Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I get that a lot think if we only beat the oilers... but we barely beat the Stars and then got embarrassed by the Oilers. Maybe we beat the kings if they beat the oilers? But then then we get embarrassed by the Avs because we just aren't fast enough. Any team with any amount of speed will take the Flames to school because they just don't have the speed to keep up. When the stars decided to play the Flames didn't look as good. I guess it's the same with any team. 
 

many say we ran into a hot goalie. I agree he played great! But I also believe we created that situation with how we play. Shots shots shots. It doesn't always mean a lot of goals. It usually means we warm the other goalie up and make them look better. Still not trying to take anything away from how he played as he clearly outplayed Markstrom who also had a great series. I just didn't see the flames making their guy have to move as much to make great saves. They rarely went to the front of the net and that's where you make it harder on opposing goalies. I remember one goal where we made Oettinger move post to post and was like, there! That's how you beat him, but they didn't go that route. 
 

I just don't see this way of playing as successful. I still don't see enough net front presence. Someone said they think Lucic was put on the Kadri line to do that, because there is nothing else to put there. I agree. The team isn't built for the style Sutter wants to play. And guys can't fight for the middle of the ice in tight checking playoff hockey.

 

It's why I've said the team is too small for years. I don't mind smaller players, but too many of them are problematic. I guess I just haven't been able to articulate it.

 

 

 

Yeah, I keep hearing the same thing about barely beating the Stars.

I don't buy it.  They were a team deep on defense and a very hot goalie.

We were going into the playoffs with two guys that never do anything in the playoffs.

That lack of play showed up in the 2nd round.

JH played on the perimeter.

Tkachuk messed up by fighting when it didn't mean anything.

You could argue we blew the initial game (Oilers) by playing into their style.

Or you could suggest that losing the top D and another one playing with brokebn ribs may had impacted it.

Really doesn't matter.

I look at each year differently.

What did we do to change the team.

We lost two guys that were regular season champs.

And replaced with two guys that can take over a game.

Maybe that isn't being seen yet, but it will.

We have two goalies getting better, not worse.

STruggle to start a season is better than struggle end of season.

 

[jjgallow]

On 7/23/2022 at 2:23 AM, Heartbreaker said:

So, for the time being, can we all agree that you all owe GM Brad Treliving an earnest apology?

 

Love.

 

Seems boorish

[The_People1]

19 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

As 2022 is coming to a close, I will refrain from going through this line by line 😅.  

 

But it's tempting.

 

A couple general comments:

 

The cup being close:  We weren't even close.  We got slammed so hard in the playoffs it's almost like we'd be better off if we weren't there.  It was embarrassing.  And not a new thing for us.   To suggest that we were one player or one move away, isn't fair, in fact of every team in the playoffs I'd say we were the furthest from that.    There were reasons for that, from Regular season Gaudreau to our goaltending.   But the bottom line is the feelling of being close was just a regular season illusion.  The only thing we were closer to was more regular season triumphs.  We were never composed for anything resembling playoff hockey.

 

If only this one move:   I could list many reasons why it always felt like we were one move away but in reality we weren't in the ballpark.    But for simplicity I'll just say this:   BT's cap management.  And none of these cap mistakes were hindsight things.  None of them seemed good at the time.   They weren't "oh nice long term move" signings.  Each one was "ugh, ok for now but that's gonna hurt" signings.  The kind of signings that brought on role players at the cost of not locking down our core players, who would in turn leave for nothing as UFAs etc.

We were dead in the water as soon as BT had the authority to sign players to contracts.  Starting with, but not at all limited to, Lucic.    Zero of the above was ever possible because BT sunk us here.   It's not the only way he sunk us but it's pretty definitive and keeps the reply short and simple.

 

 

Last season we came the closest ever... And you could argue it's not close because exactly, we didn't have a Norris-level D and didn't have Monahan in his prime.  I argue we could've taken the Oilers if Tanev was fully healthy... Certainly would've helped Markstrom play better.

 

It took so long to beat DAL because they had a Heiskanen and we didn't have anyone close.

