Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[MP5029]

14 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think we are sitting at 2.5% chance of 1st overall right now.

If you look at the month of March, I would classify it as 50% team, 50% coach fails.

Part of that team failure is key injuries.

 

Forget Match and we are a playoff team.  Even with all the struggles with the team though the year.  The PP failed us in March.  Goatending failed us in March.  Everyone was aware of Smith's injury and yet he was left to start when he looked very rusty.  Goal scoring dried up.  Strangely enough, the coach was well aware of Monahan's injuries.  Nothing different was done.  

 

How could BT have predicted this?  

This, is mostly true...but what BT failed to do is see the lack of chemistry on the team.  It’s not about 1 super line but being able to roll out 4 lines look at LVK new team that rolls 4 solid lines no super stars or one amazing line but 4 solid and dangerous lines because they click together and can be interchanged from lines 1-4 all because of chemistry...that’s on the coach to build.

 

althouh they are now finally bringing in some AHLers they should have done that about 10 games ago...

 

all we can hope for now is that they manage to move out some guys that don’t fit in here and as many over 30 guys as they can he older vets seem to not fit with our younger core 27 and under guys 

[cross16]

13 hours ago, tmac70 said:

 So based on your assessment and his mandate, we can agree he has not obtained that objective.

 

Of course he didn't. but that doesn't make it his fault and if you answer is to fire everyone as soon as an objective is missed Your going to wind up with a terrible franchise. 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, MP5029 said:

This, is mostly true...but what BT failed to do is see the lack of chemistry on the team.  It’s not about 1 super line but being able to roll out 4 lines look at LVK new team that rolls 4 solid lines no super stars or one amazing line but 4 solid and dangerous lines because they click together and can be interchanged from lines 1-4 all because of chemistry...that’s on the coach to build.

 

althouh they are now finally bringing in some AHLers they should have done that about 10 games ago...

 

all we can hope for now is that they manage to move out some guys that don’t fit in here and as many over 30 guys as they can he older vets seem to not fit with our younger core 27 and under guys 

 

We did not have the talent to roll 4 lines, regardless of how Gully thought that was the way to win.

Bennett spent about half the season with spare parts.  Got moved to LW with Janko and that helped a bit, but Hathaway was not the answer.

I do blames BT for Brouwer, because I'm not sure what problem he was supposed to solve.  Did we need a slow RHS to play on the 4th line and special teams?

I also blame BT for leaving too much in the hands of the coach.

Bart should have been buried long ago.  Anyone can see he's not NHL D material.  

Didn't need to sign Stone.  Ras was as close to NHL ready at the time.  That's when you bring him up.

The TDL moves were mostly minor tweaks and low risk tryouts.  I like Shore.  Stewart is a lazier version of Brouwer at a small cost.

The only chance of improving the team would have been to trade Brodie and Bennett for futures and maybe a maligned roster player.

At the time, that didn;t make sense because we still were in it.  Barely, but still in it.

 

Bottom line for me is keep BT.  Let him fix some of the problems he created or hasn't fixed yet.  Have someone with great hockey knowledge advise him of what we are missing and where changes need to be made.  Reading these boards, there are hundreds of opinions.  Some make sense.  Some make sense when combined with others.  Some are liable to cause more damage.  He needs to get it right.  It isn;t a management thing.  It's a hockey management thing.  

[redfire11]

15 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We did not have the talent to roll 4 lines, regardless of how Gully thought that was the way to win.

Bennett spent about half the season with spare parts.  Got moved to LW with Janko and that helped a bit, but Hathaway was not the answer.

I do blames BT for Brouwer, because I'm not sure what problem he was supposed to solve.  Did we need a slow RHS to play on the 4th line and special teams?

I also blame BT for leaving too much in the hands of the coach.

Bart should have been buried long ago.  Anyone can see he's not NHL D material.  

Didn't need to sign Stone.  Ras was as close to NHL ready at the time.  That's when you bring him up.

