Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cross16]

18 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think it was leaked last season or the season before that BT never even talked to PITs about MAF.  We all assumed BT asked about MAF but... Who knows now.  Perhaps PIT made the insane offer and BT shut the phone and never called back.

 

MAF himself admitted that the thought there was a strong possibility he was going to be a Flame. Would be a bit surprising to admit that if the Flames never asked.

My understanding is that Treliving tied at the 16 entry draft to talk about Fleury but the ask was the Flames first round. he ended up pivoting to Bishop (who apparently they agreed to a deal on) because the Lighting were willing to do it without the Flames first rounder. Treliving came back to Fleury in 17 but the difference then was the expansion draft. My understanding is at the trade deadline in 2017 Vegas and Pens put a deal in place for Vegas to aquire Fleury at the expansion draft. 

 

 

[The_People1]

22 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

So here's the thing.

 

I blame BT for a lot, but I never really know if it's him or the owners directing him.   I mean I mostly blame him for not planning for the future.   But that can also come from ownership.   And seems to be a trend when it comes to event centers too.

 

If it really is an owner thing, and that can never be truly ruled out, then yeah.  He deserves a chance under better direction.    OR, he needs the balls to change that direction.   As the heir to one of the greatest fortunes in Canada, I don't think he really needs the money.  He Should be able to tell the owners exactly what needs to really happen.  So on that premise, I've always put the blame somewhat on him.  I mean, he's worth more than some of those owners, all things considered.

 

But yeah.   Sure.  If it really is the owners who insist on never planning more than 6 months out, and he can change that narrative, I would change my tune on him.   I would need to see it happen first though.

 

Ya not sure how much ownership got involved.  Historically it seems, only trading franchise players needed ownership approval.  Who cares about depth signings and such.

 

Based on speculation, maybe the owners stepped in and hired Sutter... Which shows a lack of confidence in BT to find a good coach.  Coaching position has been a disaster here.

[The_People1]

57 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

That's fair.  I guess it's just interpretation.

 

The only way I say lack of planning was just how obvious the misses were...I wasn't able to conceive them being accidents.  Lucic for instance, who you alluded to.  I love Lucic.  Love him.   But, when we acquired him, honestly did anyone not see a huge mess near the end of his contract, for that matter most of his contract?   I just don't understand how that could be missed.

 

When we acquired Hanifan, with a league-wide reputation for lacking defensive skills.   And I must say those have improved, but at the cost of his offensive development...  Did anyone really see an outcome differently from what we have now?  I could not have imagined a different outcome.

 

Hanging on to Brodies and Giordanos until their value went to zero.  Same thing.

 

In each case, the only explanation I can think of for the moves was short term need.   And true to form, many on here were happy with many of his moves....at the exact moment that they were made (not all, of course).  Lucic was a big name when we acquired him.   He was just on the edge of impact player status.   We all knew that only had months remaining on it.   But still.

 

So I termed that lack of planning, you could also argue his focus was just too short term for him to ever build anything substantial in the time allotted to him.    Was Lucic a miss?  If we thought he was going to remain a superstar level impact player with the treads on those tires after the age of 30, then....yes...he was a miss.   Maybe BT really thought that, and in that case, yes.  He has a big problem in the miss department.

 

The plan was clear IMO.  But what you are alluding to is a great point too and that is "cap planning"... Or the lack of such thing.  In the NFL, they hire "capologists" to handle that.  Someone specializes in planning the cap years ahead of time to help owners manage spending and manage longevity.

 

I don't get BT's UFA signings because he seems to spend to the limit at the detriment of future cap flexibility.  He's like a government sector manager spending their budget to the max or else lose the budget next year.  If the right player isn't there at the right price then don't force it.  Why is that so hard to control?

[The_People1]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

MAF himself admitted that the thought there was a strong possibility he was going to be a Flame. Would be a bit surprising to admit that if the Flames never asked.