 

And so as I was saying, "if only".  All the pieces were there at some point in time but BT didn't get lucky with injuries and circumstances surrounding Fox.

 

You don't like BT's cap management and I agree but I'm putting most of the blame on ownership for pushing for short term results at the expense of long term sustainability.  BT was just doing his job... And yes, even then, there were fatal misses.  BT shouldn't get a free pass.

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Last season we came the closest ever... And you could argue it's not close because exactly, we didn't have a Norris-level D and didn't have Monahan in his prime.  I argue we could've taken the Oilers if Tanev was fully healthy... Certainly would've helped Markstrom play better.

 

When Tanev is out, Markstrom doesn't play well.

So it seems.

This year we lost close games without Tanev and we won some with him in.

So, it's good that we have both, chalk one up for BT,

Better than a Campbell or a Smith.

We overpaid but he's a 60 game goalie, unlike Campbell.

Other guys became available long after we got our goalie.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

When Tanev is out, Markstrom doesn't play well.

So it seems.

This year we lost close games without Tanev and we won some with him in.

So, it's good that we have both, chalk one up for BT,

Better than a Campbell or a Smith.

We overpaid but he's a 60 game goalie, unlike Campbell.

Other guys became available long after we got our goalie.

 

So it seems indeed 😅

 

When your best D are bad, the goalie all of a sudden looks bad.   Obviously, goalie's fault.  It's the only logical conclusion.

 

But that probably doesn't have anything to do with Markstrom's struggles this year.   Can't be related.

 

 

chalk one up for BT indeed.   He should be a spokesman for the elderly.

 

[jjgallow]

21 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Yeah, I keep hearing the same thing about barely beating the Stars.

 

 

Sorry to cut-quote.   I noticed the forum's latest software doing it anyway now though.    

 

You keep hearing about the Stars because it's less painful than talking about the Oilers.

 

Even for me.  To the point that even I don't want to argue about how bad it was.  Plus I know any effort to praise last year's playoffs also has zero chance of getting traction anyway.

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Last season we came the closest ever... And you could argue it's not close because exactly, we didn't have a Norris-level D and didn't have Monahan in his prime.  I argue we could've taken the Oilers if Tanev was fully healthy... Certainly would've helped Markstrom play better.

 

It took so long to beat DAL because they had a Heiskanen and we didn't have anyone close.

 

And so as I was saying, "if only".  All the pieces were there at some point in time but BT didn't get lucky with injuries and circumstances surrounding Fox.

 

You don't like BT's cap management and I agree but I'm putting most of the blame on ownership for pushing for short term results at the expense of long term sustainability.  BT was just doing his job... And yes, even then, there were fatal misses.  BT shouldn't get a free pass.

 

I admit that there is clearly a mandate coming from the owners which has prevented us from really building a contender.

 

Last year's regular season was impressive, I just, never place much emphasis on regular seasons.   In hindsight though, does the credit go to BT or does the credit go to the fact that he messed up our contracts and all our top players were in contract years going UFA?  (which later decimated us).

 

Yeah if you let all the contracts expire with your best players at the same time (cause you just needed to sign Lucic etc), prolly gonna have a good regular season.    Or at least until trade deadline, which is when they probably all assumed they were gonna get traded to contenders rather than being given away after.

 

So, yeah.  Owners, I admit it.  But I can't actually put it all on them for how it went down.

[cross16]

23 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

your last part of something I'm very worried about. The flames could do much worse. Even Burke was a poor choice when he took over after Feaster. There are some bad ones out there so maybe BT could be the best we'd get. Not terrible but not the best. Albeit, maybe if BT was given full autonomy to actually build a team, like an Yzerman and GM's like that, maybe we'd see a more creative BT. Maybe the win-now, make the playoffs at all costs mandate handcuffs a lot of GM's here. 