The TDL moves were mostly minor tweaks and low risk tryouts.  I like Shore.  Stewart is a lazier version of Brouwer at a small cost.

The only chance of improving the team would have been to trade Brodie and Bennett for futures and maybe a maligned roster player.

At the time, that didn;t make sense because we still were in it.  Barely, but still in it.

 

Bottom line for me is keep BT.  Let him fix some of the problems he created or hasn't fixed yet.  Have someone with great hockey knowledge advise him of what we are missing and where changes need to be made.  Reading these boards, there are hundreds of opinions.  Some make sense.  Some make sense when combined with others.  Some are liable to cause more damage.  He needs to get it right.  It isn;t a management thing.  It's a hockey management thing.  

LIKE+

 

[tmac70]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Of course he didn't. but that doesn't make it his fault and if you answer is to fire everyone as soon as an objective is missed Your going to wind up with a terrible franchise. 

So after 4 years if you were ineffective in your job to advance your company or franchise, would you expect to keep your position? This is a huge part of any sports franchise or business its results orientated. In order to change you have to be uncomfortable, change is required both in staff, roster and coaches.

[phoenix66]

15 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

So after 4 years if you were ineffective in your job to advance your company or franchise, would you expect to keep your position? This is a huge part of any sports franchise or business its results orientated. In order to change you have to be uncomfortable, change is required both in staff, roster and coaches.

nobody is going to deny this year was a tire fire.  but if you dont see that the on ice talent, depth and farm system are miles ahead of four years ago, then that's a pretty lofty expectation .

Its still evolving , change is going to happen in all those areas but again , the bulk of this is not on BT, it could be way worse, just look North .. now THATS a tire fire  

[tmac70]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

nobody is going to deny this year was a tire fire.  but if you dont see that the on ice talent, depth and farm system are miles ahead of four years ago, then that's a pretty lofty expectation .

Its still evolving , change is going to happen in all those areas but again , the bulk of this is not on BT, it could be way worse, just look North .. now THATS a tire fire  

Much like anything it is easy to find some other situation worse than ours.  have always been an advocate to deal with your own house. So is our farm system that great? We lost 3 players and lost 98% of our scoring. I see a team that has 4-5 players up front that are adequate and 2 dman that are Ok, with a goal tending situation that has been average. See I am not looking at this season as the result of my decision I am looking at the whole of Trevlings tender, for me he has been average at best.  Now Gully he is 100% removed at seasons. Now WPG had a bad season few years back an look at them now, we are no where near that in depth but espacially coaching. 

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Much like anything it is easy to find some other situation worse than ours.  have always been an advocate to deal with your own house. So is our farm system that great? We lost 3 players and lost 98% of our scoring. I see a team that has 4-5 players up front that are adequate and 2 dman that are Ok, with a goal tending situation that has been average. See I am not looking at this season as the result of my decision I am looking at the whole of Trevlings tender, for me he has been average at best.  Now Gully he is 100% removed at seasons. Now WPG had a bad season few years back an look at them now, we are no where near that in depth but espacially coaching. 

 

I don’t see a great farm, I don’t see prospects really ready to come in a add to this team, at least for another 3-4 seasons. So I agree with you. Maybe I see it worse? There is only Andersson from the farm who can come in. There aren’t any high end prospects chomping at the bit. 

 

Dube could need a year or two in the A.

 

any of the other prospects to make the jump won’t be making us contenders. Maybe they put us in a playoff spot next year. But as they improve, so does all of the other teams in the West. The problem with this season is, we don’t have any prospects to add to the depth like the jets had after their bad seasons. 

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don’t see a great farm, I don’t see prospects really ready to come in a add to this team, at least for another 3-4 seasons. So I agree with you. Maybe I see it worse? There is only Andersson from the farm who can come in. There aren’t any high end prospects chomping at the bit. 

