Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[The_People1]

13 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

https://www.tsn.ca/calgary-flames-brad-treliving-after-underperforming-this-season-we-all-have-to-own-it-1.1619924

 

I expected BT to say exactly what he did, however I did find it a bit interesting that he kind of dodged the question regarding whether he expects the Flames to contend next year. Again, I didn't think for a second he would say they are entering a rebuild, I just think it was a chance for him to say he thinks next year is a chance for a rebound season and he didn't. The fact that he didn't say they expect to contend next year was interesting to me, although maybe I'm reading too much into it.  

 

 

 

I didn't get that from reading his answer.  It was more like, "hey our season is not over yet, lets talk about the playoffs first".

 

Of course, personally I hope management will concede they need to move some big pieces this offseason.  I hope he's just not trying to show his hand to the rest of the league.  He wants to act like he values his players.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I didn't get that from reading his answer.  It was more like, "hey our season is not over yet, lets talk about the playoffs first".

 

Of course, personally I hope management will concede they need to move some big pieces this offseason.  I hope he's just not trying to show his hand to the rest of the league.  He wants to act like he values his players.

 

I think the big message was he's not talking about a post mortem at this point.  He may have moves he wants to make, but no point in saying you are throwing in the towel.  He would be talking to GM's, so no need to talk to Eric Francis or Steinberg about it.  And really, even though most of the season is done, there is still reason to play.  You should be playing for your job.

 

Really, the big moves need to be decided on how the rest of the season plays out.  Some guys may not have completely bought in yet.  And some may be less interested now that playoffs are a very long shot.  Those should be the guys you worry about first.    

[jjgallow]

 

I'm not sure that a GM can ever really allude to "giving up" midway through a season.

 

You've got your season ticket holders so that's just asking for a lawsuit.       Potentially, after the trade deadline but even then it's a bad look.

 

In the off-season I think that's where GMs can be the most honest.   

 

But that's just one angle on this, I don't pretend to know where the "Win Now" culture came from but if it's higher than the GM then all bets are off.     In that sense I maybe feel a Little bad for Treliving if it's a case of "just doing his job", these last few years.  But only a little.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm not sure that a GM can ever really allude to "giving up" midway through a season.

 

You've got your season ticket holders so that's just asking for a lawsuit.       Potentially, after the trade deadline but even then it's a bad look.

 

In the off-season I think that's where GMs can be the most honest.   

 

But that's just one angle on this, I don't pretend to know where the "Win Now" culture came from but if it's higher than the GM then all bets are off.     In that sense I maybe feel a Little bad for Treliving if it's a case of "just doing his job", these last few years.  But only a little.

 

Considering they've all been refunded for this season though... I'm feeling he's just playing poker here.  He can't straight up put the players on sale because then it's hard to win trades.  

[jjgallow]

39 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Considering they've all been refunded for this season though... I'm feeling he's just playing poker here.  He can't straight up put the players on sale because then it's hard to win trades.  

 

I hope so.   I'm legit afraid they really think they got this and they're just a stones throw a way from  a cup.   which will make the rebuild more painful but won't stop it.  or he's forced to go with company line.

 

again we're probably reading way too much into it.    

 

Actually if a GM wanted to get full value for his players, he would just go publicly nuts lol.  Like nuts.   Then he could trade them at full value.   would only cost him his job or it would be the perfect plan lol.

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I hope so.   I'm legit afraid they really think they got this and they're just a stones throw a way from  a cup.   which will make the rebuild more painful but won't stop it.  or he's forced to go with company line.

 

again we're probably reading way too much into it.    

 

Actually if a GM wanted to get full value for his players, he would just go publicly nuts lol.  Like nuts.   Then he could trade them at full value.   would only cost him his job or it would be the perfect plan lol.

 

i actually think he’s toeing the line. I think they’re going to make a deal or two and continue with the expectations.