I’m fairness to Burke he hired Treliving and did a lot to change to perception of the flames. Flames were a league laughing stock under Feaster and Burke put a stop to that. It’s also my understanding that Burke pushed the owners to give Treliving more autonomy in his last deal. 
 
but call me skeptical that any group of people who thought Jay feaster was a good choice as GM is going to go and find a GM better than Treliving. He’s got flaws sure and he’s made mistakes but the flames could do so so much worse and I’m not actually sure they could do better. I’d put Treliving in the upper half of GMs in the league so your fishing in a pretty small pond to do better imo. A chance sure but it’s small given that the top GMs arnt likely going anywhere. 
 

as I’ve said many times if your main complaint about Treliving is he deals too many picks or that he won’t do a tank style rebuild then I don’t think you’d like any replacement GM. Initiatives like that come from ownership, especially in Calgary based on everything I’ve been led to believe. 

[sak22]

One thing to keep in mind, there are only 2 GM's currently employed that have had a #1 pick in their current job and that would be the 2 most recent ones.  Lame duck coaches are well known in rebuilds, as we'll say you need to draft #1 to win a cup, no team that has won a cup with a #1 pick has done it with the same GM.  Things to consider why BT won't go into a tear down, because there is no job security even in a rebuild and that is pretty much league wide, also not easy to get 2nd opportunities.

[jjgallow]

10 hours ago, sak22 said:

One thing to keep in mind, there are only 2 GM's currently employed that have had a #1 pick in their current job and that would be the 2 most recent ones.  Lame duck coaches are well known in rebuilds, as we'll say you need to draft #1 to win a cup, no team that has won a cup with a #1 pick has done it with the same GM.  Things to consider why BT won't go into a tear down, because there is no job security even in a rebuild and that is pretty much league wide, also not easy to get 2nd opportunities.

 

A very interesting point, which makes me think about:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Patrick

 

A few thoughts on this:

 

You don't need the #1 pick to do a rebuild (you don't need to tank)

Tanking usually isn't on purpose

You need a good 4-5 years to win a cup after rebuild/tanking, and that is longer than most GMs last

When teams do get the first pick overall, it's usually the result of a bad GM (not so sure about Craig Patrick though)

Even if the GM isn't bad, to your point, they'll likely be blamed.   Just like we did with Feaster.

 

 

Truth is, if you have a policy of not sacrificing your future, a rebuild may never be needed.   Or when it happens, it can be pretty mild.   But imho with what BT is done, we are in fact headed towards a pretty severe rebuild and he very much will be blamed (how could you not).   Which will further strengthen your arguement lol.   But it's a catch 22 because what comes next, BT Should rightfully be blamed for.

[MP5029]

I think when it comes

to BT we shouldn’t loose sight of his recent moves (since Sutter came

in) have been scary similar to when Sutter was the GM…Just saying…

[cross16]

2 hours ago, MP5029 said:

I think when it comes

to BT we shouldn’t loose sight of his recent moves (since Sutter came

in) have been scary similar to when Sutter was the GM…Just saying…

in what way?

[jjgallow]

On 1/2/2023 at 5:59 AM, MP5029 said:

I think when it comes

to BT we shouldn’t loose sight of his recent moves (since Sutter came

in) have been scary similar to when Sutter was the GM…Just saying…

 

They have been very Sutter-like.  I'm not sure how to interpret that but it's true.   Future-sacrificing moves.

 

BT's drafting record is maybe slightly better but that's unlikely to last with the amounts of picks he's let go.

 

Other similarities:   Sutter's moves were actually usually well-received, aplauded at first, and lost their luster over time.

                              Seeing that with BT too.

 

An interesting difference is that when Sutter was let go it was almost a "let's rebuild" thing.  But with BT, the talk on here is that it's owner-driven win now.

 

Sutter was also an Extremely popular GM until almost weeks/months before he was fired and then there was a complete pivot of opinion on him as a GM.   I don't think anybody saw what was coming next in LA.

 

I expect similar with BT, when that day comes the opinion will pivot fast.

[robrob74]

32 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

They have been very Sutter-like.  I'm not sure how to interpret that but it's true.   Future-sacrificing moves.

 

BT's drafting record is maybe slightly better but that's unlikely to last with the amounts of picks he's let go.

 

Other similarities:   Sutter's moves were actually usually well-received, aplauded at first, and lost their luster over time.

                              Seeing that with BT too.

