Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[travel_dude]

Not yet. But should be soon. But agreed, I'd rather undersell and be surprised than oversell and be disappointed. 

 

 

I can see Shink challenging for a spot next year. Not sure if he'll crack the lineup yet, but definitely 2nd line potential IN TIME.

 

 

Four of 7 down.

 

Goalie and RW were going to have to wait till the off-season anyway. Wideman trade got killed by suspension since apparently one was in the works. Drat. 

 

Burke said they never entertained a trade discussion about Wideman, meaning they had no intention of trading him while suspended.  I didn't hear that one was missed other than an Eklund rumour.  As much as I would like to have believed it, it didn't make any sense.

[cross16]

I love the Treliving understands that draft picks and young players are currency and that if you don't have them in today's NHL you are going to be stuck finding trade partners. That is something that really frusturated me with both Feaster and Sutter they didn't seem to get that you need to collect picks and young players and they would much rather move out picks for immediate fixes that weren't worth it. YOu have so many more options as a franchise when you are consistantly flush with picks, prosepcts and young talent. 

[cccsberg]

I love the Treliving understands that draft picks and young players are currency and that if you don't have them in today's NHL you are going to be stuck finding trade partners. That is something that really frusturated me with both Feaster and Sutter they didn't seem to get that you need to collect picks and young players and they would much rather move out picks for immediate fixes that weren't worth it. YOu have so many more options as a franchise when you are consistantly flush with picks, prosepcts and young talent. 

Considering where we are in our rebuild, I agree completely.  Ask me again in 2-3 years when we will be looking to add THAT last piece or two (a la Chicago lately) and draining our pick/prospect pool will be the ammunition used.

[The_People1]

I love the Treliving understands that draft picks and young players are currency and that if you don't have them in today's NHL you are going to be stuck finding trade partners. That is something that really frusturated me with both Feaster and Sutter they didn't seem to get that you need to collect picks and young players and they would much rather move out picks for immediate fixes that weren't worth it. YOu have so many more options as a franchise when you are consistantly flush with picks, prosepcts and young talent. 

 

What you talkin about Willis?

 

The main problem with Darryl Sutter is that he did NOT trade away 1st round picks.  As a result, the Flames were blessed with Irving, Nemisz, Chucko, Pelech, etc... When Sutter did spend currency to acquire assets, we got Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, etc.  Spending currency was the best thing Sutter ever did for the Flames.  Keeping them and drafting was the worst thing ever.

[cross16]

What you talkin about Willis?

 

The main problem with Darryl Sutter is that he did NOT trade away 1st round picks.  As a result, the Flames were blessed with Irving, Nemisz, Chucko, Pelech, etc... When Sutter did spend currency to acquire assets, we got Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, etc.  Spending currency was the best thing Sutter ever did for the Flames.  Keeping them and drafting was the worst thing ever.

 

2 wrongs don't make a right though. If you arn't good at drafting you need to fix your drafting not correct the problem by giving away more picks. The lack of high draft picks really hurt the Flames because they never had any good talent to surround the core with. They had to rely on aging FA who were well past their prime. 

[The_People1]

2 wrongs don't make a right though. If you arn't good at drafting you need to fix your drafting not correct the problem by giving away more picks. The lack of high draft picks really hurt the Flames because they never had any good talent to surround the core with. They had to rely on aging FA who were well past their prime. 

 

Is "give away" the term you choose to use for trading a second round pick for Kiprusoff, Bourque, and Nilson? 

[cccsberg]

Is "give away" the term you choose to use for trading a second round pick for Kiprusoff, Bourque, and Nilson? 

Yes, you are correct here.  It would have been great if Sutter had been able to accomplish both.

[The_People1]

Yes, you are correct here.  It would have been great if Sutter had been able to accomplish both.

 

When BT spends currency to acquire Dougie Hamilton, it is considered an excellent asset acquisition.  When Darryl Sutter spends currency to acquire Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, and Jokinen, it's giving away picks.  I'm just saying, in hindsight, Sutter should've used five 1st round picks to target a #1 Center.  Not saying a #1 Center was available for five 1st round picks or anything.

[CheersMan]

When BT spends currency to acquire Dougie Hamilton, it is considered an excellent asset acquisition.  When Darryl Sutter spends currency to acquire Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, and Jokinen, it's giving away picks.  I'm just saying, in hindsight, Sutter should've used five 1st round picks to target a #1 Center.  Not saying a #1 Center was available for five 1st round picks or anything.

 

I don't recall Sutter parting with many 1OA picks.  However, he did not value 2nd round picks as much and often traded them away?