My understanding is that Treliving tied at the 16 entry draft to talk about Fleury but the ask was the Flames first round. he ended up pivoting to Bishop (who apparently they agreed to a deal on) because the Lighting were willing to do it without the Flames first rounder. Treliving came back to Fleury in 17 but the difference then was the expansion draft. My understanding is at the trade deadline in 2017 Vegas and Pens put a deal in place for Vegas to aquire Fleury at the expansion draft. 

 

So it would've costed Valimaki at the 2016 draft?

 

I don't know what story is real but there was an elite starter available at a time when the Flames needed an elite goaltender.  Just felt BT should've tried harder.  Same with Stone.  Same with Eichel, etc, etc.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Agreed that the handoff wasn't clean but at the same time, Burke served as BT's training wheels and I felt BT needed it as this was his first stint as GM.

 

Burke went full truculence.  Then Burke leaves and it became clear BT wanted small skilled guys and the draft reflected that.  We began to focus on small skilled guys.  I think BT felt the league was trending towards small/skilled and to a degree, he was right.  Still is... Until the playoffs of course.  Playoffs is another type of league.

 

We now pivot to Sutter hockey.  BT drops the Derek Ryan types and adds Lewis and company.  Builds a proper 4th line to play specific roles.

 

In regards to the fluke season, BT did trade Glencross at the TDL going into the playoffs.  That really took some guts.  I guess he thought we wouldn't get to the second round.  After we advanced, then BT drank the koolaid and pretty much decided our rebuild was over.

 

To me though this defines the whole Treliving tenure and where you land on him.  Did he actually drink the kool aid or did he just do what he was hired to do? I don't think the owners ever intended for this to be a multi year rebuild.

When they traded Iginla, Feaster said his marching orders were to be in the playoffs the next year. 

Then they go out and hire Brian Burke. What's one of the Burke's moto's? He isn't patient. 

When they fired Feaster Burke was asked point blank "is this to speed up the rebuild?" Answer (direct quote): "yes"

In the 2014 Offseason Trelving gave up picks for active roster players (Bolig) and signed veteran free agents. The only "future" oriented moves he did was try to weaponize his cap space to acquire extra first rounders. 

 

I just don't see that the playoff run in 2015 changed anything. This was always a team that thought they needed to be in the playoffs and to do it quickly. The only reason they dealt Glencross was they felt they could make the playoffs without him (which was correct both in hindsight and at the time). If they truly were in a rebuild why keep Denis Wideman (who apparently they were getting offers on) why keep Kari Ramo? heck why keep really anyone?

 

Behavior and PR just isn't consistent with a team that was planning for a multi year rebuild. 

 

 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

So it would've costed Valimaki at the 2016 draft?

 

I don't know what story is real but there was an elite starter available at a time when the Flames needed an elite goaltender.  Just felt BT should've tried harder.  Same with Stone.  Same with Eichel, etc, etc.

 

No Tkachuk is the 2016 draft. It would have cost them Tkachuk. 

Stone has basically almost admitted since that the only team he was willing to negotiate a deal with was Vegas. If he was coming to Calgary it was to be a rental only. 

 

I get the optics of it but I just don't think this is a case of Treliving doesn't try hard enough. The deals fall apart for reasons outside of his control, or get to a point where they just don't make sense. I feel this is probably very typical of a lot of GMs we just hear about them more in the market so the frame our opinion of him. 

[sak22]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Agreed that the handoff wasn't clean but at the same time, Burke served as BT's training wheels and I felt BT needed it as this was his first stint as GM.

 

Burke went full truculence.  Then Burke leaves and it became clear BT wanted small skilled guys and the draft reflected that.  We began to focus on small skilled guys.  I think BT felt the league was trending towards small/skilled and to a degree, he was right.  Still is... Until the playoffs of course.  Playoffs is another type of league.

 

We now pivot to Sutter hockey.  BT drops the Derek Ryan types and adds Lewis and company.  Builds a proper 4th line to play specific roles.