 

What I heard most or what echos in my ear the most is, “this is a good team.” They've said it for two years. It is wrong, this is not a good team and never had been. They haven’t hit on enough prospects and have not found one elite player in the process. We need at least 3 elite players at three key positions. Whichever order you get them in is really just a part of the process. But you need them. 
C,G,D... 

also some RHS players in high positions would help too. 
 

tough sledding when you skip steps and also miss on a bunch of first rounders at the start of it.

[travel_dude]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

i actually think he’s toeing the line. I think they’re going to make a deal or two and continue with the expectations.

 

What I heard most or what echos in my ear the most is, “this is a good team.” They've said it for two years. It is wrong, this is not a good team and never had been. They haven’t hit on enough prospects and have not found one elite player in the process. We need at least 3 elite players at three key positions. Whichever order you get them in is really just a part of the process. But you need them. 
C,G,D... 

also some RHS players in high positions would help too. 
 

tough sledding when you skip steps and also miss on a bunch of first rounders at the start of it.

 

Regarding the bolded, what did he miss out on in the 1st rounders?  He traded away 1st rounders, but he didn't "miss" on the ones he did pick.

Bennett was Burkie, regardless of the scout's opinions.  The fact that he didn't become the player that was scouted doesn't mean it's a miss by BT, or even Burkie.

 

I would suggest that very few GM would call out the team as not being good enough.  That sends the wrong message.

I would also suggest that you criticize the result as proof they are not a good team.  On paper, this is a good team.  A few holes, but every team has them.

May not be a contender or close to being one, but the results this and last two years have been less than the sum of it's parts.

 

While it could be seen as the time for a teardown, there is just as much sense to do a re-tool.

The core with the added pieces have not functioned properly this season.

The players added to go into the playoffs in previous years were not anywhere near enough to put them over the top.

 

So, what I am saying is we need to evaluate what we do have with what we need to compete regular season and playoffs.

• An aging D-man
• a shutdown C that has struggled a bit
• two good young top 4 D
• a good shutdown D
• two good top 6 C's
• two good top 6 LW
• a pair of young wingers
• a potential top 4 D prospect 
• Add to this Lucic, who we are kinda stuck with

The culture and possibly the room have been exposed, but it's just a guess.  They most likely need to make changes to this core.  Two long-standing players have done little to raise their games in the playoffs, but have been effective regular season up to this year.  We lack a true top C, but that is not as much a problem as having one that has dropped off for various reasons.  Our best RW is being used to cover for lack of depth at C.  Our best two LW's are not raising their game in the playoffs. 

 

It's a problem.  Players starting to decline (Backlund, Gio), players not getting better and having down seasons (Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Monahan), and lacking a top 6 RW or C.  Some of that is due to forcing things into square holes and some of it is guys just not able to continue in their old roles.  That is what needs to be figured out.  Move on if the player just doesn't have it anymore or can't raise their play.  Scoring has been an issue, but it seems that defensive play has dropped off.  No point in just fixing scoring.  

    

[robrob74]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Regarding the bolded, what did he miss out on in the 1st rounders?  He traded away 1st rounders, but he didn't "miss" on the ones he did pick.

Bennett was Burkie, regardless of the scout's opinions.  The fact that he didn't become the player that was scouted doesn't mean it's a miss by BT, or even Burkie.

 

I would suggest that very few GM would call out the team as not being good enough.  That sends the wrong message.

I would also suggest that you criticize the result as proof they are not a good team.  On paper, this is a good team.  A few holes, but every team has them.

May not be a contender or close to being one, but the results this and last two years have been less than the sum of it's parts.

 

While it could be seen as the time for a teardown, there is just as much sense to do a re-tool.

The core with the added pieces have not functioned properly this season.

The players added to go into the playoffs in previous years were not anywhere near enough to put them over the top.

 

So, what I am saying is we need to evaluate what we do have with what we need to compete regular season and playoffs.

