Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

My only comment here is that really this thread is intended to evaluate the GM,

 

We can still rally around the players without loving the GM, we can still be fans and not support all the GM does,

 

There's been some comments above along the lines of "let's not panic", "let's not jump to conclusions" etc.

 

But to reiterate, we lost our most valuable player and possibly the most skilled player in the league, on a gamble.

 

The question is whether a GM should be a gambler, essentially.

 

At any given time, each team has a dice-roll 28% chance of winning the Stanley cup within 10 years.

 

GMs can either increase those odds closer to 50% or higher by investing in the future.   Or they can reduce those odds by sacrificing the future.  So for instance this year, we maybe had a 7% chance of winning the cup, Treliving increased it to 8% through various short term moves, and decreased our next 10 years probably down to around 20%.

 

It's nothing personal about the players or about knee jerk reactions.  It's if we want that kind of risk management in charge or not.

 

Another "science based" evaluation.  

[conundrumed]

Is it true that 82% of statisticians truly hate their jobs?

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Is it true that 82% of statisticians truly hate their jobs?

 

You are wrong 100% of the time you say nothing.

[bosn111]

I posted this in the burn it down thread, but will add a short version here.

 

If anyone thinks Tkachuk is signing 7 or 8 years here, you are fooling yourself. He made it clear during his brother’s last contract negotiations that hockey is all business for him. Brady signed longer due to RFA years remaining. He hits UFA at 28 and likely makes bank. Matthew taking a 1 year contract will hit UFA at 25, sign a huge, 3-4 year contract and another UFA contract for more bank at 28/29. 
 

With Johnny gone, the Flames are taking a step back, even if they add Kadri. The step may not be huge, but with changes in Edmonton to get better in net, they will be stepping up. If Tkachuk realizes that the team is no longer a favourite to challenge for the cup, why stay for less money than he can get in free agency somewhere else?

 

Better to trade him at peak value (RFA rights) where another team can negotiate to get 3-4 years rather than have him as a rental for 1 year or less.

 

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Is it true that 82% of statisticians truly hate their jobs?

 

yes

[cross16]

35 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

I posted this in the burn it down thread, but will add a short version here.

 

If anyone thinks Tkachuk is signing 7 or 8 years here, you are fooling yourself. He made it clear during his brother’s last contract negotiations that hockey is all business for him. Brady signed longer due to RFA years remaining. He hits UFA at 28 and likely makes bank. Matthew taking a 1 year contract will hit UFA at 25, sign a huge, 3-4 year contract and another UFA contract for more bank at 28/29. 
 

With Johnny gone, the Flames are taking a step back, even if they add Kadri. The step may not be huge, but with changes in Edmonton to get better in net, they will be stepping up. If Tkachuk realizes that the team is no longer a favourite to challenge for the cup, why stay for less money than he can get in free agency somewhere else?

 

Better to trade him at peak value (RFA rights) where another team can negotiate to get 3-4 years rather than have him as a rental for 1 year or less.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why we think Edmonton got better in net. Last year at both 5 on 5 and in all situation the Oilers had a better save % than the Leafs did. 

 

Jack Cambell can have some good games, but overall is not that good of a goalie. As a Flames fan I think it's awesome that they gave him that contract. 

[robrob74]

17 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

So, curious... there's a lot of coulda shoulda woulda going around here about our GM, and I wonder, if they had moved Johnny at the deadline for the same package that Iginla netted - would you have been happy? Keeping in mind that at the trade deadline, the Flames were one of the best teams in the league, and they would have been trading their best player, as a rental, to a team that they may have had to face if they'd gone to the SCF.

 

Love.

i think a lot of us who wanted to trade him years ago think in terms of those years. I’m not thinking trade deadline… I was “all-in” at the trade deadline. I wanted to trade him last off-season when they didn’t get a deal done, and then this off-season solidified why I wanted to trade him last year and the year before. 

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

JG doesn't change us much. The main thing being that we have an identity that he never really gave us in his years here..

We're not going to lose that identity without him.

In fact, I believe this helps and we'll be even better fortifying that identity.

Tkachuk should stay, because this team coalesces far more with his identity as a player than it does JG's.

We'll be fine. I'm not terrified at all.

 

Well I mean... That's a bit inaccurate but I guess it depends on what you mean.  We won't be scoring first as often... If scoring at all.  Our luxury to play shut down hockey will be diminished.  We should be chasing the game a lot more often.

 

Of course it doesn't change our team system and how Sutter wants us to play.  We will play the same game more or less.  Whether scoring early and often is essential to that system's success, we will see.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not sure why we think Edmonton got better in net. Last year at both 5 on 5 and in all situation the Oilers had a better save % than the Leafs did. 

