Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[MAC331]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

The Brouwer signing was bad, but nowhere near the other ones that were paid a lot more for a lot longer.

So, it was a less-bad signing.  I was never sure of the reason for bringing in a RW that not good enough to play on a top line, though.  Chaisson's trade I understand.  Versteeg's signing was brilliant.

 

Brouwer's first year is probably like Elliott's and Hamilton's first ones.  They didn't adapt well to the style of the team or the guys they got paired with.  A goalie that goes from a league leader in EV% to the bottom.  A usual standout in March and April humbled.

Brouwer was typically a 30-40 point guy, but achieved very little.  Maybe he is in a serious decline in his skills, but it seemed like he struggled with his linemates or the systems.

 

I would have to think the reasoning was to add size and experience to the serious deficiency we had at our RW positions.

[robrob74]

On 4/19/2017 at 11:28 PM, jjgallow said:

 

the team he started with had a far superior playoff performance, as a much younger and much more up and coming team than this one.  

 

Just saying.

 

 

If you mean the team that beat a crappy Canucks team in the playoffs, sure. But, the luck of the year allowed us to win a round. That was just a weird year all around. I hate when anyone quotes that year, because it's just not sustainable and will never happen again (for us).

[JTech780]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-islanders-working-hard-john-tavares-extension-pitch/

 

Friedman saying that Treliving wants to be back next, but that if Calgary low balls him on his contract that it could go sideways. He also mentions that Conroy might be the next in line.

 

Friedman also mentions that Calgary has something like 50 contracts expiring in Hockey Ops this June.

[cross16]

For what it's worth King yesterday on the radio mentioned to not expect any "surprises" in his hockey ops group. All signs point to Treliving being back.

 

The hockey ops thing is interesting because really for a team that has gone through a lot of change at the top in the last half decade, their hockey ops group has remained surprisingly consistent. They've added here and there but a lot of key people remain in key roles. Wonder if that finally changes? 

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

For what it's worth King yesterday on the radio mentioned to not expect any "surprises" in his hockey ops group. All signs point to Treliving being back.

 

The hockey ops thing is interesting because really for a team that has gone through a lot of change at the top in the last half decade, their hockey ops group has remained surprisingly consistent. They've added here and there but a lot of key people remain in key roles. Wonder if that finally changes? 

 

I don't know if you consider the goalie coach as "hockey ops", but I would like to see them move him to a different role.  I don't think his results in the last few season has been anything close to success.  Two goalies with career good numbers and they fall off a cliff.  Hard to image that all our goalie woes are the result of the goalies themselves.  Move him to a different role if you want to keep him.

[The_People1]

How much does the average GM make in the NHL and what would be considered a low ball offer? Who is the highest paid GM in the league?  

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

How much does the average GM make in the NHL and what would be considered a low ball offer? Who is the highest paid GM in the league?  

Excellent question, I don't believe that is ever made public and it also likely depends on market size.

I could guess, but that is getting us nowhere.

I did see a 10 yr old report claiming between 1.5 and 3mil, but can't confirm nor deny accuracy.

So I guess what I'm saying is good question!

[rickross]

I'd be shocked if they don't bring Treliving back, the more pressing question is the term they'll extend him to..another 3yr show me deal or do the Flames have enough faith to go long term with a 5 year offer for the "younger" GM. It'll be interesting to see how he maneuvers around the cap space the Flames are left with, not too much to work with there especially with 2 goalies to sign among some priority RFA's and some D men like Stone (and bottom pairing) to shore up. I think Versteeg has earned another go on this team but at what price will he sign?

[conundrumed]

3 minutes ago, rickross said:

I'd be shocked if they don't bring Treliving back, the more pressing question is the term they'll extend him to..another 3yr show me deal or do the Flames have enough faith to go long term with a 5 year offer for the "younger" GM. It'll be interesting to see how he maneuvers around the cap space the Flames are left with, not too much to work with there especially with 2 goalies to sign among some priority RFA's and some D men like Stone (and bottom pairing) to shore up. I think Versteeg has earned another go on this team but at what price will he sign?

I agree with everything, except Versteeg.