• An aging D-man
• a shutdown C that has struggled a bit
• two good young top 4 D
• a good shutdown D
• two good top 6 C's
• two good top 6 LW
• a pair of young wingers
• a potential top 4 D prospect 
• Add to this Lucic, who we are kinda stuck with

The culture and possibly the room have been exposed, but it's just a guess.  They most likely need to make changes to this core.  Two long-standing players have done little to raise their games in the playoffs, but have been effective regular season up to this year.  We lack a true top C, but that is not as much a problem as having one that has dropped off for various reasons.  Our best RW is being used to cover for lack of depth at C.  Our best two LW's are not raising their game in the playoffs. 

 

It's a problem.  Players starting to decline (Backlund, Gio), players not getting better and having down seasons (Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Monahan), and lacking a top 6 RW or C.  Some of that is due to forcing things into square holes and some of it is guys just not able to continue in their old roles.  That is what needs to be figured out.  Move on if the player just doesn't have it anymore or can't raise their play.  Scoring has been an issue, but it seems that defensive play has dropped off.  No point in just fixing scoring.  

    

 

talking Flames in general. Missed on Bennett, missed on Jankowski and Baertschi. Then there was Poirier and Klimchuk... any other first rounders then that you’d wish could have added to what we needed to accomplish anything worthwhile.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

talking Flames in general. Missed on Bennett, missed on Jankowski and Baertschi. Then there was Poirier and Klimchuk... any other first rounders then that you’d wish could have added to what we needed to accomplish anything worthwhile.

 

I thought you meant BT specificlly, since the thread was about BT.

That 2013 draft was bad.  Not exactly a lot of quality 1st rounders from 22 onward.

Theodore and Brurakovsky is about it.

Niether is exactly a standout.

 

[robrob74]

18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I thought you meant BT specificlly, since the thread was about BT.

That 2013 draft was bad.  Not exactly a lot of quality 1st rounders from 22 onward.

Theodore and Brurakovsky is about it.

Niether is exactly a standout.

 

 

but I don’t agree that it is a good team. They had good results when teams don’t press them, that means they play or are good when it is easy. That isn’t a good team. 
 

there are some good players on the team. But the mix is wrong. Does just having good players mean it is a good team? 
 

the last few years haven’t been very good to BT. And he’s refused to change up the core parts of a team that hasn’t performed. 

[robrob74]

Brad Trelivings’ comments on TSN scares me. Maybe I needed context, as I got quotes that were posted on a rumour site, but he’s talking about how they still view this team as a good team and how they have good players. Ok, they have good players, but good players that need to leave and need to get something in exchange for them. To me, this is toeing the line and status  quo. It’s what they’ve done last year and what they plan to do this year. The goal will be to win the cup next year.

[cross16]

Here is the full article if you want context. I don't see anything alarming in it and he actually stops short of calling it a good team. 

 

At the same time I think we are fooling ourselves a little if we think there is going to be a tear down rebuild coming. For the last 20 years this franchise has seemed to operate under the premise that they need to be striving to win the cup every year and you don't win the cup unless you are in the playoffs. I'd be pretty surprised to see that philosophy change suddenly. 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/calgary-flames-brad-treliving-after-underperforming-this-season-we-all-have-to-own-it-1.1619924

 

 

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, cross16 said:

Here is the full article if you want context. I don't see anything alarming in it and he actually stops short of calling it a good team. 

 

At the same time I think we are fooling ourselves a little if we think there is going to be a tear down rebuild coming. For the last 20 years this franchise has seemed to operate under the premise that they need to be striving to win the cup every year and you don't win the cup unless you are in the playoffs. I'd be pretty surprised to see that philosophy change suddenly. 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/calgary-flames-brad-treliving-after-underperforming-this-season-we-all-have-to-own-it-1.1619924

 

 

 

I think you are right in that I was fooling myself wanting a rebuild these last 4-5 years.  Or for the team to finish the last rebuild properly. 

 

Yup.  Joke was on me lol.

