Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[conundrumed]

I dont see how the blue jackets or winnipeg are alot better, blue jackets are lacking on D and winnipeg has good players up front but I think we have more high end talent at this point they have lots of young players with potential though. So you think if we had better goalies, BH suddenly becomes a better coach? Yes we have a goaltending issue, but that doesnt explain the other seasons that BH was the coach of this team.

Right. Okay, it's coaching.

We have more high end talent than Winnipeg? When did that happen?

Scheifele=Monahan. Care to break down the rest?

Being a homer doesn't make us better than a lot of our roster being crap. Maye Ferland is Lucic, maybe Colborne is Franzen.

Guess what? They aren't.

[AlbertaBoy12]

Right. Okay, it's coaching.

We have more high end talent than Winnipeg? When did that happen?

Scheifele=Monahan. Care to break down the rest?

Being a homer doesn't make us better than a lot of our roster being crap. Maye Ferland is Lucic, maybe Colborne is Franzen.

Guess what? They aren't.

Scheifele= monahan in what world? Hes older then monahan and has had less points in the past two seasons, in the rookie season they were tied. The only difference is scheifele has better advanced stats what a suprise he plays on a overall better team in that category.

 

Next your going to tell me that ehlers= gaudreau? and who equals bennett?

 

On D its definatly a toss up, but it has nothing to do with being a homer. There is some gaps in our roster, but you seem to think that coaching would have gotten us to the promised land and that BH is a genius, so this arguement is pointless. 

[rickross]

BT has been great thus far minus a few missteps here and there. The biggest one being the obvious lack of goaltending and coaching right now. It's a pivotal time in BT's tenure, the choice in coaching is going to be closely watched and all the analytics comparisons will be put under a microscope. I'll be a better judge after the draft and Free agency periods pass, then we'll all have a better idea of his vision for this team.

[robrob1974]

So the way I see it is, we are about 1-2 bottom six players and 1-2 top six players away from playing the way management want to play.

Gaudreau, Monahan, XXX

Ferland, Bennett, XXX

XXX, Backlund, Frolik

Bouma, XXX, Hathaway

XXX, Jooris

If you want an offensive 4th line threat, maybe you throw Ferland on that line with a biggish 2-way C. Has Arnold progressed enough?

Bouma can try rekindle his chemistry with Backlund. Then that leaves a spot you have to fill for Bennett.

We aren't close enough, but a couple more adds this off season with get us close to a playoff birth. It depends on how fast we can move into the new system with the new coach.

I think it is highly unlikely we make the playoffs again next year.

[jjgallow]

ok....just for the record....who signed Engelland again?  I get confused on this.   Burke?  Feaster?  BT?

[MAC331]

So the way I see it is, we are about 1-2 bottom six players and 1-2 top six players away from playing the way management want to play.

Gaudreau, Monahan, XXX

Ferland, Bennett, XXX

XXX, Backlund, Frolik

Bouma, XXX, Hathaway

XXX, Jooris

If you want an offensive 4th line threat, maybe you throw Ferland on that line with a biggish 2-way C. Has Arnold progressed enough?

Bouma can try rekindle his chemistry with Backlund. Then that leaves a spot you have to fill for Bennett.

We aren't close enough, but a couple more adds this off season with get us close to a playoff birth. It depends on how fast we can move into the new system with the new coach.

I think it is highly unlikely we make the playoffs again next year.

If they want to maximize Bennett I think you put Frolik with those two for experience. A new coach isn't going to care all that much about keeping him with Backlund. Are you thinking they trade Colborne ? If not they could move Bouma up and have Colborne C the 4th line. If they really want to improve the bottom 6, I would bring in two new RW and unload Shore, Hathaway and Grant. They could keep Jooris and Hamilton as 13 & 14.

[robrob1974]

I see Colborne pricing himself out of Calgary so they're forced to trade his rights. They'll offer the RFA price but he may need arbitration. If he's awarded too much they trade him. I am still not sold on Colborne, but I am not as sold on Ferland anymore either.

Although, both players were moved around so much it is hard to get a read on them.

I keep Hathaway. I like his 4th line presence. Who knows if he can become a PK guy? I like how he causes penalties. If we can fix our PP, he's probably going to draw a penalty or two per game, if he's consistent, or in games he is effective.

I am not sold on Colborne being a C either.

I see them keep Hathaway and Shore and Grant are out. Grant may get another look, or get signed as a depth guy to play in the AHL.