 

An interesting difference is that when Sutter was let go it was almost a "let's rebuild" thing.  But with BT, the talk on here is that it's owner-driven win now.

 

Sutter was also an Extremely popular GM until almost weeks/months before he was fired and then there was a complete pivot of opinion on him as a GM.   I don't think anybody saw what was coming next in LA.

 

I expect similar with BT, when that day comes the opinion will pivot fast.

 

I was excited about getting Jarnkrok and Toffoli as I thought they'd add. But I didn't understand the Carpenter deal. Jarnkrok played ok defensively but no offence and didn't mesh with the system or had long enough to gel in it.
 

 In the end I'm still out on Toffoli as the right target. He is doing well this year and maybe adds to the team. I still see awkwardness in his game but gets points despite it. I feel like he's in a world on his own in how he plays. But that's just me. 
 

To me it's what I see the Flames as right now, Individual players with their own skills thrown into system trying to go through motions of the system but everyone is on their own within it. Maybe the system breeds robotics because there doesn't seem to be life in it. 
 

in the end, I don't see much change in how BT does things but maybe the targets are different? He has "thrown" away picks for playoff help in the past...  When we got the offensive D guy who added nothing more really. I think he tossed out a few picks that year for adds for a possible playoff and we weren't close to contending, but when I called out those trades others here said that they were moves teams make to compete in the playoffs. 

[jjgallow]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I was excited about getting Jarnkrok and Toffoli as I thought they'd add. But I didn't understand the Carpenter deal. Jarnkrok played ok defensively but no offence and didn't mesh with the system or had long enough to gel in it.
 

 In the end I'm still out on Toffoli as the right target. He is doing well this year and maybe adds to the team. I still see awkwardness in his game but gets points despite it. I feel like he's in a world on his own in how he plays. But that's just me. 
 

To me it's what I see the Flames as right now, Individual players with their own skills thrown into system trying to go through motions of the system but everyone is on their own within it. Maybe the system breeds robotics because there doesn't seem to be life in it. 
 

in the end, I don't see much change in how BT does things but maybe the targets are different? He has "thrown" away picks for playoff help in the past...  When we got the offensive D guy who added nothing more really. I think he tossed out a few picks that year for adds for a possible playoff and we weren't close to contending, but when I called out those trades others here said that they were moves teams make to compete in the playoffs. 

 

The Toffoli trade was maybe one of his better future-sacrificing trades.  And I think I hated it the most because there was a surface justification to it.  If you were of the mindset that we were cup-bound, it was an obvious move.

 

If you were of the mindset that we were over-hyped with all our top players in contract years and none of them very playoff-savvy, then it was extra frustrating to see a first round pick disappear to the absolute delight of fans.

 

Toffoli has been good.   But was he that missing piece we needed to justify the first rounder?   He was one of about 4-5 missing pieces.   Not including the cap-space issue.   And every time BT pulls the trigger on one of these, we have another potential missing piece down the road.

 

Hard not to like Toffoli.  I get it.   Give it a couple years though and that will change.  Reminds me so much of Sutter's Jokinen trade.   Which, years later, he was heavily ridiculed for.

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

The Toffoli trade was maybe one of his better future-sacrificing trades.  And I think I hated it the most because there was a surface justification to it.  If you were of the mindset that we were cup-bound, it was an obvious move.

 

If you were of the mindset that we were over-hyped with all our top players in contract years and none of them very playoff-savvy, then it was extra frustrating to see a first round pick disappear to the absolute delight of fans.

 

Toffoli has been good.   But was he that missing piece we needed to justify the first rounder?   He was one of about 4-5 missing pieces.   Not including the cap-space issue.   And every time BT pulls the trigger on one of these, we have another potential missing piece down the road.

 

Hard not to like Toffoli.  I get it.   Give it a couple years though and that will change.  Reminds me so much of Sutter's Jokinen trade.   Which, years later, he was heavily ridiculed for.

 

I fail to see the comp between Joker and Toffee.

Toff was brought in to complete a team lacking in playoff performers.

It really didn't work out last year because we were a C short.