 

But now we're at a point where the decision may soon be out of the organization's hands.

 

Just as sure as they don't want to rebuild,  we are definitely picking high at the draft.   We just are.  They can't stop it without doing something Really dumb like trading the pick.

 

In terms of selling current assets,  true.   They may not.  But this isn't because they can avoid a rebuild. It's more because they've let all their assets devalue and ruined good trade opportunities. 

 

So, this could be a real long proper rebuild without the boost of sold assets.    They can aim for the playoffs but the math and the players aren't there.  We'll be picking high for a while and it is up to the them to decide when to claim that it was their idea.

[travel_dude]

18 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Just as sure as they don't want to rebuild,  we are definitely picking high at the draft.   We just are.  They can't stop it without doing something Really dumb like trading the pick.

 

They target a player and pick him plus getting additional picks.

Obviously they didn;t want the D-man or Lapierre.

 

[robrob74]

 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/seven-years-into-brad-treliving-s-tenure-calgary-flames-still-searching-for-playoff-success-1.1631065

 

well, I don't know if this is a very rave review of BT's tenure. He's done some good, and some bad. I wonder if there's enough success here to warrant him to stick as GM... 

 

The parts that I find damning are:

 

1. Only 5 teams have had fewer draft picks that the Flames since his tenure.

2. Only 3 teams have had fewer 1st rounders than the Flames since he started, and each one of those teams were perennial Cup contenders. 

 

Why are we in the spot we are now? The push to succeed too soon, and I give him a slight pass due to the drafts the year he arrived and prior to that, because it was fairly bare. To me, in today's NHL, it is ridiculous to have so few picks when trying to build a team. 

[MP5029]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:35 PM, robrob74 said:

 

but I don’t agree that it is a good team. They had good results when teams don’t press them, that means they play or are good when it is easy. That isn’t a good team. 
 

there are some good players on the team. But the mix is wrong. Does just having good players mean it is a good team? 
 

the last few years haven’t been very good to BT. And he’s refused to change up the core parts of a team that hasn’t performed. 

Exactly, the mix isn’t right and it needs to be changed up...re-tool or re-build kinda depends on how much changes are needed.

 

I think we will get a better idea of that in a few weeks ones we are officially eliminated and we see who if any of the key guys are and have been playing with injury...also in the equation is if there are injuries, to who and how severe are they?

 

for example if Monahan is, that’s a big issue as he’s becoming injury prone every few years, sure he’s awesome when healthy for a few years then has a year or two of bad play...personally I like Monahan but if he’s injured yet again it may be time to think about moving him for someone a bit more durable...especially at the C position.

 

I would argue if that’s the case we should target some 2022 first round picks...deep draft up front and this team needs it.

 

I think the D should be ok if...we trade Gio or move him back to the 3rd pair next season and mix up the top two pairs:

 

Hanifin/Tanev 

 Valimaki/ Anderson

Gio/ Kylington (or maybe 2021 first pick?)

 

Stone (spare) he’s been good...not great but good

 

if not that, maybe another way to look at the D is trading Gio:

 

Hanifin/Tanev 

valimaki/anderson

2021 first pick/ Kylington 

 

Stone (Spare) he’s been good, not great but good

 

Or another option besides trading Gio is the possibility of swinging another trade like the Hamilton trade but using Hanifin...maybe we could get lucky twice and land a young up and coming D and a solid top 6 forward again...I see Hanifin much like Hamilton was but he’s got another few years of growth so we may be able to land a decent haul for him...obviously we should be moving Gio too, maybe if luck land a low round 1st or a high second and a prospect?

 

of the options I see the keeping Gio and mixing up the lines as a safe fall back.

 

trading just Gio is not doing much short term but could help in 3-5 years, so not the best option unless it’s a lucky type trade and we land a decent first rounder or a young up and coming prospect...would have to be from a contending team in need of a D like Gio, so not likely.

