Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[sak22]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

No one's going to agree with me but BT should've tanked while he had the green light from fan expectation when he first took over.  We would have had Ekblad instead of Bennett and could've drafted Barzal because we wouldn't have needed the Hamilton trade with Ekblad as our #1 RHS RD.  Not to mention the 2nd rounders given up in that trade.

 

But alas, rush into mediocritry first and build from there.  And here we are.

I think if we look back I would say from a management perspective in 2013-14 there was no rush to mediocrity.  We didn't have a good team, I mean we went with Joey MacDonald as our #1 to start the year, Stajan as #1C.  I think McGrattan played more minutes that year than any year of his career, management iced a bad team, some players played well and other teams were worse.  The only other move I think that could have been done to make the team worse was to trade Gio, but had it been done prior to that season you would be selling short on him at the time he was more valued as a 2nd pairing guy.  Also the lottery did play a factor that year in Florida's favour.  In BT's first year he didn't make moves that made anyone think the playoffs were a possibility, sure decent goaltending could be expected with Hiller, but nobody was happy about the Raymond and Engelland signings, and they weren't expected to make the team better.  The problems with that year were career years from Brodie, Bouma, Hudler, Jooris, and the last bit of good hockey from Wideman and Hiller.  I don't know what else they could have done those years besides telling the players to lose, and with the millions of potential earnings these days I don't think you can do that.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, sak22 said:

I think if we look back I would say from a management perspective in 2013-14 there was no rush to mediocrity.  We didn't have a good team, I mean we went with Joey MacDonald as our #1 to start the year, Stajan as #1C.  I think McGrattan played more minutes that year than any year of his career, management iced a bad team, some players played well and other teams were worse.  The only other move I think that could have been done to make the team worse was to trade Gio, but had it been done prior to that season you would be selling short on him at the time he was more valued as a 2nd pairing guy.  Also the lottery did play a factor that year in Florida's favour.  In BT's first year he didn't make moves that made anyone think the playoffs were a possibility, sure decent goaltending could be expected with Hiller, but nobody was happy about the Raymond and Engelland signings, and they weren't expected to make the team better.  The problems with that year were career years from Brodie, Bouma, Hudler, Jooris, and the last bit of good hockey from Wideman and Hiller.  I don't know what else they could have done those years besides telling the players to lose, and with the millions of potential earnings these days I don't think you can do that.

 

That year we made the playoffs with Hartley may have been the worst thing that could've happened to us.  Management was convinced we are done rebuilding when reality is, we still needed many pieces.  We then proceeded to trade away picks to rush the rebuild and surround our core with older veterans in order to win now.  Again, a mistake.  We were missing many many pieces still.  It's showing now.  We can't make the playoffs and there's not a whole lot of franchise altering talent coming up the system to change that.  If only we were more patient and invested more time in the basement.  Our emergence up the standings would have been more sustainable and lasting.

[robrob74]

17 hours ago, The_People1 said:

No one's going to agree with me but BT should've tanked while he had the green light from fan expectation when he first took over.  We would have had Ekblad instead of Bennett and could've drafted Barzal because we wouldn't have needed the Hamilton trade with Ekblad as our #1 RHS RD.  Not to mention the 2nd rounders given up in that trade.

 

But alas, rush into mediocritry first and build from there.  And here we are.

 

I agree, but would we have take Ekblad or Bennett, or Reinhart?

 

 

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That year we made the playoffs with Hartley may have been the worst thing that could've happened to us.  Management was convinced we are done rebuilding when reality is, we still needed many pieces.  We then proceeded to trade away picks to rush the rebuild and surround our core with older veterans in order to win now.  Again, a mistake.  We were missing many many pieces still.  It's showing now.  We can't make the playoffs and there's not a whole lot of franchise altering talent coming up the system to change that.  If only we were more patient and invested more time in the basement.  Our emergence up the standings would have been more sustainable and lasting.

 

 

That is what I don’t get. Owners want playoffs, so mandate do whatever it takes, but they don’t look deeper to realize the slower method will give long lasting results and possibly more.

[cccsberg]

19 hours ago, The_People1 said:

No one's going to agree with me but BT should've tanked while he had the green light from fan expectation when he first took over.  We would have had Ekblad instead of Bennett and could've drafted Barzal because we wouldn't have needed the Hamilton trade with Ekblad as our #1 RHS RD.  Not to mention the 2nd rounders given up in that trade.

 

But alas, rush into mediocritry first and build from there.  And here we are.

