Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

if Bennett panned out, I guess the lineup would look a lot different too. I loved the pick but I think the moment Ward played him on the 4th line he checked out. Not too much BT could do but rewind the tape to actually develop the guy. 

 

Only way to have developed Bennett properly was to not care about winning right away.  Take time.  For example, never re-sign Backlund that off season.  Give that spot to Bennett.  Don't worry about missing the playoffs.

 

There were also stretches where they played Gaudreau with Bennett and Bennett did very well however, it was at the expense of Monahan's production so we babied Monahan and gave him Gaudreau back, every time.

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Not to say Demko was ever going to be the answer, but boy does going for a horrible pick in McDonald look really bad. Maybe we would’ve botched Demko’s development, but it could’ve been a good pick, which a lot on here were  left wondering, WTF after the pick...

 

To be honest, BT had the right approach to the rebuild.

 

Early on, he went after Goalies.  McDonald, Gillies, Parsons, Schneider, etc.  Then he drafted D.  Adam Fox may prove to be his best pick ever one day.  After that, he focused his draft on forwards and I believe went maybe 2 years drafting only forwards.

 

That's kind of the textbook draft strategy for a rebuild. Unfortunately, we missed on our picks (and he failed to draft more RHS).

[sak22]

7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Not to say Demko was ever going to be the answer, but boy does going for a horrible pick in McDonald look really bad. Maybe we would’ve botched Demko’s development, but it could’ve been a good pick, which a lot on here were  left wondering, WTF after the pick...

 

if Bennett panned out, I guess the lineup would look a lot different too. I loved the pick but I think the moment Ward played him on the 4th line he checked out. Not too much BT could do but rewind the tape to actually develop the guy. 

Meh, people praise Nashville's goaltending development yet they took Magnus Hellburg 1 pick before John Gibson in 2011.  Chet Pickard and Tom McCollum were first rounders in 2008 taken before Markstrom.  Koskinen was picked ahead of Lehner.  Time will tell whether Demko will even be the best goalie in the draft, but right now if I had a redo on the goalie front I'd go Sorokin, Kahkonnen and Merzlikins over Demko, even Nedeljkovic taken one after Demko is looking pretty good so far this year.  But lets jump off the Demko train a little August was a long time ago and he's been rather okay.  The greater miss from that draft is Brayden Point.

[travel_dude]

50 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Only way to have developed Bennett properly was to not care about winning right away.  Take time.  For example, never re-sign Backlund that off season.  Give that spot to Bennett.  Don't worry about missing the playoffs.

 

There were also stretches where they played Gaudreau with Bennett and Bennett did very well however, it was at the expense of Monahan's production so we babied Monahan and gave him Gaudreau back, every time.

 

Maybe Bennett was not given the job, but he also was not consistent enough to keep the spot.

Let's face it, if Bennett scored as frequently as Monahan, he would still be there and we would have three C's that were effective.

Or we would have traded one.

 

Pretty hard to ignore 30 goal seasons.

 

But, we were in the fix it mode after the BH firing.  Get back to the playoffs because we got away from what worked.  Beating VAN was not a win, but going from playoff 2nd round to missing the playoffs was a failure.

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe Bennett was not given the job, but he also was not consistent enough to keep the spot.

Let's face it, if Bennett scored as frequently as Monahan, he would still be there and we would have three C's that were effective.

Or we would have traded one.

 

Pretty hard to ignore 30 goal seasons.

 

But, we were in the fix it mode after the BH firing.  Get back to the playoffs because we got away from what worked.  Beating VAN was not a win, but going from playoff 2nd round to missing the playoffs was a failure.

i actually think they should have bit the bullet and put him in the minors and developed his 2-way game. He plays wing like a C and plays C like winger. Go figure! He’s super frustrating, but it’s the fact he was jumped around so much that it ruined him. You’re right, he didn’t do himself any favours but I think it’s why he needed to learn the pro game in the AHL at the position the team needed him to be. 
 

I get it. He had to go back to Kingston, but easily they could have put him in the AHL when he was eligible and just said, we need you to develop at C so you can be the guy we know you can be. 
 

it sucks for the few guys who are too good for Junior but not good enough for the NHL. Or you send him to Kingston the extra year and say develop this in your game, make others better and be the best two way C in the league... 

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i actually think they should have bit the bullet and put him in the minors and developed his 2-way game. He plays wing like a C and plays C like winger. Go figure! He’s super frustrating, but it’s the fact he was jumped around so much that it ruined him. You’re right, he didn’t do himself any favours but I think it’s why he needed to learn the pro game in the AHL at the position the team needed him to be. 
 