 

In regards to the fluke season, BT did trade Glencross at the TDL going into the playoffs.  That really took some guts.  I guess he thought we wouldn't get to the second round.  After we advanced, then BT drank the koolaid and pretty much decided our rebuild was over.

Disagree on both points:

We've drafted 1 player under 6' in the first round in Trelivings tenure.  2020 our top picks were 6' Zary, 6'4 Kuznetsov, 6'1' Poirier, and 6'2' Boltmann, only really one smaller guy with Francis.  2019 was a bit smaller, but more average height.  2018 Pospisil was the first pick in the 4th round.  2017 most picks were bigger.  Don't think there has been a change is emphasis, it's just the smaller guys are panning out which I'm fine with because the later round small guys are panning out much better than the later round giant defensemen like Riley Bruce or Stepan Falkovsky.

 

I don't think there was any rebuild was over after one playoff round.  Sure expectations were higher, but that was also in the room.  We traded for a 21 year old defenseman, who hadn't hit his peak, but were also going into the next season with the leading scorer from the previous season unsigned for the next year.  A team abandoning a rebuild doesn't do that, they also went into the '16 draft with more picks than they had in any of the drafts from '11-'15.

 

[jjgallow]

15 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Disagree on both points:

We've drafted 1 player under 6' in the first round in Trelivings tenure.  2020 our top picks were 6' Zary, 6'4 Kuznetsov, 6'1' Poirier, and 6'2' Boltmann, only really one smaller guy with Francis.  2019 was a bit smaller, but more average height.  2018 Pospisil was the first pick in the 4th round.  2017 most picks were bigger.  Don't think there has been a change is emphasis, it's just the smaller guys are panning out which I'm fine with because the later round small guys are panning out much better than the later round giant defensemen like Riley Bruce or Stepan Falkovsky.

 

I don't think there was any rebuild was over after one playoff round.  Sure expectations were higher, but that was also in the room.  We traded for a 21 year old defenseman, who hadn't hit his peak, but were also going into the next season with the leading scorer from the previous season unsigned for the next year.  A team abandoning a rebuild doesn't do that, they also went into the '16 draft with more picks than they had in any of the drafts from '11-'15.

 

 

I don't recall there being any debate whatsoever that he abandoned the rebuild, in fact I do believe he pretty much declared they were in win now mode.

 

Without getting too much into the details I don' think it's ever been quesetioned, and general understanding is the rebuild was abandoned.    The thing we've been debating all these years is whether or not that should have happened.   With less people thinking it should have each passing year.

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I don't recall there being any debate whatsoever that he abandoned the rebuild, in fact I do believe he pretty much declared they were in win now mode.

 

Without getting too much into the details I don' think it's ever been quesetioned, and general understanding is the rebuild was abandoned.    The thing we've been debating all these years is whether or not that should have happened.   With less people thinking it should have each passing year.

 

I'm interested when people consider the rebuild was abandoned.

After the Vancouver playoff win, we sold Hudler the next year.

Was it 15/16 when we traded for Dougie?

That strikes me more of building than post rebuild.

Year of Brouwer or Hamonic?

[cross16]

See and I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think the rebuild was actually abandoned it wasn't a rebuild in the first place. For me rebuild doesn't just mean "get high draft picks" but that's what it appears to mean to this ownership group. Sure they got some high draft picks, but I don't see their actions consistently with what I would constitute a rebuild. 

 

That's not a shot at Treliving either, it's a shot at everyone. Owners, Feaster, Burke and Treliving all contributed to that, but personally I don't think a rebuild ever happened here. It was a year by year reset, that just happened to include high picks because the club was just that bad. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

To me though this defines the whole Treliving tenure and where you land on him.  Did he actually drink the kool aid or did he just do what he was hired to do? I don't think the owners ever intended for this to be a multi year rebuild.

When they traded Iginla, Feaster said his marching orders were to be in the playoffs the next year. 

Then they go out and hire Brian Burke. What's one of the Burke's moto's? He isn't patient. 