 

moving Hanifin and Gio (separate moves no doubt) could be the key to a quick turn around with this team, but is it realistic to think another Hamilton type trade is possible? It’s a long shot but if there is an option for such a move this is where I’d start...ideally such a move could land a top 2 pairing D like Hanifin back and a top 6 RW (or Ctr), obviously a top RW would be best but another top 6 Ctr would be almost as good giving some

option on trades later as Backlund or Monahan could be expendable depending...

 

I guess what I’m saying is if this team is to get turned around the key is through the D not the forwards...but it’s going to require very carefully planing your assets...which I’m not sure if BT is good at or not, he did great with the Hamilton deal but since then it’s questionable...If he can swing and other deal like that well then that’s 1/2 the work done....well sort of, but it’s a huge step in the right direction at least.

 

 

 

 

[cross16]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

https://www.tsn.ca/seven-years-into-brad-treliving-s-tenure-calgary-flames-still-searching-for-playoff-success-1.1631065

 

well, I don't know if this is a very rave review of BT's tenure. He's done some good, and some bad. I wonder if there's enough success here to warrant him to stick as GM... 

 

The parts that I find damning are:

 

1. Only 5 teams have had fewer draft picks that the Flames since his tenure.

2. Only 3 teams have had fewer 1st rounders than the Flames since he started, and each one of those teams were perennial Cup contenders. 

 

Why are we in the spot we are now? The push to succeed too soon, and I give him a slight pass due to the drafts the year he arrived and prior to that, because it was fairly bare. To me, in today's NHL, it is ridiculous to have so few picks when trying to build a team. 

 

I agree with the conclusion i just don't think this is a Treliving issue. I'm pretty sure if you look at the Flames under Sutter they were also near the bottom in terms of amount of draft picks, certainly would have been if you look at top 60 picks. 

 

I view this as an organizational problem and one i'm not sure get's fixed by firing Treliving. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree with the conclusion i just don't think this is a Treliving issue. I'm pretty sure if you look at the Flames under Sutter they were also near the bottom in terms of amount of draft picks, certainly would have been if you look at top 60 picks. 

 

It's an organizational problem. 

 

Seems to be the consensus.  Not sure how you ever change that with owners that want to have playoffs every year.

Buffalo seems to be content to miss for such an extended period of time.

They sign some decent players, only to have to trade them off.

 

In a general sense, I am okay in competing for the playoffs yearly, but we haven't built a team that can do this.

We are not taking the steps to get to that point.

Talent assessment seems to be lacking.

Lucic for Neal makes sense if you have a competitive team.

Trading for Lazar, spending assets on older goalies trending down, but also doing it every year seems like a fool's errand.

 

But this also goes back to the utter days of trading Phaneuf or Feaster trade of J-Bow and Iggy.

If we are making trades of this level (like a Gaudreau or Monahan or Tkachuk), then it better be more than swapping 2 years for 2 years.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree with the conclusion i just don't think this is a Treliving issue. I'm pretty sure if you look at the Flames under Sutter they were also near the bottom in terms of amount of draft picks, certainly would have been if you look at top 60 picks. 

 

It's an organizational problem. 

Yet the same organization that early in BT's tenure allowed him to trade Hudler, Russell, and Glencross for futures.  I don't know man, not sure that ownership was pounding the table to trade a 2nd for Lazar or has a trade picks mandate.  They are just an easy target because they don't move, if Sutters hands were forced back as a GM why did he come back to the organization.

 

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

1. Only 5 teams have had fewer draft picks that the Flames since his tenure.

 

What is the disparity around the league though?  Are we looking at teams that have 5-10 more or is there more teams in the 2-3 more picks range, if thats the case then it can be pretty cyclical.  For example the Jets over the first 5 seasons in Winnipeg were good for keeping picks, but the last 2 drafts only made 9 picks and have 3 below the full compliment for the next 3 drafts.  On the other hand the Flames have the full compliment +1 in the next 3, with an additional 3 in the first three rounds.  For perspective 17 teams at the moment are less than 21 for the next 3 years and the Flames are tied with the Kings and Senators for the 2nd most picks in the first 3 rounds for the next 3 years.  Whether or not they add or subtract is yet to be determined.  But a little positivity.