I get it. He had to go back to Kingston, but easily they could have put him in the AHL when he was eligible and just said, we need you to develop at C so you can be the guy we know you can be. 
 

it sucks for the few guys who are too good for Junior but not good enough for the NHL. Or you send him to Kingston the extra year and say develop this in your game, make others better and be the best two way C in the league... 

 

The extra year in junior did Draisaitl a world of good.

But really, when a player steps into the playoffs and plays pretty well, do you turn around and send him back to junior?

Tough decision.  Couldn't go to AHL.

Instead he followed it up with 18 goals and 18 assists in his first season in the AHL.

The following year, we had Tkachuk starting, Gaudreau signing at the end of camp and a new coach...

The 3M line was created.

 

I know there was a choice that could have been made, but it's difficult when you have a new coach laying out his plans.  Bennett may not have been destined for playing with Brouwer, but he just didn't overtake anyone in the top 6.  Blame Gully for it, the GM was just going on what he said.  🙂 

 

 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

To be honest, BT had the right approach to the rebuild.

 

Early on, he went after Goalies.  McDonald, Gillies, Parsons, Schneider, etc.  Then he drafted D.  Adam Fox may prove to be his best pick ever one day.  After that, he focused his draft on forwards and I believe went maybe 2 years drafting only forwards.

 

That's kind of the textbook draft strategy for a rebuild. Unfortunately, we missed on our picks (and he failed to draft more RHS).

 

I agree. The way I look at it is the reason the Flames are where they are today is for 2 main reasons. First is Bennett didn't pan out and the 2nd is Johnny/Mony plateaued, Monahan more so than Johnny.  Looking back at the 2017 playoffs against Anaheim, Monahan had a great series and looked poised to be at least a 1B center and Bennent was still growing. Faster forward 4 years and Bennett is expansion fodder and Monahan's slipped to maybe a 2A center. It's hard for me to blame that on Treliving. 

 

He's not without mistakes yes and for sure I wish they didn't make the Hamonic trade, didn't sign Brouwer or Neal but even if you erase all of those i'm not sure I buy that they'd be that much further ahead because ultimately it's the current core letting him down.  his drafting and developing is very good and it's the primary reason I'd keep him but i get the other side too. 

 

My 2 outs on Treliving are this:

1 - What is the truth on the coaching situation. If he picked Ward and was not constrained at all by budget than I think this is a fire able offence. Overall I think the beef on his coaching hires is not completely fair. When I look at who was available when he hired Gulutzan the only one that sticks out to me is Jared Bednar, but outside of that it's not really like they "missed" on someone else. I would also ask what type of background he did on Peters (not in specific to the Akim Aliu situation but more around the kicking of players etc)

2- What is the mandate from owners and how involved? You heard stories about them vetoing deals is their truth to that? Does he have the ability to make changes on a year to eyar basis if he wants or do owners say it's playoffs or bust?

 

Depending on what the answer is to those 2 questions could make me change my opinion on him. 

[cross16]

55 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The extra year in junior did Draisaitl a world of good.

 

 

 

Did it? Their rookie year's were awfully similar especially accounting for 5 on 5 point. Also worth pointing out Draisailt played a whole 20 more CHL games then Bennett did. 

 

until he got put with McDavid there were a lot of similarities between the two but Draisaitl kept getting better and then eventually took off, while Bennett flatlined. 

 

I've said this before but there is only so much you can learn at the junior level and i'm personally really tried of this argument. The vast majority of the best players in this league spend little time in junior/AHL but yet every time we get a player that doens't turn out to our liking the default is they were "rushed".

 

sometimes players just don't pan out the way you want and it's that simple. i don't like how the Flames developed Bennett but I also think how he turned out is not as a direct result of what the Flames did. Talent almost always floats to the top. 

[ABC923]

Don't forget, Bennett missed an entire season for shoulder surgery.  Who knows what he might have been otherwise.

[robrob74]

31 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree. The way I look at it is the reason the Flames are where they are today is for 2 main reasons. First is Bennett didn't pan out and the 2nd is Johnny/Mony plateaued, Monahan more so than Johnny.  Looking back at the 2017 playoffs against Anaheim, Monahan had a great series and looked poised to be at least a 1B center and Bennent was still growing. Faster forward 4 years and Bennett is expansion fodder and Monahan's slipped to maybe a 2A center. It's hard for me to blame that on Treliving. 