When they fired Feaster Burke was asked point blank "is this to speed up the rebuild?" Answer (direct quote): "yes"

In the 2014 Offseason Trelving gave up picks for active roster players (Bolig) and signed veteran free agents. The only "future" oriented moves he did was try to weaponize his cap space to acquire extra first rounders. 

 

I just don't see that the playoff run in 2015 changed anything. This was always a team that thought they needed to be in the playoffs and to do it quickly. The only reason they dealt Glencross was they felt they could make the playoffs without him (which was correct both in hindsight and at the time). If they truly were in a rebuild why keep Denis Wideman (who apparently they were getting offers on) why keep Kari Ramo? heck why keep really anyone?

 

Behavior and PR just isn't consistent with a team that was planning for a multi year rebuild. 

 

 

 

Not sure we will ever know exactly how much interference ownership had over BT's decisions.  Was BT just a yes-man all along?

 

Early on into BT's tenure, the narrative was that he's building for long term.  We heard "long term" a lot... Which you can argue it's GM-speak but IMO he's prepping the fanbase to look ahead into the future and ignore short term results (aka we aren't aiming to win today).

 

And then after that playoff win against the Canucks, the narrative changed.  It was subtle but also noticable.  The bar was set to advancing past the second round.  That was the new goal... Which, in translation means we are in win-now mode.

 

Then we had a hiccup the following year and missed the playoffs but that appeared to be the organization swinging and missing more than continuing the rebuild. When it became clear we would not make the playoffs then selling at the TDL is just plan B.

 

Anyways, I agree the mandate from ownership was to win right away.  We should have not though.

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm interested when people consider the rebuild was abandoned.

After the Vancouver playoff win, we sold Hudler the next year.

Was it 15/16 when we traded for Dougie?

That strikes me more of building than post rebuild.

Year of Brouwer or Hamonic?

 

2004

 

44 minutes ago, cross16 said:

See and I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think the rebuild was actually abandoned it wasn't a rebuild in the first place. For me rebuild doesn't just mean "get high draft picks" but that's what it appears to mean to this ownership group. Sure they got some high draft picks, but I don't see their actions consistently with what I would constitute a rebuild. 

 

That's not a shot at Treliving either, it's a shot at everyone. Owners, Feaster, Burke and Treliving all contributed to that, but personally I don't think a rebuild ever happened here. It was a year by year reset, that just happened to include high picks because the club was just that bad. 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Now, I guess if there was even a real rebuild, and we wanted to define when it ended, that's Feaster era really.   Feaster was hired to win now, he failed and convinced management to market a rebuild, which was actually brilliant.  Not longer after he was advocating "win now".

 

Ryan O'Rielly notoriously comes to mind.

[sak22]

36 minutes ago, cross16 said:

See and I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think the rebuild was actually abandoned it wasn't a rebuild in the first place. For me rebuild doesn't just mean "get high draft picks" but that's what it appears to mean to this ownership group. Sure they got some high draft picks, but I don't see their actions consistently with what I would constitute a rebuild. 

 

That's not a shot at Treliving either, it's a shot at everyone. Owners, Feaster, Burke and Treliving all contributed to that, but personally I don't think a rebuild ever happened here. It was a year by year reset, that just happened to include high picks because the club was just that bad. 

If we're saying that we can't really glorify Pittsburgh and Chicago as rebuilders as well.  Pittsburgh was financially forced to sell everything and then went on a spending spree of vets once they had Crosby.  Chicago right from the lockout did the same going after Bulin, Aucoin, Cullimore, Havlat and Campbell.  They just did what we did and sucked.  I don't think many organizations in a league where half the teams make the playoffs, even down south where hockey is generally #3 or #4 for popularity.  Rangers announced a big rebuild, but I don't know if they really committed to it once they signed Panarin or buried their actual high picks down the lineup.  Chicago same thing not long until they decided they needed Jones.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

If we're saying that we can't really glorify Pittsburgh and Chicago as rebuilders as well.  Pittsburgh was financially forced to sell everything and then went on a spending spree of vets once they had Crosby.  Chicago right from the lockout did the same going after Bulin, Aucoin, Cullimore, Havlat and Campbell.  They just did what we did and sucked.  I don't think many organizations in a league where half the teams make the playoffs, even down south where hockey is generally #3 or #4 for popularity.  Rangers announced a big rebuild, but I don't know if they really committed to it once they signed Panarin or buried their actual high picks down the lineup.  Chicago same thing not long until they decided they needed Jones.