[tmac70]

ok....just for the record....who signed Engelland again?  I get confused on this.   Burke?  Feaster?  BT?

Trevling signed Englelland, Hiller, Raymond, Seto

[rickross]

It's a long laundry list for BT this off season. Besides locking up a top goalie and coaching staff it would be huge if he could off load Raymond, Wideman and Smids contracts somehow. With all the key RFA signings this off season and need to fill starting roles it's a tall order to fill. I don't think we make the playoffs next season but atleast we have a strong and growing core to work with now

[robrob1974]

I think he can offload Wideman and Stajan as they're both serviceable. Stajan was never given good mates but played well in the playoffs last year. He had moments with Ferland in that first series.

With a skilled linemate I am sure he can put up a few more points.

[MAC331]

I see Colborne pricing himself out of Calgary so they're forced to trade his rights. They'll offer the RFA price but he may need arbitration. If he's awarded too much they trade him. I am still not sold on Colborne, but I am not as sold on Ferland anymore either.

Although, both players were moved around so much it is hard to get a read on them.

I keep Hathaway. I like his 4th line presence. Who knows if he can become a PK guy? I like how he causes penalties. If we can fix our PP, he's probably going to draw a penalty or two per game, if he's consistent, or in games he is effective.

I am not sold on Colborne being a C either.

I see them keep Hathaway and Shore and Grant are out. Grant may get another look, or get signed as a depth guy to play in the AHL.

I think you answered the situation with Colborne, Ferland and even Jooris. They were so misused all over by BH they didn't appear to progress or be in a position to further develop. I may be in a minority but I think these are the type of players a team needs because they are still growing into the game.

BTW I don't think Colborne will price himself out of the picture only because he wants to really be here. I can see him as a 3rd line C replacing Backlund after next season so keep his pay accordingly.I don't mind Hathaway but I would want to see more substance from him to stay. I think we set Grant free and maybe Shore as well.

[MAC331]

So the way I see it is, we are about 1-2 bottom six players and 1-2 top six players away from playing the way management want to play.

Gaudreau, Monahan, XXX

Ferland, Bennett, XXX

XXX, Backlund, Frolik

Bouma, XXX, Hathaway

XXX, Jooris

If you want an offensive 4th line threat, maybe you throw Ferland on that line with a biggish 2-way C. Has Arnold progressed enough?

Bouma can try rekindle his chemistry with Backlund. Then that leaves a spot you have to fill for Bennett.

We aren't close enough, but a couple more adds this off season with get us close to a playoff birth. It depends on how fast we can move into the new system with the new coach.

I think it is highly unlikely we make the playoffs again next year.

I wonder if this would be worth a try with our forwards.

 

Gaudreau, Monahan, XXX

Ferland, Bennett, Frolik

Bouma, Backlund, XXX

Shinkaruk, Colborne, Poirier

Jooris, Hamilton

 

Until Pribyl and our 6th pic is known as a this season player we could use a number of players in the XXX spots. BT may also be giving some consideration of a few UFA's for that top line RW short term.

[jjgallow]

ok....just for the record....who signed Engelland again?  I get confused on this.   Burke?  Feaster?  BT?

 

 

Trevling signed Englelland, Hiller, Raymond, Seto

 

OK....thanks tmac70.

 

It's settled then.    

 

IMHO, Hartley has the better track record than Treliving, if we're talking about current performance.

 

 

I like some of the moves BT has made for the future (ie., Hamilton), but absolutely, we're worse off now than last year in terms of players on ice.   Mostly because of goaltending, but that is 90% BT, and 10% BH.

 

Firing a coach due to performance considering that, and considering the squandering of $3M on Engelland when we're struggling to find cap room for a #1 goalie....

 

Yeah.   That's an unnaceptable reason to fire BH.

 

Different philosophies...sure.   But the reason given, just Isn't ok.    And it makes me think BT doesn't really understand what he's done.

[phoenix66]

OK....thanks tmac70.

 

It's settled then.    

 

IMHO, Hartley has the better track record than Treliving, if we're talking about current performance.

 

 

I like some of the moves BT has made for the future (ie., Hamilton), but absolutely, we're worse off now than last year in terms of players on ice.   Mostly because of goaltending, but that is 90% BT, and 10% BH.

 

Firing a coach due to performance considering that, and considering the squandering of $3M on Engelland when we're struggling to find cap room for a #1 goalie....

 

Yeah.   That's an unnaceptable reason to fire BH.