Nothing against Versteeg, and I won't complain if we re-sign him at the right $, but I also think we have to get better at wing with a couple of grittier players that go hard to the net.

The only problem I have with Versteeg is that he occupies a seat I want to be a more pressing player. But I won't deny he was a real charm for us on a few occasions.

[CheersMan]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

How much does the average GM make in the NHL and what would be considered a low ball offer? Who is the highest paid GM in the league?  

 

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Excellent question, I don't believe that is ever made public and it also likely depends on market size.

I could guess, but that is getting us nowhere.

I did see a 10 yr old report claiming between 1.5 and 3mil, but can't confirm nor deny accuracy.

So I guess what I'm saying is good question!

My understanding is that the sky is the limit for coaches and managers, it's what the market will bear.  Look at the TML, I'd hate to guess what their war room is costing them.  Babcock at 8 per changed everything.  BUF was in on Babcock right to the end, then left standing at the alter.  What if BUF likes, really, really likes Treeliving?  This could backfire on the Flames badly. 

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

My understanding is that the sky is the limit for coaches and managers, it's what the market will bear.  Look at the TML, I'd hate to guess what their war room is costing them.  Babcock at 8 per changed everything.  BUF was in on Babcock right to the end, then left standing at the alter.  What if BUF likes, really, really likes Treeliving?  This could backfire on the Flames badly. 

Buffalo is alleged to be interested in Conroy.

Also alleged, is TML's front end salary is around 20mil, which would include Babs' 6.25 per, I believe it is. 8 might be bonus stuff, I'm not sure.

Something else I'm not sure of...the Detroit rule. If Buffalo were to hire Conroy, I believe they'd owe us a compensatory pick, typically a 3rd.

[rickross]

14 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I agree with everything, except Versteeg.

Nothing against Versteeg, and I won't complain if we re-sign him at the right $, but I also think we have to get better at wing with a couple of grittier players that go hard to the net.

The only problem I have with Versteeg is that he occupies a seat I want to be a more pressing player. But I won't deny he was a real charm for us on a few occasions.

Versteeg brings great hockey sense but yeah he's another smallish forward on the roster. He did pot 15 goals so he can definitely still play, I'd say him and Monny were our 2 most effective players in the playoffs. I'm hoping he takes a home town discount and it sounds likely he will just for family reasons. I agree, Treliving better not get caught paying him Mason Raymond like $ but a smart 1.5 -2 mill tops for 1-2 years is a fair deal..he'll likely ask for slightly more tho. I just want them to get the goalie situation right for once and that won't come cheap...Flames have been on a goalie carousel for far too long, time to finally stabilize the net. If only Bouma and Stajan's contracts could come off the books!

 

 

 

 

 

[conundrumed]

22 minutes ago, rickross said:

Versteeg brings great hockey sense but yeah he's another smallish forward on the roster. He did pot 15 goals so he can definitely still play, I'd say him and Monny were our 2 most effective players in the playoffs. I'm hoping he takes a home town discount and it sounds likely he will just for family reasons. I agree, Treliving better not get caught paying him Mason Raymond like $ but a smart 1.5 -2 mill tops for 1-2 years is a fair deal..he'll likely ask for slightly more tho. I just want them to get the goalie situation right for once and that won't come cheap...Flames have been on a goalie carousel for far too long, time to finally stabilize the net. If only Bouma and Stajan's contracts could come off the books!

 

 

 

 

 

For me, that's a loaded question.

Spend a lot on a contract with term...if that doesn't work out...that worsens the problem.

Now's a good time to address "deflating" goals.

Imo, this is the same wavelength as us scoring a goal and the other team coming right back with their own.

Because that happens too.

To me, that's coaching. It doesn't matter who scores which goal when.

I would bench anyone, right now, if I saw chests puffing out or body language deflated.

And that's easy to reiterate in practices.

Between Mony, Bennett, JG, Tkachuk, Hamilton...our young have to learn that.

You don't rely on vet leadership for that, you coach that, imho.

 

edit

Vet leadership e.g.

Justin Williams' "You guys need to relax".

We tend to overrate what vet leadership really is.

