Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[jjgallow]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

A lot of moves not involving Calgary Flames. I really think the Flames are not doing anything this deadline. 
 

can there be a silver lining? 
 

 

there is a lot of discussion that the team is good but has underperformed. This scares me because it means they think next year will be different. But will it just mean it's going to be an every other year pattern we are used to? 
 

I just don't know that this team has the right mix and is slow. I get they look good against the better teams, I think that just means they know they have to give their all to beat them. But is it something they can do every day every game? So far this season says no. 

 

Yup.  Is scary.   history would suggest the team could be bad and out-performed last year lol.

That's Sutter's history too.

 

They need to stay out of the TDL or be sellers.   Pretty clear, pretty obvious.

 

So obvious in fact, that I think management even knows it, but they'll never, ever say it out loud.

[robrob74]

We just gained a tweeners apparently. So, a reclamation project. Maybe he can push forward? 
 

 

[zima]

As far a I can see is we mostly out play most teams and out shot by 20 shots or better which tells me we are losing due to bad goal trending and our top managemnet and coaches are blind to bad work from our most important possession I don't understand why it is ignored?

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, zima said:

As far a I can see is we mostly out play most teams and out shot by 20 shots or better which tells me we are losing due to bad goal trending and our top managemnet and coaches are blind to bad work from our most important possession I don't understand why it is ignored?

 

I think it is style of play, and inconsistent defending up and down the lineup, and the goalies. While they let in bad goals, I wonder if the inconsistencies being fixed help the goalies. 

[zima]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think it is style of play, and inconsistent defending up and down the lineup, and the goalies. While they let in bad goals, I wonder if the inconsistencies being fixed help the goalies. 

I will not blame D when we out shoot at such a constant play I can't believe we are so bad at D that we can out shoot a team by 20 shots or better and still loss if that is the case then we should be removing sutter. We had a bunch of good D who never even gave a chance like Macay I disagree with with blaming D sooner or later you have to see it is the final position that has to do there jobs if they don't then were looking at exactly what's happening lose after lose.. Now I'm listening to the Fan and how bios they are when it comes with the trades that just took place I ho[pe they pay them well to throw such crap at the fans scary.

[robrob74]

31 minutes ago, zima said:

I will not blame D when we out shoot at such a constant play I can't believe we are so bad at D that we can out shoot a team by 20 shots or better and still loss if that is the case then we should be removing sutter. We had a bunch of good D who never even gave a chance like Macay I disagree with with blaming D sooner or later you have to see it is the final position that has to do there jobs if they don't then were looking at exactly what's happening lose after lose.. Now I'm listening to the Fan and how bios they are when it comes with the trades that just took place I ho[pe they pay them well to throw such crap at the fans scary.

I don't like shot totals. For me, just because they get shots, doesn't mean the quality is that great. I don't even like the high danger stats because I feel it doesn't mean danger all the time.

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I don't like shot totals. For me, just because they get shots, doesn't mean the quality is that great. I don't even like the high danger stats because I feel it doesn't mean danger all the time.

 

The BOS game was one that we outshot by almost 3 to 1, and outchanced them by a wide margin.

I mean let's face it, 50 shots is going to get you 2 or more goals.

Doesn't matter how poor the quality is.

We have lost of chances where it's HD and the shot trickles wide, hits a post, hit own player, gets sat on....

 

On the other side of the equation, we knock the puck in, we delfect the pusk away from the goalie's glove, we turnover in the slot.  This is luck.  A turnover happens all the time, but isn't often in a perect circumstance to score.

 

The HD simply is location.  The goalie could be down and out, and we can't raise it.  Or we have a slot shot and hit the post or chest.  

[Thebrewcrew]

I think Treliving's future is 50/50.

 

I could see them parting ways. He's approaching a decade on the job, with no sustained success.

 

I think it was Feaster that said the message from ownership was "you can miss the playoffs once, but not in consecutive years". If there's any validity to it, I could see BT sticking around. Could see ownership giving him a pass given the unexpected change they had in the summer. I would also think Darryl will have a lot of say in what happens with the GM.

 

It's a careful what you wish for situation. If ownership approaches the search for a new GM lime they have with coaching, it will be a first time GM. You're more likely to end up with a Paul Fenton than a Julien Brisebois. Or worse, Darryl becomes GM

[rickross]

If Joel Quenneville returns would it be worth pursuing? 

[Thebrewcrew]

9 hours ago, rickross said:

If Joel Quenneville returns would it be worth pursuing? 

No. Not now given his role in the Hawks scandal.

[rickross]

11 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

No. Not now given his role in the Hawks scandal.