 

Jack Cambell can have some good games, but overall is not that good of a goalie. As a Flames fan I think it's awesome that they gave him that contract. 

 

I am happy they think they are building a contender.

Kane, Kulak, Campbell.

Not exactly an upgrade from the team that bested us when we played like crap.

 

Campbell has never played as a true starter.

49 games was the best he could do and his game tailed off.

If they can only get that many games from him, they have Skinner and Pickard.

Not exactly an insurance plan.

If Smith comes back they can't really afford him to play.

He's the only guy that could play up to 40 games besides Campbell.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well I mean... That's a bit inaccurate but I guess it depends on what you mean.  We won't be scoring first as often... If scoring at all.  Our luxury to play shut down hockey will be diminished.  We should be chasing the game a lot more often.

 

Of course it doesn't change our team system and how Sutter wants us to play.  We will play the same game more or less.  Whether scoring early and often is essential to that system's success, we will see.

 

As it stands, we don't have a full roster.

We obviously need to replace some players.

 

One thing to note is we didn't have a lot of scoring from the D.

You need that to change anyway.

JG off the PP makes that more likely.

[Heartbreaker]

59 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i think a lot of us who wanted to trade him years ago think in terms of those years. I’m not thinking trade deadline… I was “all-in” at the trade deadline. I wanted to trade him last off-season when they didn’t get a deal done, and then this off-season solidified why I wanted to trade him last year and the year before. 

 

Yeah, I totally get that, but I don't think last summer was a good time to trade him if you wanted to maximize the return. In theory, that would have been before the modified NTC kicked in - and if you recall, he didn't have a great season that year. I think the return still wouldn't have been great. If all of that is true, the best time to trade him would have been after the 99 point season - but we're never enthusiastic about trading players who put up big numbers, and we would have been awfully upset if we'd traded him, not hit the draft pick out of the park, and he went on to have the season that he just had on some other team.

 

My point is, while I hear you, and I understand the frustration, we do have to keep some elite players when we've got them.

 

Love.

[robrob74]

13 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, I totally get that, but I don't think last summer was a good time to trade him if you wanted to maximize the return. In theory, that would have been before the modified NTC kicked in - and if you recall, he didn't have a great season that year. I think the return still wouldn't have been great. If all of that is true, the best time to trade him would have been after the 99 point season - but we're never enthusiastic about trading players who put up big numbers, and we would have been awfully upset if we'd traded him, not hit the draft pick out of the park, and he went on to have the season that he just had on some other team.

 

My point is, while I hear you, and I understand the frustration, we do have to keep some elite players when we've got them.

 

Love.

 

yup! And a lot of us were saying to trade him then and we got backlash for it, but was warranted in most cases, because it is ludicrous to trade a 99 point young player. 
 

i felt he could get back there but I felt then that it needed to be a better center and that was when Monahan was productive so people felt otherwise. So I understand why they didn’t agree with me but still saw patterns that it was going to be tough to maintain the competitiveness and be affective when things got tight. It’s why I felt a better C was needed, and we saw how one helped everyone on his line to play better. But still. I was always worried about the effectiveness and then also his flight risk back then. 
 

but it’s a business. I think we are all just saying we wished it happened. Also, I think if we traded him

last year, an Iginla return would have been better than no return. A lot of us feel we needed a return regardless. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, I totally get that, but I don't think last summer was a good time to trade him if you wanted to maximize the return. In theory, that would have been before the modified NTC kicked in - and if you recall, he didn't have a great season that year. I think the return still wouldn't have been great. If all of that is true, the best time to trade him would have been after the 99 point season - but we're never enthusiastic about trading players who put up big numbers, and we would have been awfully upset if we'd traded him, not hit the draft pick out of the park, and he went on to have the season that he just had on some other team.

 

My point is, while I hear you, and I understand the frustration, we do have to keep some elite players when we've got them.

 

Love.

 

I hate forcing a decision, but the spidey senses should have been tingling when JH didn't sign an extension.  I don't know exactly when he was eligible, but if it was before the NTC kicked in, BT should have had that difficult conversation.  Poor season or not, the signals were there.  

 

I get most of us would have been upset, but the reality is we would probably have our 1st this year and may had made other moves to fix the team.  Kay Cera (related to Michael Cera?).  Not the end of the world.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I hate forcing a decision, but the spidey senses should have been tingling when JH didn't sign an extension.  I don't know exactly when he was eligible, but if it was before the NTC kicked in, BT should have had that difficult conversation.  Poor season or not, the signals were there.  

 

I get most of us would have been upset, but the reality is we would probably have our 1st this year and may had made other moves to fix the team.  Kay Cera (related to Michael Cera?).  Not the end of the world.