[rickross]

11 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

For me, that's a loaded question.

Spend a lot on a contract with term...if that doesn't work out...that worsens the problem.

Now's a good time to address "deflating" goals.

Imo, this is the same wavelength as us scoring a goal and the other team coming right back with their own.

Because that happens too.

To me, that's coaching. It doesn't matter who scores which goal when.

I would bench anyone, right now, if I saw chests puffing out or body language deflated.

And that's easy to reiterate in practices.

Between Mony, Bennett, JG, Tkachuk, Hamilton...our young have to learn that.

You don't rely on vet leadership for that, you coach that, imho.

 

edit

Vet leadership e.g.

Justin Williams' "You guys need to relax".

We tend to overrate what vet leadership really is.

I think this recent playoff exist really put an emphasis on the need to get some solid goaltending..how they'll go about it is anyone's guess right now. Personally I think  FA's like Bishop/Fleury are overpriced so they could get stuck with Elliot on the cheap and CJ is a capable backup that won't command a ton of salary. Goalies were a big part of the early exit that just can't be ignored anymore so maybe BT just says F it and pays or trades for a true #1 come draft time. It's a tough position for the Flames..if we get stuck with Brouwer there's really no room to go after a #1 RW such as Oshie (who'll be too expensive anyway!). I guess Flames figure maybe Gillies or Rittich could be ready for backup duty's in 1-2 years time?... hopefully they can solve the riddle from within.

[conundrumed]

My concern is you bring a new "star" goalie in and, again, the team has to adjust to what the goalie wants.

Is that good or bad?

Why is it okay to let players be meh for a year and make excuses why to keep them?

I think we're making a big mistake to just keep throwing goalies to the wind and hyperbole how terrible they are in year one.

Is that building a team?

No. It's constantly reminding everyone on your team that they're a piece of meat.

If we enter next year with Elliott and Johnson, great, I'd love it.

A team wins for each other, and you don't do that in one year, or one superstar goalie.

[rickross]

34 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

My concern is you bring a new "star" goalie in and, again, the team has to adjust to what the goalie wants.

Is that good or bad?

Why is it okay to let players be meh for a year and make excuses why to keep them?

I think we're making a big mistake to just keep throwing goalies to the wind and hyperbole how terrible they are in year one.

Is that building a team?

No. It's constantly reminding everyone on your team that they're a piece of meat.

If we enter next year with Elliott and Johnson, great, I'd love it.

A team wins for each other, and you don't do that in one year, or one superstar goalie.

It's not the end of the world if we keep the same goalie tandem..Elliot's play in the playoffs will grant us a resigning discount if he's extended. The thing to also consider is he could easily sign with another team offering more than what the Flames are willing to pay. The big advantages the Flames have is that #1 starting spot is wide open and Elliot obviously wants to be the guy, he's also going to want to redeem himself big time so maybe we get a Vezina like performance next year at a bargain? 

[CheersMan]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Buffalo is alleged to be interested in Conroy.

Also alleged, is TML's front end salary is around 20mil, which would include Babs' 6.25 per, I believe it is. 8 might be bonus stuff, I'm not sure.

Something else I'm not sure of...the Detroit rule. If Buffalo were to hire Conroy, I believe they'd owe us a compensatory pick, typically a 3rd.

 

I think that's just Elliott filling in air time, reaching for ideas.  I don't think Conroy has much value around the league.....yet. 

[conundrumed]

25 minutes ago, rickross said:

It's not the end of the world if we keep the same goalie tandem..Elliot's play in the playoffs will grant us a resigning discount if he's extended. The thing to also consider is he could easily sign with another team offering more than what the Flames are willing to pay. The big advantages the Flames have is that #1 starting spot is wide open and Elliot obviously wants to be the guy, he's also going to want to redeem himself big time so maybe we get a Vezina like performance next year at a bargain? 

If all we have is one year tryouts at net. Like anything, buy in 100% or don't.

We don't give goalies more than a year, and I think that is wayward.

[cross16]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Buffalo is alleged to be interested in Conroy.

Also alleged, is TML's front end salary is around 20mil, which would include Babs' 6.25 per, I believe it is. 8 might be bonus stuff, I'm not sure.