It would be controversial for the obvious reasons, and it would be a distraction. Ironically , Quenneville would be so driven to shut up his critics he could have this team playing with purpose and a laser focus. Too bad that same laser focus made him disregard the plight of a victim of abuse, all in the name of Lord Stanley at that 

[The_People1]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:22 PM, Thebrewcrew said:

I think Treliving's future is 50/50.

 

I could see them parting ways. He's approaching a decade on the job, with no sustained success.

 

I think it was Feaster that said the message from ownership was "you can miss the playoffs once, but not in consecutive years". If there's any validity to it, I could see BT sticking around. Could see ownership giving him a pass given the unexpected change they had in the summer. I would also think Darryl will have a lot of say in what happens with the GM.

 

It's a careful what you wish for situation. If ownership approaches the search for a new GM lime they have with coaching, it will be a first time GM. You're more likely to end up with a Paul Fenton than a Julien Brisebois. Or worse, Darryl becomes GM

 

Not sure what GM would want this job if the owner has overstepped the GM to ensure the coach's job is safe.  It's questionable right now if BT even feels Sutter is the right coach for the team he's put together.  And BT has no say.

[robrob74]

57 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Not sure what GM would want this job if the owner has overstepped the GM to ensure the coach's job is safe.  It's questionable right now if BT even feels Sutter is the right coach for the team he's put together.  And BT has no say.

could even be that the team he assembled is his as well. or the route he wanted to go in. he did well in the Tkachuk deal yes. but some reason, the mix of off. 
 

I'd love to see BT given full control. I doubt he does here. But then, I dunno. 

[The_People1]

38 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

could even be that the team he assembled is his as well. or the route he wanted to go in. he did well in the Tkachuk deal yes. but some reason, the mix of off. 
 

I'd love to see BT given full control. I doubt he does here. But then, I dunno. 

 

The team he assembled may not even be fully his team.  It's becoming clear that BT has always had to juggle the line between building his team and building a team that can squeeze into the playoffs to keep the owners happy.  

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The team he assembled may not even be fully his team.  It's becoming clear that BT has always had to juggle the line between building his team and building a team that can squeeze into the playoffs to keep the owners happy.  

 

I would go one step further.  Last year we saw that Valimaki was not a fit with the coach.  He had no desire to work with the player, even though he had good things going for him.  The GM didn't extend Valimaki because he was a bum.  Sutter last year said that Mackey was more mature, so was more of a first choice.  This year BT was forces to make a choice based on the coach's list of players he wanted; it didn't include Valimaki.  It barely included Mackey.  Camp basically had two streams.  The vets that didn't need to show they were ready and the prospects/tryouts that had to blow the doors off.  Admittedly, none of the prospects had great camps, but then again, they were played separate and not given much of a look with any of the vets.  End results, we demote Zary and Pelletier, and eventually are forced to waive Valimaki and trade Mackey.

 

That disconnect continued.  BT calls up the AHL scoring leader, but he sits and sits.  Sutter only played him because the noise was too loud.  Not exactly much of a tryout.  His comments leading up to being called up showed his bias.  NHL players play in the NHL.  The likes of Phillips only have scored in the AHL and he's too small.  Lucic sits long enough to take some of the heat off coaching, then gets put on the 2nd line.  

 

We are in a bad state right now, and the GM knew any moves he made would not go over well if he moved Lewis or tried to move Lucic.  He traded Mackey and Ritchie, who were on the outs with the coach for a tougher version of Ritchie and a better seasoned D.  Any change to the losing lineup?  Not at F.  Unable to score through 2, the lack of scoring and emotion didn't seem to impact the coach.  No urgency in the gameplan, even though he knew Minny would lock it down.  No change to the process that wasn't working.  It wasn't until late that he made one change.  Swap Pelts for Mangiapane.  The one player that was at least standing out was moved to a defensive line.  That was it.  

 

 

[cross16]

The market doesn’t look great for potential GMs right now and I have to agree that the Flames job isn’t attractive. Ownership, Canadian market, Sutter and their long term contract situation makes it pretty undesirable to a top candidate imo. 
I don’t think Sutter wants to be the GM but if he gets influence then perhaps a Mike Futa is interested. I don’t think that’s good news but he’s publicly stated he wants to be a GM and isn’t currently. Promoting Conroy/Pascal is another option and could work out. I don’t see whey it would but perhaps behind the scenes they’ve got a different philosophy. 
 

either way it’s not a rosy picture imo from a fans perspective.  I quite like Treliving but a large part of wanting to keep him is im not seeing how the flames get better. Hope I’m wrong. 
 