 

He's not without mistakes yes and for sure I wish they didn't make the Hamonic trade, didn't sign Brouwer or Neal but even if you erase all of those i'm not sure I buy that they'd be that much further ahead because ultimately it's the current core letting him down.  his drafting and developing is very good and it's the primary reason I'd keep him but i get the other side too. 

 

My 2 outs on Treliving are this:

1 - What is the truth on the coaching situation. If he picked Ward and was not constrained at all by budget than I think this is a fire able offence. Overall I think the beef on his coaching hires is not completely fair. When I look at who was available when he hired Gulutzan the only one that sticks out to me is Jared Bednar, but outside of that it's not really like they "missed" on someone else. I would also ask what type of background he did on Peters (not in specific to the Akim Aliu situation but more around the kicking of players etc)

2- What is the mandate from owners and how involved? You heard stories about them vetoing deals is their truth to that? Does he have the ability to make changes on a year to eyar basis if he wants or do owners say it's playoffs or bust?

 

Depending on what the answer is to those 2 questions could make me change my opinion on him. 

Possibly the only thing that might have helped with the Neal situation is, instead of signing Neal that money could have been used to get a Tafolli this last off season. I have to be honest, I was excited to have 20+ goals added to the lineup. Little did we know that Neal’s thousand runs to the finals wore him out so much he couldn’t play anymore. 
 

 

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Only way to have developed Bennett properly was to not care about winning right away.  Take time.  For example, never re-sign Backlund that off season.  Give that spot to Bennett.  Don't worry about missing the playoffs.

 

There were also stretches where they played Gaudreau with Bennett and Bennett did very well however, it was at the expense of Monahan's production so we babied Monahan and gave him Gaudreau back, every time.

 

Exactly this.   And you can take it all the way back to how Bennett was brought into the NHL with his injury.   I still maintain he was a good pick.   Actually a great pick.

 

So many times we sacrificed the future for the present and more than half those times it actually hurt us in the present as well.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

Possibly the only thing that might have helped with the Neal situation is, instead of signing Neal that money could have been used to get a Tafolli this last off season. I have to be honest, I was excited to have 20+ goals added to the lineup. Little did we know that Neal’s thousand runs to the finals wore him out so much he couldn’t play anymore. 

 

Another thing we could have done is have a development system, and not traded away first round draft picks etc.

 

Then we wouldn't have been able to sign Neal because we'd be doing everything we could to keep all the talent we had in house.

[zima]

22 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I guess what we should be talking about in this thread is what we reasonably expect BT to do.

 

Doubtful

Fire the coach

Trade a core player during the season

Waive Bennett or Gio.

 

Possible

Trade a non-core piece and/or picks and prospects for a top 6 C/RW.

Depending on the player coming, it may be just a winger or one that could play both C/RW.

 

Do not expect a mid-season tear down.  

I don't even think we see the core sold off for picks and prospects in the summer.

It will be for players in the same age range or slightly younger.

Call it a re-tool if you like, but it won't be a 3-5 year rebuild.

 

We missed out on PLD, but one has to think that Forsberg may be available.

That's a Monhan for Forsberg deal.

Does it make sense to the Flames and Preds to do it now?

Not really with the quarantine period. 

 

I think we are going to see BT do very little until the summer.

BT believes they are better than what we are seeing.

 

So what does that tell you? seems to me if we keep BT at the helm we might as well say hi to 7 more yrs of disappointment and being a laughing stock of the Canadian hockey NHL. Time to cut ties with BT although his picks were good in the later rounds we need someone with the ability to make some intelligent decisions and stop with trying to make this team a contender and come to the realization we are not going any where fast with what we have. Today I heard it was all due to missing a couple of players on injury and now all is good we can put the players in there proper places Please. 

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, zima said:

So what does that tell you? seems to me if we keep BT at the helm we might as well say hi to 7 more yrs of disappointment and being a laughing stock of the Canadian hockey NHL. Time to cut ties with BT although his picks were good in the later rounds we need someone with the ability to make some intelligent decisions and stop with trying to make this team a contender and come to the realization we are not going any where fast with what we have. Today I heard it was all due to missing a couple of players on injury and now all is good we can put the players in there proper places Please. 

 

[travel_dude]

[89Again]

Bennett is all crossed up.  I have never seen a player thrown around a line up more.  Yes he has missed his opportunities but then when he does well, those opportunities are pulled.  My bottom line with SB is that when he came into the league he was leaner, quicker and had an internal expectation of scoring with confidence.  Now he has fallen into a pseudo tough guy banger role and is always worried about the D side, he’s slow with no confidence.  He gets picked on the breakout, his pass is always to late, he makes solo rushes when he shouldn’t.  Pretty sad to see as you still see the skills at times but his confidence has been destroyed and he has gotten bigger to fit a role but that has hurt his offensive production.  I think many fans are frustrated because they see these glimpses of skill but then a dumb mistake is made and the opportunity quickly fades.