 

 

So that is the rub. Your only eligible for an extension going into the last year of your deal so it was the summer of 20-21 where I think the decision had to be made or 2 years prior to him being a UFA. As Heartbreaker pointed out at the time he was coming off back to back not great seasons and a not so great playoffs against Dallas. Tough to know what the value was and honesty the fact that Gaudreau didn't generate this huge market in UFA kind of tells me i'm not sure his value int he league is as high as it was to us as fans. I still think the conversation and decision should have been made but I also think it's fair to question how much he would have netted in return. As much as I think you cannot let assets walk for free Heartbreaker makes a good point that you just can't trade all your elite pieces too. 

 

So as much as we, and myself include, make it seem easy it's much more complex than we think and it's possible they had a meeting and were assured he was interested then he got married, soon to be dad and things changed.  Which is the problem of the timeline of how the decision had to come at least 2 years prior to him actually being a UFA. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

So that is the rub. Your only eligible for an extension going into the last year of your deal so it was the summer of 20-21 where I think the decision had to be made or 2 years prior to him being a UFA. As Heartbreaker pointed out at the time he was coming off back to back not great seasons and a not so great playoffs against Dallas. Tough to know what the value was and honesty the fact that Gaudreau didn't generate this huge market in UFA kind of tells me i'm not sure his value int he league is as high as it was to us as fans. I still think the conversation and decision should have been made but I also think it's fair to question how much he would have netted in return. As much as I think you cannot let assets walk for free Heartbreaker makes a good point that you just can't trade all your elite pieces too. 

 

So as much as we, and myself include, make it seem easy it's much more complex than we think and it's possible they had a meeting and were assured he was interested then he got married, soon to be dad and things changed.  Which is the problem of the timeline of how the decision had to come at least 2 years prior to him actually being a UFA. 

 

i think the team needed to get at least a first plus regardless and maybe an Iginla like deal. It would have been seen as a fail but it is not nothing. And back then at least a talented return would have been good. Johnny will probably be great with the right line mates. I think it’s tough as Sutter matched them head on didn’t he, with other teams’ best players. But still, I think he can be dominant with the right people. Does he have that in Columbus?

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

So that is the rub. Your only eligible for an extension going into the last year of your deal so it was the summer of 20-21 where I think the decision had to be made or 2 years prior to him being a UFA. As Heartbreaker pointed out at the time he was coming off back to back not great seasons and a not so great playoffs against Dallas. Tough to know what the value was and honesty the fact that Gaudreau didn't generate this huge market in UFA kind of tells me i'm not sure his value int he league is as high as it was to us as fans. I still think the conversation and decision should have been made but I also think it's fair to question how much he would have netted in return. As much as I think you cannot let assets walk for free Heartbreaker makes a good point that you just can't trade all your elite pieces too. 

 

So as much as we, and myself include, make it seem easy it's much more complex than we think and it's possible they had a meeting and were assured he was interested then he got married, soon to be dad and things changed.  Which is the problem of the timeline of how the decision had to come at least 2 years prior to him actually being a UFA. 

 

There are many legitimately complicated things in this world.

 

This isn't one of them IMHO, unless we go out of our way to make it complicated. 

 

BT gambled, he knew he gambled, and he had reasons.  Sure.   Reasons that he put  ahead of the long term success of the franchise.

 

Anything can be justified.

 

Even Edmonton.

 

And that's fine.   If we get a new GM, this is also fine.

 

 

[cross16]

23 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i think the team needed to get at least a first plus regardless and maybe an Iginla like deal. It would have been seen as a fail but it is not nothing. And back then at least a talented return would have been good. Johnny will probably be great with the right line mates. I think it’s tough as Sutter matched them head on didn’t he, with other teams’ best players. But still, I think he can be dominant with the right people. Does he have that in Columbus?

 

See and for me if all your getting is an Iginla like return I think what they did is fine. I'll take a record breaking season and a trip to the 2nd round over a late first and 2 nothing prospects any day of the week.  Now if a lottery team was calling that's different. 

Like i'm saying, move him 2 years ago and perhaps it's multiple picks, young players etc then i'm listening. That's the type of asset management you need, but I also acknowledge there are other factors in that. 

[robrob74]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

See and for me if all your getting is an Iginla like return I think what they did is fine. I'll take a record breaking season and a trip to the 2nd round over a late first and 2 nothing prospects any day of the week.  Now if a lottery team was calling that's different. 

Like i'm saying, move him 2 years ago and perhaps it's multiple picks, young players etc then i'm listening. That's the type of asset management you need, but I also acknowledge there are other factors in that. 

 

and that’s really what I’m getting at. It’s tough because the cap makes it hard for teams  to get him in under. Teams probably want him but can’t due to cap. 
 