[travel_dude]

59 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The market doesn’t look great for potential GMs right now and I have to agree that the Flames job isn’t attractive. Ownership, Canadian market, Sutter and their long term contract situation makes it pretty undesirable to a top candidate imo. 
I don’t think Sutter wants to be the GM but if he gets influence then perhaps a Mike Futa is interested. I don’t think that’s good news but he’s publicly stated he wants to be a GM and isn’t currently. Promoting Conroy/Pascal is another option and could work out. I don’t see whey it would but perhaps behind the scenes they’ve got a different philosophy. 
 

either way it’s not a rosy picture imo from a fans perspective.  I quite like Treliving but a large part of wanting to keep him is im not seeing how the flames get better. Hope I’m wrong. 
 

 

Yeah, the alternatives seem bleak.

Not that BT is the best GM, but he has done things he thought would work.

Pro scouting maybe has a part in the targets.

But the present coaching plays a big part in how they perform when they get here.

Last night seemed like a night the players called it quits after two.

They seem to get that the likelyhood of making the playoffs is close to zero.

The gameplan called for them to be flawless defensively and in nets.

Look for mistakes and capitalize on them.

 

I'm not saying the players have quit on the coach.

I think they are fed up doing the same things and expecting a different result.

The only wins we have had is where a goalie sucks, the other team is on a B2B or we outshoot a lesser goalie by 2-1.

 

[Thebrewcrew]

The coaching situation could be a deterrent for a new candidate.

 

But there is a real opportunity for a new GM to reshape this roster.

 

It's easy to look at Huberdeau/Kadri/Weegar deals, Markstrom, Andersson and Coleman are the only other players on the roster with more than 2yrs of term left this summer.  

[travel_dude]

29 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The coaching situation could be a deterrent for a new candidate.

 

But there is a real opportunity for a new GM to reshape this roster.

 

It's easy to look at Huberdeau/Kadri/Weegar deals, Markstrom, Andersson and Coleman are the only other players on the roster with more than 2yrs of term left this summer.  

 

Doesn't have to be a new GM.

Shipping out Backlund, Coleman, Hanifin, Markstrom, Lindholm, Dube, Mangiapane is an option for any GM.

You need to do an honest evaulation of the impact they bring.  Is it enough?

Is the player going to be too costly to re-sign?  Negotiations with the GM should detail that.

The year left guys have to be known what the cost is going to be and whether we want to keep them.

We can't really keep everyone, since we don't have enough for a full team.

[jjgallow]

 

ok guys,

 

I see we're in a bind.  If it comes down to it, I'll bite the bullet and take the position.

 

You're welcome.

[DirtyDeeds]

I'm torn.

On one side I think the departure of Johnny. I know hindsight is 50/50 but BT regularly waits to the last minute to get players signed. It is a part of his negotiating tactics that has given him some "steals" of signings.

In the end Johnny signed for less than offered here. Also some of the things he said after he signed elsewhere indicated to me he really didn't want to be here. There was no tough last minute decision.

 

I think the MT trade saved his butt and also will be remembered as one of his best. I still think this trade will show us winning it when all is said and done. 

 

BT is obviously attuned to what the team needs. Dougie, Marky, Tanev and many more were awesome pickups.

 

Could we find better though has to be the question and motivation before we sign him again. Is his vision enough to get us to the level we need to be.

 

We stopped our rebuild when we drafted MT and when Johnny turned out to be an elite player. That was at least 2 players short of what we needed. You have to grade that decision a total miss.

 

I don't see BT being let go. He has his former boss here now. I think they are tight. Probably have to let both go to make that change. I don't see BT switching to protect his butt mode either. I have to think his very frugal spending is popular with the Owners.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I'm torn.

On one side I think the departure of Johnny. I know hindsight is 50/50 but BT regularly waits to the last minute to get players signed. It is a part of his negotiating tactics that has given him some "steals" of signings.

In the end Johnny signed for less than offered here. Also some of the things he said after he signed elsewhere indicated to me he really didn't want to be here. There was no tough last minute decision.

 

I think the MT trade saved his butt and also will be remembered as one of his best. I still think this trade will show us winning it when all is said and done. 

 

BT is obviously attuned to what the team needs. Dougie, Marky, Tanev and many more were awesome pickups.

 

Could we find better though has to be the question and motivation before we sign him again. Is his vision enough to get us to the level we need to be.

 

We stopped our rebuild when we drafted MT and when Johnny turned out to be an elite player. That was at least 2 players short of what we needed. You have to grade that decision a total miss.