 

Without a doubt he has heart, he has tried to do everything they have wanted of him but that was probably a mistake.  These guys come in so young, they need a sound mentoring system and a coach who knows how to develop them.  If that doesn’t exist they shouldn’t be with the big club until they mature.  
 

We have not had a good coach in three tries, who’s fault is that?

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, 89Again said:

Bennett is all crossed up.  I have never seen a player thrown around a line up more.  Yes he has missed his opportunities but then when he does well, those opportunities are pulled.  My bottom line with SB is that when he came into the league he was leaner, quicker and had an internal expectation of scoring with confidence.  Now he has fallen into a pseudo tough guy banger role and is always worried about the D side, he’s slow with no confidence.  He gets picked on the breakout, his pass is always to late, he makes solo rushes when he shouldn’t.  Pretty sad to see as you still see the skills at times but his confidence has been destroyed and he has gotten bigger to fit a role but that has hurt his offensive production.  I think many fans are frustrated because they see these glimpses of skill but then a dumb mistake is made and the opportunity quickly fades.

 

Without a doubt he has heart, he has tried to do everything they have wanted of him but that was probably a mistake.  These guys come in so young, they need a sound mentoring system and a coach who knows how to develop them.  If that doesn’t exist they shouldn’t be with the big club until they mature.  
 

We have not had a good coach in three tries, who’s fault is that?

 

I will just say that for all the skill he may have had, he sure hides it.  He can't seem to even hit the net unless he's in the blue paint.  Compare that to Gaudreau or Lindholm who hit top corners.  Perhaps he's foresaken his skills and doesn't even practice shots or stick-handling.  Maybe that comes with accepting a role he never wanted.  It's gotta be super frustrating for him.  He should be on a payday deal.      

 

 

[JTech780]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/brad-treliving-laments-inconsistent-flames-amid-trying-season/

 

Here is an interview with Treliving written by Eric Francis.

 

I have to be honest, not really a fan of anything Treliving had to say in this article, and after reading it I am closer to being on the side of it's time to change the GM.

 

Firstly he says that they have an 'A' game and a 'D' game, and that they haven't seen the 'A' game enough. I think I have only seen the 'A' game once, maybe twice this season. I would say they have a 'B' game and a 'D' game, and that we haven't seen the 'A' game yet.

 

Then he talks about what he think the identity of the team should be. "I want to be hard to play against, hard-working, physical, tight-checking and have the skill and the ability to generate offense." IMO that's not the team he built, if this is what he is preaching from the top, then I can see why this team is so schizophrenic, they are being asked to be something they are not. Lucic and Giordano say that this team should be a "checking team that can score". 

 

Treliving goes on to say "The bubble wasn't a big success story, but I think there was an identity for the team there--" this sentence is really disappointing.

 

I like a lot of what Treliving has done, but this interview shows me that the vision for this team gotten confused somewhere down the line. It might take a new voice to get it back on the track.

[CheersMan]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/brad-treliving-laments-inconsistent-flames-amid-trying-season/

 

Here is an interview with Treliving written by Eric Francis.

 

I have to be honest, not really a fan of anything Treliving had to say in this article, and after reading it I am closer to being on the side of it's time to change the GM.

 

Firstly he says that they have an 'A' game and a 'D' game, and that they haven't seen the 'A' game enough. I think I have only seen the 'A' game once, maybe twice this season. I would say they have a 'B' game and a 'D' game, and that we haven't seen the 'A' game yet.

 

Then he talks about what he think the identity of the team should be. "I want to be hard to play against, hard-working, physical, tight-checking and have the skill and the ability to generate offense." IMO that's not the team he built, if this is what he is preaching from the top, then I can see why this team is so schizophrenic, they are being asked to be something they are not. Lucic and Giordano say that this team should be a "checking team that can score". 

 

Treliving goes on to say "The bubble wasn't a big success story, but I think there was an identity for the team there--" this sentence is really disappointing.

 

I like a lot of what Treliving has done, but this interview shows me that the vision for this team gotten confused somewhere down the line. It might take a new voice to get it back on the track.

Would it have made you happier if he had said "I want a soft team, soft to play against, non-physical, loose-checking and have unskilled players so as not to generate offense."?? Would you have been happier with BT if he said that?