[phoenix66]

When BT spends currency to acquire Dougie Hamilton, it is considered an excellent asset acquisition.  When Darryl Sutter spends currency to acquire Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, and Jokinen, it's giving away picks.  I'm just saying, in hindsight, Sutter should've used five 1st round picks to target a #1 Center.  Not saying a #1 Center was available for five 1st round picks or anything.

or at the very least Picked Getzlaf instead of Phaneuf

[cross16]

Is "give away" the term you choose to use for trading a second round pick for Kiprusoff, Bourque, and Nilson? 

 

No, but I would for Craig Conroy, Dumping Wayne Primeau a first for only 1 year of Cammy etc. 

 

Cash in point, the draft pick the Flames sent Florida for NIlsson was David Booth. The 2nd they sent to the Leafs to dump Primeau would up with Chicago and they picked Brandon Saad. 

 

When BT spends currency to acquire Dougie Hamilton, it is considered an excellent asset acquisition.  When Darryl Sutter spends currency to acquire Kiprusoff, Bourque, Nilson, and Jokinen, it's giving away picks.  I'm just saying, in hindsight, Sutter should've used five 1st round picks to target a #1 Center.  Not saying a #1 Center was available for five 1st round picks or anything.

 

Not the same thing. Treliving went out and acquired 2 additional 2nds and a 3rd so even thought he spent assets to get Hamilton he still wound up with 2 2nd round picks. My problem with Sutter was the deadling of picks and never getting them back and it was just magnified when he stopped acquiring the likes of Kipper and started acquiring guys like Conroy/dumping Primeau without getting that pick back. 

[The_People1]

No, but I would for Craig Conroy, Dumping Wayne Primeau a first for only 1 year of Cammy etc. 

 

Cash in point, the draft pick the Flames sent Florida for NIlsson was David Booth. The 2nd they sent to the Leafs to dump Primeau would up with Chicago and they picked Brandon Saad. 

 

 

Not the same thing. Treliving went out and acquired 2 additional 2nds and a 3rd so even thought he spent assets to get Hamilton he still wound up with 2 2nd round picks. My problem with Sutter was the deadling of picks and never getting them back and it was just magnified when he stopped acquiring the likes of Kipper and started acquiring guys like Conroy/dumping Primeau without getting that pick back. 

 

It was a "win now" era during the Sutter years.  His actions were justified.

 

You're basically suggesting Treliving continue selling assets for picks even when the Flames emerge as Cup contenders in the next few years.

[cross16]

It was a "win now" era during the Sutter years.  His actions were justified.

 

You're basically suggesting Treliving continue selling assets for picks even when the Flames emerge as Cup contenders in the next few years.

 

 

I don't agree with the " win now" equalling forget about picks and don't worry about the draft. Again, one of the key reasons why the Flames in thos years didn't win is they NEVER got any contributions from draft picks, not even a 3rd or 4th liner. They had to build that franchise virtualy entirely off FA and trades and thus they ended up with a high cap team that wasn't good enough. You have to balance it is what i'm saying, udnerstand that picks are currency so when you deal one up you better be getting equally currency back, don't "give" stuff away.

 

LIke the Hawks "sold" Saad, Byfuglien, Ladd, Sharp etc? 

 

What I am saying is that Treliving understands that picks, prospects and yougn assets are currency and if you run out of them its tough to makes trades. Sutter didn't understand that so he sold off too many picks and assets and did a poor job of replenishing his currency. If the Flames were a contender and they had an RFA like Saad and they could deal him and fill holes elsewhere i would do it in a heartbeat. That trade allowed them to pull of the Ladd move this TDL. 

 

Get currency is what I am saying and in today's NHL the currency people want are picks, prospects and young players. If you stay flush with that you'll always be able to be a player in trades etc. It's not as simple IMO as you are either hoarding picks, or you are shipping them out, has to be a mix of both. 

[The_People1]

I don't agree with the " win now" equalling forget about picks and don't worry about the draft. Again, one of the key reasons why the Flames in thos years didn't win is they NEVER got any contributions from draft picks, not even a 3rd or 4th liner. They had to build that franchise virtualy entirely off FA and trades and thus they ended up with a high cap team that wasn't good enough. You have to balance it is what i'm saying, udnerstand that picks are currency so when you deal one up you better be getting equally currency back, don't "give" stuff away.

 

LIke the Hawks "sold" Saad, Byfuglien, Ladd, Sharp etc? 

 

What I am saying is that Treliving understands that picks, prospects and yougn assets are currency and if you run out of them its tough to makes trades. Sutter didn't understand that so he sold off too many picks and assets and did a poor job of replenishing his currency. If the Flames were a contender and they had an RFA like Saad and they could deal him and fill holes elsewhere i would do it in a heartbeat. That trade allowed them to pull of the Ladd move this TDL. 

 

Get currency is what I am saying and in today's NHL the currency people want are picks, prospects and young players. If you stay flush with that you'll always be able to be a player in trades etc. It's not as simple IMO as you are either hoarding picks, or you are shipping them out, has to be a mix of both. 