 

I don't see BT being let go. He has his former boss here now. I think they are tight. Probably have to let both go to make that change. I don't see BT switching to protect his butt mode either. I have to think his very frugal spending is popular with the Owners.

 

There's so much to like about BT and he's done so much good, especially compared to the previous two regimes.  It's going to be tough to see him go and those two previous regimes showed us that it can get much worse... Sutter could be back at the GM position once again... Oof.

 

From a theory perspective, BT hit all the marks for me. 

 

His rebuild included 3 stud Centers (supposedly... Monahan, Bennett, Backlund was our 1/2/3 punch down the middle and it was supposed to have worked),

 

Stud D (Giordano, Brodie... Hamilton/Hanifin, Andersson, Tanev to name a few.  Even Fox.)

 

Stud G (Markstrom... for a year at least)

 

BT even focused on building depth and we've seen some solid 3rd/4th liners come and go.

 

Where it all went wrong, and I agree with you, the decision to stop the rebuild too early.  We ended up with only 2 star players (Gaudreau and Tkachuk) and that's two or three short of what is needed to be Cup contenders.

 

He never spent frugally though... because he just spent to the cap.  Whatever he saved on Gaudreau and Tkachuk's second contracts he blew the cash on Neal, Brouwer, Coleman, and arguably Kadri, etc.

 

And so, we're coming to 9 years of BT... this team is neither here nor there.  Many want to give him a pass because Johnny screwed us... but like you mentioned above... and I agree with you because actions speak louder than words... BT's hard negotiating tactics blew up in his face.  Johnny literally had his revenge on BT despite what he says publicly.  Toyed with BT like BT toyed with him last time.  He rather go to the worst team in the NHL than give his services to BT again.  So yes, Johnny was BT's fault.  I don't give BT a pass like others do.

 

All in all, 9 years and this team's players are all in the prime of their careers.  Most of the players are 26 to 32.. and yet if this isn't even a playoff team, then it's hard to justify much more of this.  He got great value out of the Tkachuk trade but if it doesn't work in the end then it was a failed trade.

[cross16]

I'm not sure why people still think that this rebuild was accelerated. Everything from Burke and the owners suggest that they didn't want a long rebuild before the hired Treliving. 

 

Why sign a starting goalie in Jonus Hiller if you are looking at a long rebuild?

Trade a 3rd for Bollig if you are looking at a multi year rebuild?

They starting talking about the Hamilton trade before the TDL, why if they were ready to be patient?

 

In hindsight there is really nothing to suggest this organization was in interested in a multi year rebuild. I'm sure they didn't bank on getting into the playoffs that year but from my perspective nothing changed after that season that leads me to believe they changed the plan. I think the plan was always to build a consistent contender as soon as they could. 

[robrob74]

48 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I'm not sure why people still think that this rebuild was accelerated. Everything from Burke and the owners suggest that they didn't want a long rebuild before the hired Treliving. 

 

Why sign a starting goalie in Jonus Hiller if you are looking at a long rebuild?

Trade a 3rd for Bollig if you are looking at a multi year rebuild?

They starting talking about the Hamilton trade before the TDL, why if they were ready to be patient?

 

In hindsight there is really nothing to suggest this organization was in interested in a multi year rebuild. I'm sure they didn't bank on getting into the playoffs that year but from my perspective nothing changed after that season that leads me to believe they changed the plan. I think the plan was always to build a consistent contender as soon as they could. 

Hiller was a reclamation project hoping to be a number 1 again. He already sucked by the time the Flames got him. 
 

Bollig was brought in to keep the kids safe because they were getting bullied by the meaner teams. We had a lot of turnover. 
 

not saying it didn't mean the rebuild was over then, just that those were needs regardless of whether we were rebuilding or coming out of the build. 
 

 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Hiller was a reclamation project hoping to be a number 1 again. He already sucked by the time the Flames got him. 
 

 

 

The season before they signed him:

50 games played. 29-13-7 with a 2.48 and a .911 Save %

 

With the Flames

52 Games played. 26-19-4 with a 2.36 and a .918Save %

 

He was the Ducks number 1 ever year prior to the Flames signing him. The didn't re sign him because they had Freddie Anderson and John Gibson coming up. He was 32 years old and signed a 2 year deal which is not a reclamation project. 

 

Not to mention the Flames had Ramo and Ortio at the time. Ramo was coming off a season where he was pretty equal to Hiller in performance. Either they wanted to upgrade the spot or they were looking to have 2 solid goalies but either way it's not a move that teams do if they are wanting a multi year rebuild. 

 

Fine to admit they needed toughness but if you are planning on a long rebuild you don't, well at least you shouldn't, give up 3rd round picks for players like Bolig.