The top line was set, and the Backlund line didn't need a RW.

Jarnkrok was the wrong idea last year, maybe would have worked better this year.

 

If the reason you don't like the GM is because he didn't embrace the rebuild, fine.

Neal and Brouwer were mistakes.

Lazar trade a bad idea.

Monahan was annoying because he was better than the overpriced guy that we kept.

But, it was 50/50 that Monahan would even rebound.

Maybe less so by staying on this team.

Our style didn't fit well with his play below the top line.

Probably ends up injured again.

 

But anyway, we can evaluate while the season is still rolling if you like.

The team isn't a plug team and the way the new ones play is part coach and part player.

If we win the cup, then the GM is a genious.

If we are in the ugly middle, then we have to look at a variety of reasons.

Long term, the GM is on the hook for the mistakes made if we drop year over year.

The owners will evaluate based on the relative success.

 

[flames for life]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I fail to see the comp between Joker and Toffee.

Toff was brought in to complete a team lacking in playoff performers.

It really didn't work out last year because we were a C short.

The top line was set, and the Backlund line didn't need a RW.

Jarnkrok was the wrong idea last year, maybe would have worked better this year.

 

If the reason you don't like the GM is because he didn't embrace the rebuild, fine.

Neal and Brouwer were mistakes.

Lazar trade a bad idea.

Monahan was annoying because he was better than the overpriced guy that we kept.

But, it was 50/50 that Monahan would even rebound.

Maybe less so by staying on this team.

Our style didn't fit well with his play below the top line.

Probably ends up injured again.

 

But anyway, we can evaluate while the season is still rolling if you like.

The team isn't a plug team and the way the new ones play is part coach and part player.

If we win the cup, then the GM is a genious.

If we are in the ugly middle, then we have to look at a variety of reasons.

Long term, the GM is on the hook for the mistakes made if we drop year over year.

The owners will evaluate based on the relative success.

 

Basically what I’m hearing is there’s a thousand reasons why players succeed on a team, and a thousand reasons why they don’t.  The one constant is Sutter has a system he wants the players to work within.  Image wise, it’s like playing within a fence.  If you try to walk on the fence top, it’s 50/50 if you would be successful; but learn the system in the boundaries, you can play to your skill set all you want!  It’s adapting your game to the demands of the system.  Toffoli seems to have done that this year, but it took the past year to adjust.  We may be seeing the same with the new players on the team.

[cross16]

If the argument is Treliving is like sutter becaue they are both dealing future for now that's overly simplistic IMO. Be a challenge to find a GM in the league who isn't sacrificing future for winning now if that is their mandate. I woudln't even criticize Sutter for that. 

 

I think if you look at the players who are being acquired it's a big difference between the two. I mean just look at the Phaneuf and Tkachuk trades. 

[flames for life]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

If the argument is Treliving is like sutter becaue they are both dealing future for now that's overly simplistic IMO. Be a challenge to find a GM in the league who isn't sacrificing future for winning now if that is their mandate. I woudln't even criticize Sutter for that. 

 

I think if you look at the players who are being acquired it's a big difference between the two. I mean just look at the Phaneuf and Tkachuk trades. 

Agreed!  It’s a fine line to balance!

[robrob74]

35 minutes ago, cross16 said:

If the argument is Treliving is like sutter becaue they are both dealing future for now that's overly simplistic IMO. Be a challenge to find a GM in the league who isn't sacrificing future for winning now if that is their mandate. I woudln't even criticize Sutter for that. 

 

I think if you look at the players who are being acquired it's a big difference between the two. I mean just look at the Phaneuf and Tkachuk trades. 

it could be who was willing to trade for Phaneuf. But they were both trying to get one last ability to compete. Albeit, Florida being a willing partner and needing to clear space was in our favour.

 

Florida not doing well might be trading a down year and win the lotto for the prize, maybe they didn't  want that, but some teams are ok with losing a year to gain? 

[Heartbreaker]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

it could be who was willing to trade for Phaneuf....

 

Yeah, if I remember correctly, most teams weren't aware that Phaneuf was available, and I do recall reading that some GMs scoffed, and made comments like, "We'd've given them more than that."