[ABC923]

2 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Would it have made you happier if he had said "I want a soft team, soft to play against, non-physical, loose-checking and have unskilled players so as not to generate offense."?? Would you have been happier with BT if he said that?

To me the statement is pretty meaningless.  Wouldn’t every GM claim their identity is ‘hard working, skilled, tough to play against, etc?’. It’s a stock answer with no meaning. He may as well have said ‘The team is built to score more goals than their opponents do’.

[JTech780]

20 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Would it have made you happier if he had said "I want a soft team, soft to play against, non-physical, loose-checking and have unskilled players so as not to generate offense."?? Would you have been happier with BT if he said that?

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, JTech780 said:

Then he talks about what he think the identity of the team should be. "I want to be hard to play against, hard-working, physical, tight-checking and have the skill and the ability to generate offense." IMO that's not the team he built, if this is what he is preaching from the top, then I can see why this team is so schizophrenic, they are being asked to be something they are not. Lucic and Giordano say that this team should be a "checking team that can score". 

 

Treliving goes on to say "The bubble wasn't a big success story, but I think there was an identity for the team there--" this sentence is really disappointing.

 

I like a lot of what Treliving has done, but this interview shows me that the vision for this team gotten confused somewhere down the line. It might take a new voice to get it back on the track.

 

I would like to know what he saw in the playoffs that leads him to believe we had an identity.  What was it?  Lack of attention to detail?  Poorly coached?

There's not a lot of difference between what Gio and Lucic are saying and what BT said.  2004 team.  Win because you show up and do what Ottawa did to us.

I personally hate that type of hockey.

 

What bothers me about these comments is that he sees the team and not the coach as being the problem.  It's both.  

Not impressed with the execution.

Not impressed with whatever you call that style of play.

We only can win if we are winning every puck battle, play the system perfectly and get stellar goaltending.

 

I'm not saying it's time to change the GM, just that we should be evaluating the team, the systems, the type of team we should be.  Nordstrom fits the present definition, but whoever said he could score hasn't really been watching.  Then again, the style of play definitely impacts our ability to generate offense.  We are playing for the 1-0, 2-1 scores.  But we giving up chances like we are expecting a 5-4 win.

 

 

 

[ABC923]

I miss Hartley hockey. At least it was exciting, and he seemed to know what kind of players we had (skilled passers and shooters that are weak as kittens in the corners). 

[cross16]

I see nothing wrong with what he said personally. 

 

This is part of the problem I've had with this analysis and how people view Treliving, it's summed up in this statement right here 

Quote

"I want to be hard to play against, hard-working, physical, tight-checking and have the skill and the ability to generate offense."

 

Why is it when we see that statement we automatically assume that it means big and tough? Or why do we seem to assume it means everywhere on your lineup? Tampa plays this way, are they big? Why is being tough to place against always assumed to be we are going to run you through a wall? to me hard to play against is more about limiting time and space then it is size and physicality. 

 

I don't get the criticism that he isn't building this team this way. Way I've looked at building a team is this: (this is mostly stolen from Brian Burke but modified for my own thoughts)

Top line - This is your offensive engine. I don't care if your big or small your job is to drive offence but not be a liability defensively. 

2nd line  Similar to above but you need this line to be two way responsible. Again, don't really care if you are big here. 

3rd line - This is where you need to be tight checking, in the opposition face, limit opportunities but still create your own. Should have some size here and the ability to take advantage of physical mismatches, forecheck hard. 

4th line - Be physical, not a liability, push the puck the over way.  Forecheck hard. 

 

D core

1 - Be able to dominate at both ends of the ice, limit possessions against and drive it the other way. Be critical in producing offence. 

2nd pair - Very stout in your own end, hard to play against and be able to initiative the counter attack. 

3rd pair - Be physical, stout in your own end and over time push the puck the over way more often than not. Should ideally have some size here as to take advantage of physical mis matches and lay the body where you can. Most important though is your have to be smart in your own end.

 

Are the Flames built exactly in this image? no but it's pretty close IMO and I think when you look at the players being drafted it's all done within this model. 

[89Again]

1 hour ago, ABC923 said:

I miss Hartley hockey. At least it was exciting, and he seemed to know what kind of players we had (skilled passers and shooters that are weak as kittens in the corners). 

I agree, he had structure, was a motivator and a leader by example.  BT took him out because he knew he couldn’t control him and he thought he could do it all in the front office.  Get a cheap coach, still win and take all the credit and money.  He was wrong.