 

I'm having a tough time following your argument because on one hand, you criticize Sutter for spending currency and then on the other hand, criticize him for his poor drafting record.

 

I was only defending Sutter's spending of currency for assets.  I think he was really shrewd, especially early into his GM tenure.  He did not draft the Flames out of their perpetual rebuild.  He traded the Flames out of it.  He traded so well and drafted so poorly that I'm left to ponder what could have been if he traded away his 1st round picks too.  He should NOT have kept those picks.  He should've traded them all away.

 

Sutter's tenure boiled down to tragic results at the draft table.  Had he drafted better, then the Flames may have won a Cup.  Had he hit on 2 or 3 of his 1st round picks, then history would've been written differently.  In other words, spending currency was not the issue because he spent it very well.  Drafting was the issue.

 

It sounds like you are setting a double standard for Treliving because he's doing what Sutter was doing.  That is, spending currency.

[cross16]

I think partly because currency to me is not just draft picks. I think the currency in the NHL is picks, young players, and prospects, its not just as simple as draft picks. So when I say that Sutter didn't understand currency its not just to harp on him for trading away too many draft picks, it's what he traded them for. Treliving gave up 3 high picks for a 22 year old dman whilc Sutter constantly traded his for players towrads the edge of their prime or in some cases past their prime. Sutter put his value on veterans and IMO that is not understand the landscape of the NHL. Case in point, the Phaneuf trade. He ships out one of his most tradable assets and get no picks, prospects or young players back in the deal. That to me is a pretty clear undertanding that he didn't understand the value of currency in the NHL.

 

I have no problem trading draft picks away for the right return. When you ship out 2nd roudners for 3rd line players at or past their prime i'm not a fan. When you spend 3 picks on a 22 year old Dman sign me up because that is adding value to your organization and then understand you also need to find a way to get picks back so you can replenish that currency. 

 

So I don't view what they are doing as the same at all. Both have dealt picks, but Treliving also is brining back young players, picks and prospects, Sutter only shipped them out. His version of replenishing his currency was to sign undrafted free agents like Bryan Cameron and Chris Breen. 

[The_People1]

I think partly because currency to me is not just draft picks. I think the currency in the NHL is picks, young players, and prospects, its not just as simple as draft picks. So when I say that Sutter didn't understand currency its not just to harp on him for trading away too many draft picks, it's what he traded them for. Treliving gave up 3 high picks for a 22 year old dman whilc Sutter constantly traded his for players towrads the edge of their prime or in some cases past their prime. Sutter put his value on veterans and IMO that is not understand the landscape of the NHL. Case in point, the Phaneuf trade. He ships out one of his most tradable assets and get no picks, prospects or young players back in the deal. That to me is a pretty clear undertanding that he didn't understand the value of currency in the NHL.

 

I have no problem trading draft picks away for the right return. When you ship out 2nd roudners for 3rd line players at or past their prime i'm not a fan. When you spend 3 picks on a 22 year old Dman sign me up because that is adding value to your organization and then understand you also need to find a way to get picks back so you can replenish that currency. 

 

So I don't view what they are doing as the same at all. Both have dealt picks, but Treliving also is brining back young players, picks and prospects, Sutter only shipped them out. His version of replenishing his currency was to sign undrafted free agents like Bryan Cameron and Chris Breen. 

 

But different circumstances.  The main way to get picks and young players is to sell at the TDL.  The Flames were not in that position during Sutter's time.  Sutter did right by not selling and instead, go buying.  Even in the summer, he didn't trade veterans for picks because the mandate was to win right away.

 

If things go well for the Flames in the next two years, Treliving will, and should, do the same thing Sutter did.  But hopefully for us, Treliving hits on his trades whereas Sutter failed miserably towards the end of this time here.

[kehatch]

I think partly because currency to me is not just draft picks. I think the currency in the NHL is picks, young players, and prospects, its not just as simple as draft picks. So when I say that Sutter didn't understand currency its not just to harp on him for trading away too many draft picks, it's what he traded them for. Treliving gave up 3 high picks for a 22 year old dman whilc Sutter constantly traded his for players towrads the edge of their prime or in some cases past their prime. Sutter put his value on veterans and IMO that is not understand the landscape of the NHL. Case in point, the Phaneuf trade. He ships out one of his most tradable assets and get no picks, prospects or young players back in the deal. That to me is a pretty clear undertanding that he didn't understand the value of currency in the NHL.

I have no problem trading draft picks away for the right return. When you ship out 2nd roudners for 3rd line players at or past their prime i'm not a fan. When you spend 3 picks on a 22 year old Dman sign me up because that is adding value to your organization and then understand you also need to find a way to get picks back so you can replenish that currency.