 

That trade was arguably the second worst in Flames history, followed only by that other trade to the same team. We can say what we want about Phaneuf, but there's no denying that at the time of the trade, his value should have been sky-high.

 

Love.

[sak22]

One thing with BT and even Sutter is while people can complain about trading a first for Toffoli last year, Bill Zito traded 2 firsts for Giroux and Chiraot and wound up winning fewer playoff games than the Flames, and neither player stayed with the Panthers where Toffoli is.  The one thing is no first rounder has been traded by the Flames in the 2st century for a rental, there were mistakes in choosing the year for the Jokinen pick and overevaluating the team with Hamonic trade.  Sutter had a problem with trading 2nd rounders for sure, but if you look it up only 1 was for a rental and the only 2nd Treliving has spent on a rental was Jarnkrok.   We can disagree about the targets, but its not like they throwing them towards the Chiarots, Savard, or Foligno's of rentals or depth forwads like Coleman or Gooderow, it can always be much worse.

[sak22]

38 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

it could be who was willing to trade for Phaneuf. But they were both trying to get one last ability to compete. Albeit, Florida being a willing partner and needing to clear space was in our favour.

 

Florida not doing well might be trading a down year and win the lotto for the prize, maybe they didn't  want that, but some teams are ok with losing a year to gain? 

I don't think its a design but there is a new coach, goaltending has been bad, Barkov hasn't been 100% and has missed 10 games, Ekblad has missed 11, Duclair has missed the entire season, they have for the most part replaced, attendance is the highest its been in years down there but people will stop caring if the losses continue.  

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

it could be who was willing to trade for Phaneuf. But they were both trying to get one last ability to compete. Albeit, Florida being a willing partner and needing to clear space was in our favour.

 

Florida not doing well might be trading a down year and win the lotto for the prize, maybe they didn't  want that, but some teams are ok with losing a year to gain? 

 

The problem with Phaneuf was the process. The Flames had full control where he went and he should have been shopped to the highest bidder, but all indications are he wasn't. If you are going to deal an asset like Phaneuf, especially given his age at the time, you better get some future pieces. As much as you can give Treliving flak for going after older players in Huberdeau and Weegar, he deserves credit for insisting some future pieces were in the deal too. 

Sutter, in his own words, dealt Phaneuf because he didn't like tying up cap space in 1 player he wanted to spread it out. He traded a star for depth so if the goal was to compete one last time he was using the wrong logic. He also didn't stick to his price. Burke break down the negotiation in his book and Burke was the one who asked for Keith Aulie in the deal. Sutter said no way and they stalled, to the point where Burke's staff was actually getting mad at him that he was going to lose the deal over Keith Freaking Aulie. The next day Sutter called back and said deal. 

Which highlights to me a big difference between the two. Sutter's downfall started when he started targeting the wrong players. I don't see that in Treliving right now. 

 

 

The Panthers have dealt away 3 straight years of first found picks. Now they did protect them against being top 10 picks but that is an extremely odd move for a team to make if they were ok with losing a year. 

[MP5029]

3 hours ago, flames for life said:

Basically what I’m hearing is there’s a thousand reasons why players succeed on a team, and a thousand reasons why they don’t.  The one constant is Sutter has a system he wants the players to work within.  Image wise, it’s like playing within a fence.  If you try to walk on the fence top, it’s 50/50 if you would be successful; but learn the system in the boundaries, you can play to your skill set all you want!  It’s adapting your game to the demands of the system.  Toffoli seems to have done that this year, but it took the past year to adjust.  We may be seeing the same with the new players on the team.

This I agree with…it

could also be argued that both Tachuck and gaudreau had the same growing pains in that first 1/2 year Sutter got here…having said that, I will

reserve judgement on both Huby and Weegar till next year…

 

the only major problem is the team

committed huge $$$ before we seen if they can adjust to the Sutter way…fortunately there seems to be some signs of them settling in now, hopefully 🙏 that continues and they too hit career years like Tachuck and Gaudreau did after adjusting to The Sutter way