where I was going. Who knew we'd miss Ken King so much as a buffer? Is this the idea?

This thing is getting run into the ground in every way imaginable.

Are we at toxic level with ownership?

 

I don't know if a buffer is what is needed. I mean i'm personally in favor of the hockey ops to GM model for great stability and consistency but King and Burke have both been here and things were generally the same. The only upgrade to Burke is we didn't wind up with a Jay Feaster hire. 

 

I'm not sure if it's toxic, if it's toxic I don't think good hockey people (Burke, Treliving, Conroy, Brad Pascall) would stay or work here. I think this is a very hands on ownership group and probably more hands on than the should be but I don't think it's at a toxic level no. 

 

I'm probably a lot to blame for this but I do think too much focus is being put on "ownership" and start to blame them for a lot of problems. I think they are probably more hands on than the should be and I don't agree with their mandate of be good every year but at the same time it's their cheque book not mine and they don't' act that differently than many other owners across the league. I wish they'd take a step back but I also don't think they are necessarily "bad" owners either. 

 

But I so wish they would go back to a President of hockey Ops model. 

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't know if a buffer is what is needed. I mean i'm personally in favor of the hockey ops to GM model for great stability and consistency but King and Burke have both been here and things were generally the same. The only upgrade to Burke is we didn't wind up with a Jay Feaster hire. 

 

I'm not sure if it's toxic, if it's toxic I don't think good hockey people (Burke, Treliving, Conroy, Brad Pascall) would stay or work here. I think this is a very hands on ownership group and probably more hands on than the should be but I don't think it's at a toxic level no. 

 

I'm probably a lot to blame for this but I do think too much focus is being put on "ownership" and start to blame them for a lot of problems. I think they are probably more hands on than the should be and I don't agree with their mandate of be good every year but at the same time it's their cheque book not mine and they don't' act that differently than many other owners across the league. I wish they'd take a step back but I also don't think they are necessarily "bad" owners either. 

 

But I so wish they would go back to a President of hockey Ops model. 

 

The first part is what I am really starting to think is a problem.  You hired the darn GM to run the club.  If you can't trust him, then fire him or get a POHO.  Somebody where the buck stops.  They can spend up the cap if they see fit.  Structure of deals and when they are paid do not matter.  This may not be the case, but perhaps Edwards meddled too much in the final hours of the Gaudreau dealings.  If this in any way inched JH out the door, then they should stick to owning and not running.  

[sak22]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The first part is what I am really starting to think is a problem.  You hired the darn GM to run the club.  If you can't trust him, then fire him or get a POHO.  Somebody where the buck stops.  They can spend up the cap if they see fit.  Structure of deals and when they are paid do not matter.  This may not be the case, but perhaps Edwards meddled too much in the final hours of the Gaudreau dealings.  If this in any way inched JH out the door, then they should stick to owning and not running.  

If the guy has lasted 8 years with a couple big failures (2018 and 2021), I think they have quite a bit of trust in him, there are disagreements at top on how things should be run from time to time which should be expected.  I know people say they should just write cheques and have no say, but how many things do you own that you are okay having no control over?  If you own a home and hire a contractor to renovate, do you give them an idea of what you'd like done and a budget to work with or do you just give them a blank cheque and tell them to do whatever they feel is best?  I'd guess you'd want some control in that situation, so the question is the only difference between owning a sports team is that you have millions who think they know what's best, criticizing your every move.  

[The_People1]

Is Bob Murray an option to replace BT?  He built some solid teams in ANA and lot of it through the draft.

[robrob74]

From reports on radio, there's  someone saying Tkachuk wants to be "the" guy on a US team. Good luck with that. 

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

From reports on radio, there's  someone saying Tkachuk wants to be "the" guy on a US team. Good luck with that. 

 

On a rebuilding team, sure.  If he's walking into St.Louis or something then he needs to check his ego at the door.  

[cross16]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

The first part is what I am really starting to think is a problem.  You hired the darn GM to run the club.  If you can't trust him, then fire him or get a POHO.  Somebody where the buck stops.  They can spend up the cap if they see fit.  Structure of deals and when they are paid do not matter.  This may not be the case, but perhaps Edwards meddled too much in the final hours of the Gaudreau dealings.  If this in any way inched JH out the door, then they should stick to owning and not running.  

 

I don't get the sense the owners meddle or don't trust BT, in fact I think it's the opposite. I also don't agree that structure of deals don't matter to the person who signs the cheques so I think it's very reasonable for an owner to want to know when they are paying a player and how. I don't get the sense that Edwards was that involved in the negotiation but he likely was getting regular updates and approving certain structure and deals but that's very typical for an owner to do. It's not atypical for an owner to need to give approval to big money contracts or big money trades. 

 

My gut/sense of how it works in Calgary is likely

Owners set mandate for team in consultation with the GM (ie are we competing, spending, who we brining in etc). GM lays out plan but ownership has final say

Treliving left to operate on the day to day so long as plan is followed. if plan needs to be changed (ie buyout a certain player, trade a certain player or change window of contention), that would be presented to ownership for an ok. 

 

I wouldn't call that meddling and a lot owners run it this way. The only thing that I think is ripe for criticism is the we need to win every year mandate that this organization appears to have. 

 

37 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Is Bob Murray an option to replace BT?  He built some solid teams in ANA and lot of it through the draft.

 

he shouldn't be. Guy ran a toxic culture in Anaheim.