Besides the problem with tanking, way too many assumptions, though I agree fun.  

 

Perhaps Barzal doesn't get injured his last year and goes top5 instead of being available?  Boston gets Gaudreau just before us.  Carolina picks Monahan vs Lindholm?     Or even worse, Colorado doesn't match for ROR and we lose him to Edmonton once he has to go on waivers, along with the Monahan pick and others to Colorado?  We get left holding the bag.   Elliot doesn't let a couple easy ones in in the Anaheim playoff match, but we lose anyways, and we re-sign him for 6 years at $6.5 mm per, but he's no better?  Edmonton not only takes Tkachuk vs Puljujarvi  who we get, but also selects Barzal and Chabot instead of Reinhart?  They also keep Hall and Eberle, and get Hamilton for a couple later picks? Then they get Bishop for a 4th instead of Dallas, and take the wasted picks on Talbot and instead put them to Hamilton?  Earlier they draft Kucherov with an early 2nd and win 2 more lottery's getting Ekblad and Dahlin?  With their draft luck who would even think twice?  The Oilers win the Conference for 12 years straight and win another 5 Cups in a decade (with Toronto winning 4 others) including a 47 game win streak against the Flames?........  ALL very possible.  This game can go both ways.  I'll stick with BT and our current path, it somehow seems a bit better and I don't have to give up hockey forever and live with nightmares of over-aggressive and arrogant Edmonton and TML fans.  Of course, if those teams accomplished that much it would probably be deserved.  I may have to leave the country.... YIKES!

 

Hall-McDavid-Eberle

Tkachuk-ROR-Kucherov

RNH-Barzal...

 

Ekblad-Hamilton

Dahlin-Nurse

....

 

Bishop

 

No, no, NO!  I do NOT want to play that game of 20:20 hindsight dreaming!

[DHT]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

Besides the problem with tanking, way too many assumptions, though I agree fun.  

 

Perhaps Barzal doesn't get injured his last year and goes top5 instead of being available?  Boston gets Gaudreau just before us.  Carolina picks Monahan vs Lindholm?     Or even worse, Colorado doesn't match for ROR and we lose him to Edmonton once he has to go on waivers, along with the Monahan pick and others to Colorado?  We get left holding the bag.   Elliot doesn't let a couple easy ones in in the Anaheim playoff match, but we lose anyways, and we re-sign him for 6 years at $6.5 mm per, but he's no better?  Edmonton not only takes Tkachuk vs Puljujarvi  who we get, but also selects Barzal and Chabot instead of Reinhart?  They also keep Hall and Eberle, and get Hamilton for a couple later picks? Then they get Bishop for a 4th instead of Dallas, and take the wasted picks on Talbot and instead put them to Hamilton?  Earlier they draft Kucherov with an early 2nd and win 2 more lottery's getting Ekblad and Dahlin?  With their draft luck who would even think twice?  The Oilers win the Conference for 12 years straight and win another 5 Cups in a decade (with Toronto winning 4 others) including a 47 game win streak against the Flames?........  ALL very possible.  This game can go both ways.  I'll stick with BT and our current path, it somehow seems a bit better and I don't have to give up hockey forever and live with nightmares of over-aggressive and arrogant Edmonton and TML fans.  Of course, if those teams accomplished that much it would probably be deserved.  I may have to leave the country.... YIKES!

 

Hall-McDavid-Eberle

Tkachuk-ROR-Kucherov

RNH-Barzal...

 

Ekblad-Hamilton

Dahlin-Nurse

....

 

Bishop

 

No, no, NO!  I do NOT want to play that game of 20:20 hindsight dreaming!

LOL. If I can travel back in time, I would only have to traveled back last week and get the winning Powerball Lottery number and buy the Flames. Any GM with a crystal ball can put a winning team together with no mistakes ever committed. BT made many mistakes, but thus far, I'm ok with the overall job BT is doing.

[sak22]

18 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That year we made the playoffs with Hartley may have been the worst thing that could've happened to us.  Management was convinced we are done rebuilding when reality is, we still needed many pieces.  We then proceeded to trade away picks to rush the rebuild and surround our core with older veterans in order to win now.  Again, a mistake.  We were missing many many pieces still.  It's showing now.  We can't make the playoffs and there's not a whole lot of franchise altering talent coming up the system to change that.  If only we were more patient and invested more time in the basement.  Our emergence up the standings would have been more sustainable and lasting.