 

Dube could need a year or two in the A.

 

any of the other prospects to make the jump won’t be making us contenders. Maybe they put us in a playoff spot next year. But as they improve, so does all of the other teams in the West. The problem with this season is, we don’t have any prospects to add to the depth like the jets had after their bad seasons. 

I would say our farm will have some top talent but we are thin in NHL ready depth. It will get better with the likes of Valimaki and Dube for sure and some others coming in next season. Perhaps this is the offseason to get real about where the team is at in the process, peel of our weaknesses and pump up with another good draft. The real question IMO is OK what isn't working for us now ? and how do we fix it. let's admit to getting over zealous about this season and make the necessary moves so we have a better team and farm starting next season. 

[robrob74]

35 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I would say our farm will have some top talent but we are thin in NHL ready depth. It will get better with the likes of Valimaki and Dube for sure and some others coming in next season. Perhaps this is the offseason to get real about where the team is at in the process, peel of our weaknesses and pump up with another good draft. The real question IMO is OK what isn't working for us now ? and how do we fix it. let's admit to getting over zealous about this season and make the necessary moves so we have a better team and farm starting next season. 

 

Well, I think how we develop our players still needs to be questioned. Drafting has gotten better a bit over the years, but has it gotten a lot better? Is development the result of drafting? Or could a team have developed a Poirier, a Klimchuk or other players into NHL players, whereas our system does pump out a player here and there, but is it enough to sustain a good playoff team?

 

players like Dube and Valamaki will create some competition there, and hopefully higher expectations. 

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Well, I think how we develop our players still needs to be questioned. Drafting has gotten better a bit over the years, but has it gotten a lot better? Is development the result of drafting? Or could a team have developed a Poirier, a Klimchuk or other players into NHL players, whereas our system does pump out a player here and there, but is it enough to sustain a good playoff team?

 

players like Dube and Valamaki will create some competition there, and hopefully higher expectations. 

I recently heard Mark Shapiro President of the Jays say "the players themselves will determine their readiness for advancement" and I agree with this approach. Look at how Tkachuk would not take no for an answer for making the team and the continued effort. Some players take longer to be ready for NHL play and some may never be quite good enough or ready. I think it is a cop out to say we don't develop players the right way. These prospects have been playing hockey at elite levels for most of their lives and they also should know there will only ever be so many spaces available for them. Poirier suffered for his own personal issues, Klimchuk is still in consideration and Shinkaruk may have to hang in there. As I said in a few other threads it may be time for BT to be brutally honest about where the team and the farm is at and focus on obtaining as many picks as possible for this next draft. Identify the organizational weaknesses and take measures to remedy the problem areas.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

Well, I think how we develop our players still needs to be questioned. Drafting has gotten better a bit over the years, but has it gotten a lot better? Is development the result of drafting? Or could a team have developed a Poirier, a Klimchuk or other players into NHL players, whereas our system does pump out a player here and there, but is it enough to sustain a good playoff team?

 

players like Dube and Valamaki will create some competition there, and hopefully higher expectations. 

 

My concern about the farm is that players that stay there longer than 2 seasons are likely never going to be NHL players.

Nature or nurture?

Very few players from the current farm team have been able to make the jump.

Janko, Hathaway, Kulak and possibly Andersson.  None were on the opening day roster except Hathaway for one game before going down.

Poirier and Shinkaruk looked poised to become NHL players three years ago.

Maybe neither were great to start with, but they looked NHL ready back then.

I don't even want to talk about goalies.

 

Where am I going with this?  We don't do a good job of fitting in players that show promise early enough.  Instead, we look to players like Bart, Versteeg, Glass, Grossmann, Vey, Bollig, Jones, etc.

[MAC331]

29 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

My concern about the farm is that players that stay there longer than 2 seasons are likely never going to be NHL players.

Nature or nurture?

Very few players from the current farm team have been able to make the jump.