Something else I'm not sure of...the Detroit rule. If Buffalo were to hire Conroy, I believe they'd owe us a compensatory pick, typically a 3rd.

 

They dumped that rule unfortunately. 

 

32 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

 

I think that's just Elliott filling in air time, reaching for ideas.  I don't think Conroy has much value around the league.....yet. 

 

Not just Elliott. 3 or 4 different sources have reported Conroy is a person of interest for Buffalo. His stock has risen pretty sharply in the last few years. 

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

They dumped that rule unfortunately.

Aggghhh...after Detroit got milked?

That's awesome.

So it's open season?

[cross16]

30 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Aggghhh...after Detroit got milked?

That's awesome.

So it's open season?

 

No. Axed it because teams got tired of having to send compensation for guys who had been fired by their last club. 

 

Still need permission, but no more compensation granted. 

[The_People1]

Why Conroy?  He seems so overly nice as a person that if he was ever in a position to negotiate a contact with a star player, then he will probably bend over backwards and hand over a blank cheque.  That's the impression I get.

[MAC331]

12 hours ago, conundrumed said:

My concern is you bring a new "star" goalie in and, again, the team has to adjust to what the goalie wants.

Is that good or bad?

Why is it okay to let players be meh for a year and make excuses why to keep them?

I think we're making a big mistake to just keep throwing goalies to the wind and hyperbole how terrible they are in year one.

Is that building a team?

No. It's constantly reminding everyone on your team that they're a piece of meat.

If we enter next year with Elliott and Johnson, great, I'd love it.

A team wins for each other, and you don't do that in one year, or one superstar goalie.

I agree with this100% conun. Elliott and Johnson were good accepted choices when we obtained them. Both did better than average and are now being downgraded due to some untimely goals. If this is the measuring stick MON should get rid of Price for the year he had and a 1st round outing, same as us.

Unless BT believes someone like Darling has a future as a #1 starter over someone like Elliott you will always be gambling on the next one. Crawford in CHI was never thought of as anything fantastic but they stayed with him and he has risen to the occasion more times than not. He has earned his 6M IMO.

I would have no problem with signing Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals.

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I agree with this100% conun. Elliott and Johnson were good accepted choices when we obtained them. Both did better than average and are now being downgraded due to some untimely goals. If this is the measuring stick MON should get rid of Price for the year he had and a 1st round outing, same as us.

Unless BT believes someone like Darling has a future as a #1 starter over someone like Elliott you will always be gambling on the next one. Crawford in CHI was never thought of as anything fantastic but they stayed with him and he has risen to the occasion more times than not. He has earned his 6M IMO.

I would have no problem with signing Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals.

 

I agree mostly.  Of the two, Elliott should be the priority.  CJ was good for one run this year.  He fell off completely in December, and never recovered.  If they chose to only bring back one, then it has to be Elliott.  They still need a 1a/1b type to push Elliott and be there if he stumbles.  

 

I would be more comfortable signing Darling and Elliott, than most of the other possible scenarios.  I think BT needs to take some of the blame for the season and not throw the goalie under the bus.

[MAC331]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I agree mostly.  Of the two, Elliott should be the priority.  CJ was good for one run this year.  He fell off completely in December, and never recovered.  If they chose to only bring back one, then it has to be Elliott.  They still need a 1a/1b type to push Elliott and be there if he stumbles.  

 

I would be more comfortable signing Darling and Elliott, than most of the other possible scenarios.  I think BT needs to take some of the blame for the season and not throw the goalie under the bus.

Sorry but I am not much a blame guy. BT made some drastic changes with a new coaching staff, new style of play and systems along with some new key players. Is he responsible for how the season turned out, of course only because he is part of the equation. I'm not so sure anyone should be disappointed with how the team as a team came together and progressed into the playoffs.

I wouldn't do what you are suggesting, if BT thinks Darling is a better option going forward than Elliott sign Darling. Johnson is more than adequate as a back up option IMO unless BT feels Rittich could fill this position. If the believe Gilles can be a starter they would be best to give him another season in Stockton, whether he ever becomes a Flame will be determined.