 

Different philosophies...sure.   But the reason given, just Isn't ok.    And it makes me think BT doesn't really understand what he's done.

 

 

 

again i think we need to put things in a time perspective.

BT took over,  we had a Line up that included  Shane O'brien, and Chris Butler on defense ; Ben Hanowski and Lee Stempniak  on RW as well as Kevin Westgarth (Hudler was listed as a center )

 

Not being able to see the emergence of Johnny , which was a pleasant surprise-- he got Raymond , Engelland and Bollig -- all 3 fit a need and were upgrades to what we ended the previous season with 

 

what blew up in his face in terms of Bollig and Raymond, was they were passed on the depth chart by players from our own organization right out of training camp basically 

[jjgallow]

I ....just ...Don't see why any of that would have come as a surprise....other than JH taking the top line. And even that, should have been seen as a possibility. Definitely the 2nd line.

Extremely short sighted. Again, the GM is paid to have that vision. With BT, that vision has been hit and miss.

Fine...ok. So we don't crucify him. I get that. Just don't get why it's ok to crucify BH for things the GM was clearly responsible for.

Honestly...I think BH did BT a favor many times....like utilizing Engelland for every last penny. Had he not done that it would have gone down as one of the worst all time moves in the league.

I was ok with this year, and the gradual progress...until I found out that BT thought he had put a winning team together and BH was in the way. If the moves BT made were for immediate success....well then we have an issue....that won't get solved by firing the coach.

Again ....not so much the firing...but the reasons given. ...they are very concerning.

[CheersMan]

I ....just ...Don't see why any of that would have come as a surprise....other than JH taking the top line. And even that, should have been seen as a possibility. Definitely the 2nd line.

Extremely short sighted. Again, the GM is paid to have that vision. With BT, that vision has been hit and miss.

Fine...ok. So we don't crucify him. I get that. Just don't get why it's ok to crucify BH for things the GM was clearly responsible for.

Honestly...I think BH did BT a favor many times....like utilizing Engelland for every last penny. Had he not done that it would have gone down as one of the worst all time moves in the league.

I was ok with this year, and the gradual progress...until I found out that BT thought he had put a winning team together and BH was in the way. If the moves BT made were for immediate success....well then we have an issue....that won't get solved by firing the coach.

Again ....not so much the firing...but the reasons given. ...they are very concerning.

 

I’m less concerned about the meaningless reason given, much more concerned about his replacement.  BH coached this team through a complete tear down yet still had a 0.500 record.  Some will drag out statistics supporting their argument about why he should have been let go, all I need to look at is his Win-Loss column.  BH in his 4-year tenure here won every other game with a group who should have won every 3rd or 4th game.  I’ll be tickled pink if next years’ coach finishes 0.500.

[jjgallow]

I’m less concerned about the meaningless reason given, much more concerned about his replacement.  BH coached this team through a complete tear down yet still had a 0.500 record.  Some will drag out statistics supporting their argument about why he should have been let go, all I need to look at is his Win-Loss column.  BH in his 4-year tenure here won every other game with a group who should have won every 3rd or 4th game.  I’ll be tickled pink if next years’ coach finishes 0.500.

 

Well...yeah.   The only reason I care about the reason....is because at brings into question BT's decision making process.   As in, how he intends to find a better coach.   And what that would be for him (how he intends to make a turnaround with a better coach)

 

Because if what you're hinting at is true...and we take a further tumble next year:   Well then, BT's gone.  For Sure (unless Daddy pulls some strings).

 

And then we start a Burke thread, lol.

 

p.s....BT is probably thinking...he'll get a good goalie, and the rest will work itself out.    But I think he underestimates the impact BH had here.   Not so sure the ol'  "Fire the coach and replace the goalie" trick is gonna work like he thinks.

[phoenix66]

Well...yeah.   The only reason I care about the reason....is because at brings into question BT's decision making process.   As in, how he intends to find a better coach.   And what that would be for him (how he intends to make a turnaround with a better coach)

 

Because if what you're hinting at is true...and we take a further tumble next year:   Well then, BT's gone.  For Sure (unless Daddy pulls some strings).

 

And then we start a Burke thread, lol.

 

p.s....BT is probably thinking...he'll get a good goalie, and the rest will work itself out.    But I think he underestimates the impact BH had here.   Not so sure the ol'  "Fire the coach and replace the goalie" trick is gonna work like he thinks.