 

I would agree and wouldn't hold up Pittsburgh as a great example. They were bad far longer than any other organization would allow because they were trying to sell, not to mention they won a "goddamn lottery". 

 

There are 2 things I see different in other organizations vs the Flames thought and that's patience and intent. Chicago was patient. Yes they signed Khabiboulin coming out of the lockout but after that they hardly touched UFA the next 2 off seasons and didn't sign Campbell until after they had Kane. They made trades to target guys like Sharp, Versteeg, the shed themselves of older players/old guard Hawks and were intentionally about brining up a young group of players together. Then once they got there they got aggressive going after the likes of Hossa, Campbell etc. That is the different I find with what the Flames did and what other successful organization have done. The Flames were very focused on win now moves, unless the situation forced them into it, where other organizations were much more intentional around brining in players that fit the future more than the present. 

 

Of course you have to mention luck too. Hawks were originally slated to pick 3rd or 4th in 2007 but won the lottery to get Kane. 

[The_People1]

Can we all agree that the next rebuild needs to be deep and we need to stay there for at least 3 years?

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I would agree and wouldn't hold up Pittsburgh as a great example. They were bad far longer than any other organization would allow because they were trying to sell, not to mention they won a "goddamn lottery". 

 

There are 2 things I see different in other organizations vs the Flames thought and that's patience and intent. Chicago was patient. Yes they signed Khabiboulin coming out of the lockout but after that they hardly touched UFA the next 2 off seasons and didn't sign Campbell until after they had Kane. They made trades to target guys like Sharp, Versteeg, the shed themselves of older players/old guard Hawks and were intentionally about brining up a young group of players together. Then once they got there they got aggressive going after the likes of Hossa, Campbell etc. That is the different I find with what the Flames did and what other successful organization have done. The Flames were very focused on win now moves, unless the situation forced them into it, where other organizations were much more intentional around brining in players that fit the future more than the present. 

 

Of course you have to mention luck too. Hawks were originally slated to pick 3rd or 4th in 2007 but won the lottery to get Kane. 

Good points. I just think people view the Hamilton trade as the sign of being over and don't agree.  I just feel when we look back at where we were in '15 our defense was a major organizational weakness and we were feeling pretty good about our forward prospects.  I don't believe there were many great RD at #15 that year.  The long term effects of that draft and moves are still apparent on this team 6 years later 3 of the top 4 D and a leading goal scorer and top C, was a really good draft.  Or was it the Frolik signing that signaled the end?

 

It was actually 5th they moved up from, crazy thing is the Oilers were tied with Chicago for 5th last that year, but had the tiebreaker, that year was also the Patrik Stefan missed empty net game, so Patrik Stefan may have cost the Oilers Patrick Kane. Funny how some things work out.

[sak22]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Can we all agree that the next rebuild needs to be deep and we need to stay there for at least 3 years?

By year 3 half the people will already write off the draft class of year 1 and call for another rebuild.  Let's be honest, we aren't patient people.

[jjgallow]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Can we all agree that the next rebuild needs to be deep and we need to stay there for at least 3 years?

 

[cross16]

15 hours ago, sak22 said:

Good points. I just think people view the Hamilton trade as the sign of being over and don't agree.  I just feel when we look back at where we were in '15 our defense was a major organizational weakness and we were feeling pretty good about our forward prospects.  I don't believe there were many great RD at #15 that year.  The long term effects of that draft and moves are still apparent on this team 6 years later 3 of the top 4 D and a leading goal scorer and top C, was a really good draft.  Or was it the Frolik signing that signaled the end?