Janko, Hathaway, Kulak and possibly Andersson.  None were on the opening day roster except Hathaway for one game before going down.

Poirier and Shinkaruk looked poised to become NHL players three years ago.

Maybe neither were great to start with, but they looked NHL ready back then.

I don't even want to talk about goalies.

 

Where am I going with this?  We don't do a good job of fitting in players that show promise early enough.  Instead, we look to players like Bart, Versteeg, Glass, Grossmann, Vey, Bollig, Jones, etc.

You always go to this thing about the spare players and that just isn't reality as why prospects don't get opportunities. How many games did Bartkowski play this season 5 at the most while Kulak got his opportunity ? You seem to think small samples at the NHL level will tell you something and in most cases we have covered off injuries with these young prospects that are not ready. There is no way Poirier or Shinkaruk showed the immediate ability to be NHL ready as illustrated now in the AHL, they are not even the best there.

We have had enough players learning on the job at the NHL level, you don't ever want a whole team of them. You bring up Versteeg,  well there is a prime situation where you use him while you are developing some other players in the farm. You need to ask yourself who did these players hold back from actually playing at the NHL level.

[Carty]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

How many games did Bartkowski play this season 5 at the most

 

Can't help it, you know that i'm a stickler for the numbers...   

 

It was 14 games this season for Bart...   I remember, because it was painful to watch...   

[MAC331]

12 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Can't help it, you know that i'm a stickler for the numbers...   

 

It was 14 games this season for Bart...   I remember, because it was painful to watch...   

My mistake but it hardly seemed like he played at all. I know you understand my point, unless the org plans to platoon Kulak with another similar player splitting time you might as well use a player like Bartkowski to hang around. They did a similar adjustment to this with the forwards once they deemed a few players more ready for playing time and got rid of F Hamilton. We saw more players getting subbed in around the forward ranks, mainly Hathaway to start but then others to cover off the injuries.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

My concern about the farm is that players that stay there longer than 2 seasons are likely never going to be NHL players.

Nature or nurture?

Very few players from the current farm team have been able to make the jump.

Janko, Hathaway, Kulak and possibly Andersson.  None were on the opening day roster except Hathaway for one game before going down.

Poirier and Shinkaruk looked poised to become NHL players three years ago.

Maybe neither were great to start with, but they looked NHL ready back then.

I don't even want to talk about goalies.

 

Where am I going with this?  We don't do a good job of fitting in players that show promise early enough.  Instead, we look to players like Bart, Versteeg, Glass, Grossmann, Vey, Bollig, Jones, etc.

 

 

Therefore, other organizations are just better at eying talent than ours is. 

 

I didn't think those guys were ever nearly ready. Baertschi and most recently Jankowski are proof that those few game can make you look better. I gather what you’re saying is they just have to come with that energy every game. 

 

I think its its playing with a level of energy that may not be sustainable, and, other teams get to know a player and understand better how to shut them down.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Therefore, other organizations are just better at eying talent than ours is. 

 

I didn't think those guys were ever nearly ready. Baertschi and most recently Jankowski are proof that those few game can make you look better. I gather what you’re saying is they just have to come with that energy every game. 

 

I think its its playing with a level of energy that may not be sustainable, and, other teams get to know a player and understand better how to shut them down.

 

The difference, IMHO, is that we don't give any faith in the prospects.  How good did SHinkaruk look in the few games he got.  Pretty good.

Poirier, maybe not.

Kulak, Janko, Andersson all looked ready at camp.

Dube was a standout.

 

Other teams give opportunity, not just come in and play 4th line, 7 minutes, with grinders.

For every DET model that works, there are many farm teams that just can;t develop players.

 

I think there has to be a better awareness of when a player is ripe, and a better use of them once they get the call.  Bumping up Brouwer to the top line is not the answer.

We give vets more rope than they sometimes deserve, but a rookie mistake gets you popcorn.