[cross16]

32 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yet the same organization that early in BT's tenure allowed him to trade Hudler, Russell, and Glencross for futures.  I don't know man, not sure that ownership was pounding the table to trade a 2nd for Lazar or has a trade picks mandate.  They are just an easy target because they don't move, if Sutters hands were forced back as a GM why did he come back to the organization.

 

I would agree and don't think for a second the ownership group tells their GM to trade picks or has a trade pick mandate. However, I do think that this organization mandates playoffs every year and that type of mentality is going to incentivize their GMs into short term thinking. Trading picks is an obvious target there because if you are constantly trying to win now picks are the main currency you will always have to fill gaps on your roster. 

[sak22]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I would agree and don't think for a second the ownership group tells their GM to trade picks or has a trade pick mandate. However, I do think that this organization mandates playoffs every year and that type of mentality is going to incentivize their GMs into short term thinking. Trading picks is an obvious target there because if you are constantly trying to win now picks are the main currency you will always have to fill gaps on your roster. 

Yet he survived the 2018 disaster, and managed the futures this year like he will remain next year.  Also held off going in on Stone, or even trading a high pick the last 2 years.  I don't like constant trading of picks as much as the next guy, the problem is the targets have mostly been brutal.  Either way, the trading of picks I don't put into what's gone wrong with this current group, a problem for next year and the year after for sure, this year for me doesn't fall on BT, Edwards, Sutter or even Ward, every player with a cap hit over 6 has been a massive disappointment and I don't know how management was supposed to handle that differently.

[cross16]

26 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yet he survived the 2018 disaster, and managed the futures this year like he will remain next year.  Also held off going in on Stone, or even trading a high pick the last 2 years.  I don't like constant trading of picks as much as the next guy, the problem is the targets have mostly been brutal.  Either way, the trading of picks I don't put into what's gone wrong with this current group, a problem for next year and the year after for sure, this year for me doesn't fall on BT, Edwards, Sutter or even Ward, every player with a cap hit over 6 has been a massive disappointment and I don't know how management was supposed to handle that differently.

 

Some of this is fair and I agree with.  Worth pointing out to that the 2019 first rounder was gone if Stone agreed to sign or if the Zucker trade didn't fall through so I don't think he held off, circumstances outside of his control prevented the deal from being completed but he was offering it up. 

 

But counter point, if Jordan Kyrou, Noah Dobson or maybe even Alex Debricant were on this team would the decline in those players be as pronounced and impactful? I thikn there is some impact to the current roster, but it's more of an organizational problem for me in the sense that the Flames never get to the point they are rich in assets. They don't have a steady stream of players they can pull from junior/the farm so they have to keep going out and getting guys in FA or again keep dealing picks to plug holes. It's just how organizations spin their wheels IMO. 

 

I too don't think Treliving gets fired and i'm not really advocating for him to be fired. If i'm wrong and they do fire him I full expect the next GM to do the exact same thing, deal picks, and being amongst the least busiest clubs at the draft table in the league. 

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, sak22 said:

Yet the same organization that early in BT's tenure allowed him to trade Hudler, Russell, and Glencross for futures.  I don't know man, not sure that ownership was pounding the table to trade a 2nd for Lazar or has a trade picks mandate.  They are just an easy target because they don't move, if Sutters hands were forced back as a GM why did he come back to the organization.