Yeah, I don't know if it was the Hartley year that did it or the Gulutzan year.  If the team believed they were out of the rebuild then they probably extend Hudler and Russell that summer, thinking hindsight they should have moved him that summer as he depreciated everyday he was on the Flames the next year.  We still went into the '16 draft with 10 picks with one being moved for Elliott, I don't think that is a signal of a team stating they were out of a rebuild.  But its been everything after that, add in the fact that the '13 and '14 drafts can be considered disastrous given the amount of higher picks we had.  I don't know if I would have loved the extended basement approach as the draft lottery has been unreliable and in some cases the drop off outside of #1 or #2 has been significant.  One note with the lottery though is it is nice to know that the pain of watching Edmonton winning every year has turned into amusement watching Vancouver fall every year.

[DirtyDeeds]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

That is what I don’t get. Owners want playoffs, so mandate do whatever it takes, but they don’t look deeper to realize the slower method will give long lasting results and possibly more.

like Buffalo or Edmonton....

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

like Buffalo or Edmonton....

 

Mae can quote any team for our point. Toronto did it right once they got the right personnel in place, and now they’re cup contenders. Chicago did it right and won 3 cups. LA had to lose a bit until they landed Doughty high in the draft.

 

That is basically saying you have no faith in our scouts and development because when anyone quotes both Edmonton and Buffalo that’s kind of what is wrong with those teams.

[cccsberg]

5 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Mae can quote any team for our point. Toronto did it right once they got the right personnel in place, and now they’re cup contenders. Chicago did it right and won 3 cups. LA had to lose a bit until they landed Doughty high in the draft.

 

That is basically saying you have no faith in our scouts and development because when anyone quotes both Edmonton and Buffalo that’s kind of what is wrong with those teams.

Toronto is still a work in progress, with questionable to poor D, same as Edmonton.  Whether they succeed or not is still in question.  Actually, isn't the "right' way a sequence of G, then D then F?

[The_People1]

On 8/8/2018 at 7:00 AM, cccsberg said:

 

No, no, NO!  I do NOT want to play that game of 20:20 hindsight dreaming!

 

Except I wasn't playing 20:20.  If you were around during that time, I was playing in real time.

[The_People1]

On 8/8/2018 at 6:14 AM, robrob74 said:

 

That is what I don’t get. Owners want playoffs, so mandate do whatever it takes, but they don’t look deeper to realize the slower method will give long lasting results and possibly more.

 

Only reasons that makes sense is that some of ownership are old.  They don't have 5 years of life time remaining to watch this team win the Cup.  They are in a rush.  And also, these owners don't know much about hockey.  

 

In the example of the Leafs, they are owned by the Ontario teachers union which is mainly concerned with yearly bottom line.  It took someone reputable like Brendan Shanahan to talk sense to them.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Mae can quote any team for our point. Toronto did it right once they got the right personnel in place, and now they’re cup contenders. Chicago did it right and won 3 cups. LA had to lose a bit until they landed Doughty high in the draft.

 

That is basically saying you have no faith in our scouts and development because when anyone quotes both Edmonton and Buffalo that’s kind of what is wrong with those teams.

 

Ya man. Most importantly, when you look at teams that refuse to tank like the Habs, Preds, Sharks, Canucks, etc, they don't have a Cup win.  Well, the Habs not in a long time.

 

Bob McCown was saying on radio that there's no reason to believe the Habs will win the Cup in the next 25 years.  And he's no right.  They going to be stuck in mediocrity for a generation.  

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Mae can quote any team for our point. Toronto did it right once they got the right personnel in place, and now they’re cup contenders. Chicago did it right and won 3 cups. LA had to lose a bit until they landed Doughty high in the draft.

 

That is basically saying you have no faith in our scouts and development because when anyone quotes both Edmonton and Buffalo that’s kind of what is wrong with those teams.

 

TSN says they are contenders.  They have a couple really good pieces towards building a contender.

If they had defense better than meh, they might have won a round last year.

Now they have an older Marleau and Tavares.  Lost JVR and Bozak.

I like some of their prospects.

 

Winning the cup is all about timing and who you match up in the early rounds.  WASH got it right in spite of themselves.  They barely got by CBJ, but their biggest hurdle was getting past PITTS.  Mental thing.  You can be a mediocre talented team and win based on aggression and work ethic.  Or you can win on the back of one player, almost always a goalie.  Every year the league changes just a little, so there is no magic formula.  You can suggest that having a 1st overall is the reason, but it's more just coincidence.  You don't need one to be a contender.