 

[robrob74]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The difference, IMHO, is that we don't give any faith in the prospects.  How good did SHinkaruk look in the few games he got.  Pretty good.

Poirier, maybe not.

Kulak, Janko, Andersson all looked ready at camp.

Dube was a standout.

 

Other teams give opportunity, not just come in and play 4th line, 7 minutes, with grinders.

For every DET model that works, there are many farm teams that just can;t develop players.

 

I think there has to be a better awareness of when a player is ripe, and a better use of them once they get the call.  Bumping up Brouwer to the top line is not the answer.

We give vets more rope than they sometimes deserve, but a rookie mistake gets you popcorn.

 

 

Mac would say that is just how it is, vets get the benefit of the doubt, while rookies and youth pay for the mistakes. I guess it’s okay because a vet like Brouwer follows the system to a “T” and his ice time ya a reward for it. 

 

I think development can can almost be the chicken or the egg scenario, because, like in our discussion, is it the development system, or is it drafting/scouts? Both? Or the player’s drive?

 

i am totally with you, why play an offensive guy with slugs on the 4th line? Why not try them in a position they might have a better chance if success? Apparently with this coach, you still need to earn your way up the totem pole.

[redfire11]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

The difference, IMHO, is that we don't give any faith in the prospects.  How good did SHinkaruk look in the few games he got.  Pretty good.

Poirier, maybe not.

Kulak, Janko, Andersson all looked ready at camp.

Dube was a standout.

 

Other teams give opportunity, not just come in and play 4th line, 7 minutes, with grinders.

For every DET model that works, there are many farm teams that just can;t develop players.

 

I think there has to be a better awareness of when a player is ripe, and a better use of them once they get the call.  Bumping up Brouwer to the top line is not the answer.

We give vets more rope than they sometimes deserve, but a rookie mistake gets you popcorn.

 

The transition to the NHL from the heat really needs a strong look at from BT. 1st thing a new coach and 2nd an assistant coach working the Heat and the Flames with the sole purpose of preparing prospects in a trusted role for the new coach to exploit.

[DirtyDeeds]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Mac would say that is just how it is, vets get the benefit of the doubt, while rookies and youth pay for the mistakes. I guess it’s okay because a vet like Brouwer follows the system to a “T” and his ice time ya a reward for it. 

 

I think development can can almost be the chicken or the egg scenario, because, like in our discussion, is it the development system, or is it drafting/scouts? Both? Or the player’s drive?

 

i am totally with you, why play an offensive guy with slugs on the 4th line? Why not try them in a position they might have a better chance if success? Apparently with this coach, you still need to earn your way up the totem pole.

Bennett never had the quality roles or line mates for more than a game or two at a time....

[cross16]

On 2018-03-30 at 5:45 PM, tmac70 said:

So after 4 years if you were ineffective in your job to advance your company or franchise, would you expect to keep your position? This is a huge part of any sports franchise or business its results orientated. In order to change you have to be uncomfortable, change is required both in staff, roster and coaches.

 

Playoffs 2 out of 4 years is not being ineffective in your job in the NHL. 

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Bennett never had the quality roles or line mates for more than a game or two at a time....

 

Thats why I can’t judge his play. I think positionally, most of the time, he looks fine as a C. His Defensive game is better than most give him credit for. Plus he just has no one to pass to outside of that. Some say he has low hockey IQ, while I’ve seen him play fine with those who do, but in short stints. 

 

If we trade him, he’ll probably explode elsewhere and we will get less for what he is worth to another team. But do you keep a player and stunt his growth or let him prosper in another system?

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Mac would say that is just how it is, vets get the benefit of the doubt, while rookies and youth pay for the mistakes. I guess it’s okay because a vet like Brouwer follows the system to a “T” and his ice time ya a reward for it. 

 

I think development can can almost be the chicken or the egg scenario, because, like in our discussion, is it the development system, or is it drafting/scouts? Both? Or the player’s drive?