I do get what you are saying, and like BT I agree that there is blame to be shared.I liked Bob,and I wouldn't have been disappointed if he was given his do over but there are many reasons I agreed with BT's assessment. All of which are solely on the coach which affected our season and didn't bode well for the future

1) we were not ready to start the season. Why? Aside from Gio nobody has an excuse for the way we started.were players not prepared? Out of shape?

2) handling of the 3 goalies.. This whole sequence was bungled.we can pick it apart any way we like over in the goalie thread, but bottom line is he mishandled it.

3) we didn't adapt..it was clear early on that teams were ready for our system.. Nothing changed

4) he had players at his disposal he could have used to send a message.where was the benching like he gave to Wideman last year, this year?

They can smile and say publicly all they want..but it's obvious there was a disconnect between coach and GM.he got him some shiny new toys and coach insisted on using the old ones, he was reluctant to insert call us into the line up until he had no choice, he insisted on playing Hiller when he could, even tho this was the Goalie BT tried to unload in the offseason.

I don't know if he was secretly ticked His best friend got canned and was doing his best to win With "his" players? Or played Hiller so much to amplify the "this is the guy YOU got me" point, but it doesn't take a psychiatrist to see these 2 were not on the same page. And unless you're winning the coach always loses that battle

I fully agree with BT on this one.. I think he had gone as far as he could. Now, the Heat is on BT completely. His guy better pay off and he better supply the players his guy needs.

[cross16]

Again ....not so much the firing...but the reasons given. ...they are very concerning.

 

I think you should go back and listen to the press conference, because the "reasons" you are giving for him being fired have not been stated by Treliving. 

 

He never once said that Hartley was being let go because he didn't help the team win last season or that he felt the team should have finished higher in the standings. And as a matter of factor he took the bulk of the blame for goaltending and also took the respnsiblity to fix that. 

 

I also find it funny that you are suggesting Treliving has no vision, yet the actual real reason he fired Hartley was becuase he was looking forward and did not see Hartley winning with this team as it continues to develop. That is the real reason he was let go, he wasn't the guy to take this team to where they need to go, he was not fired because he didn't do a very good last year. I'm personally of the opinion that had the Flames missed the playoffs last year Hartley gets let go then. I don't think Treliving wanted Hartley as his coach but you can't fire someone when they are in the middle of a borderline miracle season and on their way to the Jack Adams. 

[phoenix66]

I think you should go back and listen to the press conference, because the "reasons" you are giving for him being fired have not been stated by Treliving. 

 

He never once said that Hartley was being let go because he didn't help the team win last season or that he felt the team should have finished higher in the standings. And as a matter of factor he took the bulk of the blame for goaltending and also took the respnsiblity to fix that. 

 

I also find it funny that you are suggesting Treliving has no vision, yet the actual real reason he fired Hartley was becuase he was looking forward and did not see Hartley winning with this team as it continues to develop. That is the real reason he was let go, he wasn't the guy to take this team to where they need to go, he was not fired because he didn't do a very good last year. I'm personally of the opinion that had the Flames missed the playoffs last year Hartley gets let go then. I don't think Treliving wanted Hartley as his coach but you can't fire someone when they are in the middle of a borderline miracle season and on their way to the Jack Adams.

Agreed..this is no different than when Feaster was canned..bt said pretty much the same things. Praised rhe man, all he had done,but state he's done all he can and not the guy to move forward.in fact, I almost wanna find the recording of that press conference cuz it may have been verbatim.

Truth is..there are likely some components to this firing we may never hear.

[cross16]

Agreed..this is no different than when Feaster was canned..bt said pretty much the same things. Praised rhe man, all he had done,but state he's done all he can and not the guy to move forward.in fact, I almost wanna find the recording of that press conference cuz it may have been verbatim.

Truth is..there are likely some components to this firing we may never hear.

 

True. 

 

I don't usually like to speculate but there is alot of chatter out there that more than a few players were less than complimentary towards Hartley in their post season meeting. Sure sounds like a lot of the players told Treliving they felt it was time for a change. 

[phoenix66]

True. 

 

I don't usually like to speculate but there is alot of chatter out there that more than a few players were less than complimentary towards Hartley in their post season meeting. Sure sounds like a lot of the players told Treliving they felt it was time for a change.

I was listening to the FAN this morning and they brought up an interesting point. when Bob was hired he was hired to coach a veteran team. The rebuild hadn't been decided yet. The knock on Hartley coming in was that he was too hard on kids. He likes to give attitude adjustments, which vets will respond to..kids not so much.