 

What is the disparity around the league though?  Are we looking at teams that have 5-10 more or is there more teams in the 2-3 more picks range, if thats the case then it can be pretty cyclical.  For example the Jets over the first 5 seasons in Winnipeg were good for keeping picks, but the last 2 drafts only made 9 picks and have 3 below the full compliment for the next 3 drafts.  On the other hand the Flames have the full compliment +1 in the next 3, with an additional 3 in the first three rounds.  For perspective 17 teams at the moment are less than 21 for the next 3 years and the Flames are tied with the Kings and Senators for the 2nd most picks in the first 3 rounds for the next 3 years.  Whether or not they add or subtract is yet to be determined.  But a little positivity.

 

i think it c

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

Yet he survived the 2018 disaster, and managed the futures this year like he will remain next year.  Also held off going in on Stone, or even trading a high pick the last 2 years.  I don't like constant trading of picks as much as the next guy, the problem is the targets have mostly been brutal.  Either way, the trading of picks I don't put into what's gone wrong with this current group, a problem for next year and the year after for sure, this year for me doesn't fall on BT, Edwards, Sutter or even Ward, every player with a cap hit over 6 has been a massive disappointment and I don't know how management was supposed to handle that differently.

 

 

it could be a bit of everything said here. I mean, he has spent a lot of picks and if we want to point at the good things he has done with slightly improved drafting, then keeping those picks would/could have been more beneficial to the team. Like you said, the targets have been brutal so trading the picks seem that much worse. 
 

i think the difference between the Jets example you use is the Jets built a near contender through the draft and then starting using picks to supplement a team that was close. BT thought we were close to contending, therefore started to trade picks too much early. 
 

my guess is we will see what happens in the off-season. How does he spend the draft picks? Are we still going to have that many picks then? Or use them to add to what they have now?

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, sak22 said:

Yet the same organization that early in BT's tenure allowed him to trade Hudler, Russell, and Glencross for futures.  I don't know man, not sure that ownership was pounding the table to trade a 2nd for Lazar or has a trade picks mandate.  They are just an easy target because they don't move, if Sutters hands were forced back as a GM why did he come back to the organization.

 

After Iginla, a rebuild was inevitable so moves were made to rebuild.  It was obvious to everybody.  As soon as we beat the Canucks in the playoffs that one year, we fooled ourselves into thinking we were ready to go for it.

 

Not enough honesty and patience.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Some of this is fair and I agree with.  Worth pointing out to that the 2019 first rounder was gone if Stone agreed to sign or if the Zucker trade didn't fall through so I don't think he held off, circumstances outside of his control prevented the deal from being completed but he was offering it up. 

 

But counter point, if Jordan Kyrou, Noah Dobson or maybe even Alex Debricant were on this team would the decline in those players be as pronounced and impactful? I thikn there is some impact to the current roster, but it's more of an organizational problem for me in the sense that the Flames never get to the point they are rich in assets. They don't have a steady stream of players they can pull from junior/the farm so they have to keep going out and getting guys in FA or again keep dealing picks to plug holes. It's just how organizations spin their wheels IMO. 

 

I too don't think Treliving gets fired and i'm not really advocating for him to be fired. If i'm wrong and they do fire him I full expect the next GM to do the exact same thing, deal picks, and being amongst the least busiest clubs at the draft table in the league. 

Completely forgot about that Zucker ordeal, good point.

 

Would those guys be in the same spot here?  Dobson I'm sure would be getting Valimaki treatment, he is basically in the same spot on the Island just getting PP time.  Brighter future for sure.  Not sure 2021 would be much better.

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

After Iginla, a rebuild was inevitable so moves were made to rebuild.  It was obvious to everybody.  As soon as we beat the Canucks in the playoffs that one year, we fooled ourselves into thinking we were ready to go for it.

 

Not enough honesty and patience.

Then we failed in 2016 they traded Hudler, Russell and Jones for futures 2016 draft with 10 picks, there was plenty of time between the team initially falling in early January to the deadline to make an attempt at a season saving trade, and never did.  Total impatience.  I don't know that many teams have this patience thing.

 

Easy to come here and talk about patience and how to make the right moves, its different when you are in that spot.  Short time frame to get it done and usually no second chance if your fired without winning.