 

i am totally with you, why play an offensive guy with slugs on the 4th line? Why not try them in a position they might have a better chance if success? Apparently with this coach, you still need to earn your way up the totem pole.

Firstly we have to remember there is no more levels after the NHL and you will always have contracts and money considerations enter decisions , right or wrong.

Secondly I agree whole heartedly that developing players for their most likely position at the NHL level is important. Having Mangiapane playing top 6 LW in Stockton is important for his growth so bringing him up to the NHL and playing him on RW or lower than top 9 is a disservice to him. Unless it is from a lack of other depth  for the needed position I wouldn't do that to him.

Thirdly and I think this is equally important is that you don't want to many projects on the ice at the NHL for the coaching staff. Take the last few seasons with this young core, you have Bennett ongoing as a project, Tkachuk in his first 2 seasons, Ferland being tried at RW and Jankowski in his rookie season. I like how they handled Kulak this season and I think he proved out for us. Now we have a long enough test with Kulak to know what we have going into next season. It takes time and good planning is what I'm saying.

[MAC331]

17 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Thats why I can’t judge his play. I think positionally, most of the time, he looks fine as a C. His Defensive game is better than most give him credit for. Plus he just has no one to pass to outside of that. Some say he has low hockey IQ, while I’ve seen him play fine with those who do, but in short stints. 

 

If we trade him, he’ll probably explode elsewhere and we will get less for what he is worth to another team. But do you keep a player and stunt his growth or let him prosper in another system?

I am going to take a different angle involving Bennett and Tkachuk. I think for all intent and purpose the Flames did right by Tkachuk placing him with Backlund and Frolik two experienced forwards he could learn from at such a young age. Bennett has been the exact opposite and been left to fend for himself with the failures of Brouwer, Jagr and Versteeg to be any kind of solid help for him. I am hoping there is a silver lining in all of this and it is that Bennett learned to be a better overall player from playing both C and LW.

I may be the only one thinking this way but I think we have similar situations involving what Gaudreau and Monahan have if we put Tkachuk (now with experience) and Bennett together. We need more scoring and in order to get this we need playmakers and shooters together. The other thing that I like with these pairings is in keeping better than average skaters with the average ones so we maintain good defense.

Gaudreau, Monahan, ????? (could we get James Neal UFA) we need a character player that wins wherever he goes and also puts up production.

Tkachuk, Bennett, ?????? ( is this where to try Foo ?)

Ferland, Backlund, Frolik  (solid checking line with lots of potential for secondary scoring)

Shore, Jankowski, Lazar ( we have a number of players that could challenge for spots on the 4th line) Also let's Jankowski grow without so much pressure on him.

Lomberg, Hathaway

[The_People1]

48 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Thats why I can’t judge his play. I think positionally, most of the time, he looks fine as a C. His Defensive game is better than most give him credit for. Plus he just has no one to pass to outside of that. Some say he has low hockey IQ, while I’ve seen him play fine with those who do, but in short stints. 

 

If we trade him, he’ll probably explode elsewhere and we will get less for what he is worth to another team. But do you keep a player and stunt his growth or let him prosper in another system?

 

He's pretty solid defensively speaking as long as he cuts down on taking bad penalties.  He's got the grit, the backcheck, and speed. That alone gets him a 10 year NHL career.

 

But offensively speaking, his poor passing skills and patience with the puck disqualifies him as a legit Center at the NHL level.  At least, offensively speaking.  He could still be a good checking line Center.

 

Which then puts him on the wing if he's ever going to make it in the top 6.  On the wing, he's more the finisher.  Others find him rather than the other way around.  Given his talents around the front of the net, he should/could score 20-goals per year.

 

That's not the quality of player we would expect from a 4th overall pick but as long as we accept he is what he is, then it's okay to keep him here.  If any team gives us trade value that is equal to tap his 4th overall label then we should consider trading him.