One of the teams on Brayden Coburn's no trade list is "whoever Bob Hartley coaches"

The point of the radio discussion today tho, was just that.. He doesn't teach young players well. He leans on them only when they force him to play them (Johnny) and we are now a different team than the one he was hired to coach.

Same thing happened in Atlanta..he pushed them into the playoffs one year.. Lost the room the next

[jjgallow]

I think you should go back and listen to the press conference, because the "reasons" you are giving for him being fired have not been stated by Treliving. 

 

He never once said that Hartley was being let go because he didn't help the team win last season or that he felt the team should have finished higher in the standings. And as a matter of factor he took the bulk of the blame for goaltending and also took the respnsiblity to fix that. 

 

I also find it funny that you are suggesting Treliving has no vision, yet the actual real reason he fired Hartley was becuase he was looking forward and did not see Hartley winning with this team as it continues to develop. That is the real reason he was let go, he wasn't the guy to take this team to where they need to go, he was not fired because he didn't do a very good last year. I'm personally of the opinion that had the Flames missed the playoffs last year Hartley gets let go then. I don't think Treliving wanted Hartley as his coach but you can't fire someone when they are in the middle of a borderline miracle season and on their way to the Jack Adams. 

 

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, and based on the above, I can definitely tell that you at least listened to the start of the conference call

 

So, Treliving started out with a lot of nice things to say about Hartley (thanks),

 

Then, at the end, listed his reasons for firing him:

 

-Goaltending (yes, admitted that this started, but didn't end, with him)

-Style of play  (?)

-Play in front of the goaltender

 

So, between Goaltending and Play in front of the goaltender, I feel that Treliving has his bases nicely covered.  Just for good measure, he threw in Style of play (left out effort).

 

You're clearly right, and I'm clearly wrong.  And, in either case, I know you'd at least say to wait a year or two.  At which point, if I have an "I told you so", it would be malicious at that point  (ie., when you felt that Sutter was a bad coach, and I felt he was just a bad GM).   

 

So, to be clear, you're right.  Obviously.   And, thanks, so much, for not turning it personal, again.  I know all the "you's" above, were not directed at me

 

Thanks for the clarification

[cross16]

Not personal at all actually, I just don't understand where you are getting these "reasons" from and why they are so concerning to you. Seems unfair to me that future discussion about Treliving's competencies as a GM or his decision would not be based on thing or ideas he didn't say. I'm all ears if there is an interview or something that I missed. 

 

I'm also just surprised because you are a look to the future type of guy JJ. IMO, letting go Hartley to go with someone who is a better fit is Treliving looking big picture and looking to the future so i'm just surprised that you are so critical of it. Not saying you are wrong by any means i'm just legitimately surprised by your take. I think keeping Hartley is more the short sighted move and if he was more concerned about winning next year I think he keeps Hartley. 

 

There is no doubt Treliving need to hire the right guy and absolutely if he doesn't there will be heat on him. However, the Flames don't need to move forward next year in order for his decision to be justified IMO they need to keep building in the right direction. IMO the decision to move on form Hartley has already been justified but let's see who he hires and then judge that decision. I don't think the two are as linked as you because i don't see it as a we need to fire Hartley to get someone better. It was a we need to fire Hartley to get someone who is a better fit. 

[conundrumed]

IMO the decision to move on form Hartley has already been justified but let's see who he hires and then judge that decision. I don't think the two are as linked as you because i don't see it as a we need to fire Hartley to get someone better. It was a we need to fire Hartley to get someone who is a better fit. 

Like beating a dead horse innit!

 

I have no problem getting rid of Hartley, for clarification.

Treliving just should have chosen his words more carefully.

The "he's taken this team as far as he can", for me, is underhanded to almost malicious.

You can call it nitpicking, but if your a pro GM, you need to know what implications that will raise in the media and for Hartley's future employ.

Most GM's stick to, "we want to go in another direction" and they stick to that for a reason.

Keep it professional is all I'd have wanted to see from our GM. Don't feed the lions.

Especially if it's the team you're managing and has holes as big as the sky.

Outside of that, BT, carry on, no problem.

And as far as the players not liking him rumours, I'd love to know which ones, because I'm guessing the underperformers and not good enough ones, god knows we have enough of those. It's 23 different personalities to motivate. I pay that rumour no mind, that is every coach in the league.