 

[cross16]

47 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Winning the cup is all about timing 

 

 

So true, and very true of the whole tanking/slow play way to build your team too. We under estimate how much luck is involved in it. It does not guarantee success as fans of Buffalo, Florida, St Louis, Tampa, Columbus, Islanders, Philly and Edmonton can all attest to. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Toronto is still a work in progress, with questionable to poor D, same as Edmonton.  Whether they succeed or not is still in question.  Actually, isn't the "right' way a sequence of G, then D then F?

 

Pittsburgh won with what was supposed to be questionable D, even with Letang out of it for a bit. I think Toronto can manage. There D is going to get a year older and a bit better.

 

if they can stay on offence, they don’t need the D.

[The_People1]

32 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

So true, and very true of the whole tanking/slow play way to build your team too. We under estimate how much luck is involved in it. It does not guarantee success as fans of Buffalo, Florida, St Louis, Tampa, Columbus, Islanders, Philly and Edmonton can all attest to. 

 

This is the greatest misconception about tanking philosophy, which is, it's results are "gauranteed".

 

No one ever says tanking is gauranteed, just that it is an essential part of a rebuild.  

 

All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.  All Cup winning teams have tanked recently but not all teams that tanked recently have won Cups.

[conundrumed]

So are we signing Hanifin soon, or is it another BT holding off to the last possible minute to try to save a few bucks?

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

no one ever says tanking is gauranteed, just that it is an essential part of a rebuild.  

 

 

While I would agree that you don't make this point, I'm not sure all that argued for tanking did the same. 

 

At the end of the day my point is that had the Flames don't things differently between 2013-now there is not much to suggest, at least IMO, that we would be in a much better position today unless luck was on their side and it's impossible to use hindsight to predict luck. 

 

[travel_dude]

34 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

So are we signing Hanifin soon, or is it another BT holding off to the last possible minute to try to save a few bucks?

 

I got the impression that he has shifted from bridge deal to long term deal.

 

I thought we would see it within days of the Bruyout.  I expect since it happened that BT is trying to model out a longer term deal, and how it impacts the cap over the years when player deals end.  He's working the deal with the framework of the Tkachuk deal. 

[conundrumed]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

I got the impression that he has shifted from bridge deal to long term deal.

 

I thought we would see it within days of the Bruyout.  I expect since it happened that BT is trying to model out a longer term deal, and how it impacts the cap over the years when player deals end.  He's working the deal with the framework of the Tkachuk deal. 

I'm hoping a bridge personally. Longterm would be more affordable if he's good in the long run, but it needs to be established so more gamble than I'd be comfortable with.

I think there needs to be due diligence. If you end up paying more in the long run, at least it's knowing what you have as Gio puts a few more yrs behind him.

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

While I would agree that you don't make this point, I'm not sure all that argued for tanking did the same. 

 

At the end of the day my point is that had the Flames don't things differently between 2013-now there is not much to suggest, at least IMO, that we would be in a much better position today unless luck was on their side and it's impossible to use hindsight to predict luck. 

 

 

The funny thing is that if we tanked and won the lotto in 2015, we would not have Dougie.  We also would not have Barzal.

Possibly no Andersson.

We would have Gio, Brodie and who on defense.

That doesn't resemble the start of a cup winner.

 

It also changes the what-ifs for the next years.  No Tkachuk?

[cross16]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

The funny thing is that if we tanked and won the lotto in 2015, we would not have Dougie.  We also would not have Barzal.

Possibly no Andersson.

We would have Gio, Brodie and who on defense.

That doesn't resemble the start of a cup winner.

 

It also changes the what-ifs for the next years.  No Tkachuk?

 

It's also possible we'd have...

 

Noah Hanifin

[The_People1]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

While I would agree that you don't make this point, I'm not sure all that argued for tanking did the same. 

 

At the end of the day my point is that had the Flames don't things differently between 2013-now there is not much to suggest, at least IMO, that we would be in a much better position today unless luck was on their side and it's impossible to use hindsight to predict luck. 

 

 

Why would anyone argue tanking gaurantees a Cup when the evidence doesn't exist?  We only know that refusing to tank puts teams into eternal mediocrity.

 

If you ask a girl out, then she might say yes but it doesn't gaurantees she will say yes.  But you have to at least try.  If you don't then you stuck in the middle.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

It's also possible we'd have...

 

Noah Hanifin

 

Lol the irony.  We would've drafted Lindholm instead of Monahan had we committed to losing a few more games that first year we went into a rebuild.