 

It was actually 5th they moved up from, crazy thing is the Oilers were tied with Chicago for 5th last that year, but had the tiebreaker, that year was also the Patrik Stefan missed empty net game, so Patrik Stefan may have cost the Oilers Patrick Kane. Funny how some things work out.

 

Semantics but like I'm saying I just don't think this was a rebuild so I don't think can pinpoint a certain acquisition or move as the "end of the rebuild" because to me there isn't one. 

 

But I agree on Hamilton that's a type of move you can make whether your rebuilding or not. Rebuilding is all about talent acquisition, we just associate it with high picks because that's normally where the best talent is, but if you can get a player the caliber of Hamilton you do that whether you are in a rebuild or not. Rebuild is not just about drafting high. 

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Semantics but like I'm saying I just don't think this was a rebuild so I don't think can pinpoint a certain acquisition or move as the "end of the rebuild" because to me there isn't one. 

 

But I agree on Hamilton that's a type of move you can make whether your rebuilding or not. Rebuilding is all about talent acquisition, we just associate it with high picks because that's normally where the best talent is, but if you can get a player the caliber of Hamilton you do that whether you are in a rebuild or not. Rebuild is not just about drafting high. 

 

IMO, we rebuilt but just didn't do it correctly (I think you feel similarly).  So therefore, most actions the Flames took just didn't fit into what a rebuild should look like.  The results speak for themselves.  "Half rebuild" has resulted in us being half good but half not.

[The_People1]

15 hours ago, sak22 said:

By year 3 half the people will already write off the draft class of year 1 and call for another rebuild.  Let's be honest, we aren't patient people.

 

At least it sounds like you agree.  I agree we won't do it too.

[The_People1]

9 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

A rebuild doesn't guarantee anything but not rebuilding gives us what we have now.  We stuck in mediocrity.

 

By the looks of it, we could literally maintain mediocrity for a decade if we wanted to.  Let's see if the fans still go to games cheering for a middling team every season.  Volatility is way more exciting.

[sak22]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

A rebuild doesn't guarantee anything but not rebuilding gives us what we have now.  We stuck in mediocrity.

 

By the looks of it, we could literally maintain mediocrity for a decade if we wanted to.  Let's see if the fans still go to games cheering for a middling team every season.  Volatility is way more exciting.

They don't really.  But something that drags out to Edmonton, Carolina or Florida levels won't be good either.  Calgary is very much a bandwagon city.  

[jjgallow]

24 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

A rebuild doesn't guarantee anything but not rebuilding gives us what we have now.  We stuck in mediocrity.

 

By the looks of it, we could literally maintain mediocrity for a decade if we wanted to.  Let's see if the fans still go to games cheering for a middling team every season.  Volatility is way more exciting.

 

I do believe that in theory, you can be a contender consistently without a rebuild.  In practice we don't see it much.   You could argue detroit pulled it off for  a good decade.  It requires a lot of things like consistently great management and great management succession plans, always considering the future in trades/acquisitions, and having some kind of advantage in the draft (Detroit figure out Russia), had great scouts too.  Once your pipeline is built up enough, all you have to do is maintain it...add to your pipeline a bit more each year.  

 

In reality, that is a lot of boxes to check of fan few if any teams consistently succeed at it.   So there are ebs and flows.    Once your pipeline is bare, no matter what you're doing currently in the standings, you know what's coming next.   IMHO our last rebuild was more about our pipeline running dry.    And our next one likely too.

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, sak22 said:

They don't really.  But something that drags out to Edmonton, Carolina or Florida levels won't be good either.  Calgary is very much a bandwagon city.  

 

I envy Habs fans.  Cup Finals and then 6 months later, leading the Shane Wright sweepstakes.  That's the way to go.  Hate being stuck in the middle of nowhere.