So I don't view what they are doing as the same at all. Both have dealt picks, but Treliving also is brining back young players, picks and prospects, Sutter only shipped them out. His version of replenishing his currency was to sign undrafted free agents like Bryan Cameron and Chris Breen.

Agreed. That coupled with a willingness to pay veterans too much money and a general refusal of the organization to rebuild is what set the stage for our long playoff drought.

[redfire11]

I wounder if BT could be considering Bruce Boudreau in the coaching position. I would love to have a coach that could take us to the Conference finals. He would not lose every game 7.

[CheersMan]

BT just used one of his cat lives with the Hartley firing.  He’s one step closer to the exit door as well, tic-toc, tic-toc.

[travel_dude]

BT just used one of his cat lives with the Hartley firing.  He’s one step closer to the exit door as well, tic-toc, tic-toc.

 

That's a strange thing to say.  Keeping Hartley is much more risky if things didn't improve.

 

The new coach will be endorsed by Burke, so I think he still has that extra life.

[CheersMan]

That's a strange thing to say.  Keeping Hartley is much more risky if things didn't improve.

 

The new coach will be endorsed by Burke, so I think he still has that extra life.

 

BT just fired one of the best head coaches in the NHL for having the worst goaltending in the NHL.  I don’t find that strange, I find it bold.  BT has big shoulders, let’s hope they are big enough to carry this team into the playoffs next year, otherwise he may be shown the door as well.

[cross16]

BT just fired one of the best head coaches in the NHL for having the worst goaltending in the NHL.  I don’t find that strange, I find it bold.  BT has big shoulders, let’s hope they are big enough to carry this team into the playoffs next year, otherwise he may be shown the door as well.

 

Best head coached in the NHL do not finish deal last in goals against

Best head coaches in the NHL do not finish dead last in special teams

Best head coaches in the NHL do not have back to back seasons where their team is in the bottom 3rd for scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against. 

Best head coaches in the NHL do not continuously have a bottom tier team in terms of possession metrics. 

 

You can like Hartley and respect the job he did that is all fine but to cal him one of the best head coaches in the NHL is pretty ludicrous IMO. he got the Jack Adams because he got his team to over achieve for a year, not because he is a great coach IMO. Unfortunately the Jack Adams no longer rewards the best coach it rewards the coach who got his team to overachieve the most.

 

If you need league average goaltending in order to turn your team into slightly below league average you've got other issues. goaltending alone would not have fixed everything with this team. 

[phoenix66]

BT just fired one of the best head coaches in the NHL for having the worst goaltending in the NHL.  I don’t find that strange, I find it bold.  BT has big shoulders, let’s hope they are big enough to carry this team into the playoffs next year, otherwise he may be shown the door as well.

BT was pretty clear many things went into his decision. While he did say he needed better goaltending and put that on himself. He was also clear in adding he didn't like how we defended in front of the goalie. The common underlying tone was he didn't like the style of play,and didn't feel it was going to be successful going forward.

Hartley runs a style of play that lends itself to giving up quality chances. Unless you got Patrick Roy back there you probably won't be successful

[zima]

There's a lot of talk between dutter and BT. There are 2 very different situations when dutter was in we were drafting high 25th and higher most yrs. We all know what you get usually in that high of a draft pool it is very hard to pick a great player in most cases. Which I think left Dutter in a bad position when it came to drafting and trading. On the other hand BT has higher picks to trade like 12th over all or 6th in this yrs draft that lends to better quality trade partners. As far as Hartley goes I liked how he treated the kids thought he was a great coach for them of course I never saw the inner working of the practices but saw how he talked about them and was very pleased with his demeanour. I will miss his attitude when talking about the kids and I think when they had good goal tending the game he had the team playing was very exciting that I will miss.   

[MAC331]

Best head coached in the NHL do not finish deal last in goals against

Best head coaches in the NHL do not finish dead last in special teams

Best head coaches in the NHL do not have back to back seasons where their team is in the bottom 3rd for scoring chances against and high danger scoring chances against. 

Best head coaches in the NHL do not continuously have a bottom tier team in terms of possession metrics. 

 

You can like Hartley and respect the job he did that is all fine but to cal him one of the best head coaches in the NHL is pretty ludicrous IMO. he got the Jack Adams because he got his team to over achieve for a year, not because he is a great coach IMO. Unfortunately the Jack Adams no longer rewards the best coach it rewards the coach who got his team to overachieve the most.

 

If you need league average goaltending in order to turn your team into slightly below league average you've got other issues. goaltending alone would not have fixed everything with this team. 

The pro ranks are a delicate balance of timing and the talent levels you are dealing with as a coach. What were TOR statistics this year and they have the best coach in hockey as an example.

Hartley has had his periods of success and likely has believers he is capable of coaching at the NHL, to say he isn't an NHL coach is ludicrous. He will land on his feet somewhere, I just hope we get a coach that can advance this group of players from the time he walks in the door.