I think what I really meant were decent prospects that’ll play NHL. Not the ones Iginla got. 
 

We needed to get a player that could play. So I guess I have to rescind my comment you just replied to. 

[phoenix66]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

See and for me if all your getting is an Iginla like return I think what they did is fine. I'll take a record breaking season and a trip to the 2nd round over a late first and 2 nothing prospects any day of the week.  Now if a lottery team was calling that's different. 

Like i'm saying, move him 2 years ago and perhaps it's multiple picks, young players etc then i'm listening. That's the type of asset management you need, but I also acknowledge there are other factors in that. 

Yep.. the way I see it , it was a perfect storm that didn't play our way..

2 years ago couldn't extend him anyway. and we had just had an ok playoff ..  last season everybody had bad years , If you had traded him you would have been very disappointed with the return .  Word is they did try and extend him..but obviously nowhere near what he even ended up with in Columbus .. they dropped talks during the season .. went all in and let's be serious ..you don't trade a player when people are seeing you as a cup final favourite .. and after hearing him talk tonight i do seriously believe him now that he did make that decision at the last minute 

In the end he chose family.. over his career.. really can't fault him for that 

[Thebrewcrew]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Yep.. the way I see it , it was a perfect storm that didn't play our way..

2 years ago couldn't extend him anyway. and we had just had an ok playoff ..  last season everybody had bad years , If you had traded him you would have been very disappointed with the return .  Word is they did try and extend him..but obviously nowhere near what he even ended up with in Columbus .. they dropped talks during the season .. went all in and let's be serious ..you don't trade a player when people are seeing you as a cup final favourite .. and after hearing him talk tonight i do seriously believe him now that he did make that decision at the last minute 

In the end he chose family.. over his career.. really can't fault him for that 

I've been a little annoyed with Johnny this week.

 

But Darren Haynes did make an interesting tweet. He tweeted that in like 2011, when Johnny was an unknown prospect, he spoke to him and JG mentioned how excited he was to play with his brother at Boston College.

 

It shows that family has always been very important to him. That's admirable, because at the end of the day that's all you've got.

 

It's just disappointing for us as fans because there was a chance of him being the greatest Flame ever. 

[jjgallow]

21 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Another "science based" evaluation.  

 

Science is the absolute worst.

[phoenix66]

21 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not sure why we think Edmonton got better in net. Last year at both 5 on 5 and in all situation the Oilers had a better save % than the Leafs did. 

 

Jack Cambell can have some good games, but overall is not that good of a goalie. As a Flames fan I think it's awesome that they gave him that contract. 

I was thinking exactly this yesterday.. Campbell can be a very good goalie .. but love him or hate him, Smith had a great playoff.. he was not the reason they lost ..  they are at this moment no better than the team that got swept by Colorado . In fact they're likely worse cuz Keith retired 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I was thinking exactly this yesterday.. Campbell can be a very good goalie .. but love him or hate him, Smith had a great playoff.. he was not the reason they lost ..  they are at this moment no better than the team that got swept by Colorado . In fact they're likely worse cuz Keith retired 

 

Kosco held the fort while Smith was on vacation.  He was there at the start, kept them from being last in the league, and was solid for more games than he sucked.  Defensively, they are slightly worse, since Keith was at least a solid guy that knew how to play defense.  Kulak is solid, but they still focus on offense.  Bouchard was a defensive liability, but they can't see it.  

[JTech780]

Bottom line, as long as the owners are only concerned with the bottom line this team will never stay a contender and will always be looked as as a bottom end franchise.

 

Regardless of who the GM is here, the mandate from ownership will always be to take shortcuts to stay competitive. They don’t care about winning a Cup, they just care about being good enough to sell corporate sponsorships and box seats.

 

What really needs to happen with this franchise, is that it needs a complete overhaul top to bottom. We need an ownership group that is committed to bringing in energy and excitement, and we need a management group that is willing to build this franchise the right way and not take shortcuts. Till those things happen we will be perpetually stuck in this mediocrity.

 

Quite frankly I am getting frustrated with this franchise and the only way we will ever have change is for us to stop spending money on mediocrity and ask for more, even if that means going through a rebuild, which is where this team is at.

[robrob74]

32 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Bottom line, as long as the owners are only concerned with the bottom line this team will never stay a contender and will always be looked as as a bottom end franchise.

 

Regardless of who the GM is here, the mandate from ownership will always be to take shortcuts to stay competitive. They don’t care about winning a Cup, they just care about being good enough to sell corporate sponsorships and box seats.

 

What really needs to happen with this franchise, is that it needs a complete overhaul top to bottom. We need an ownership group that is committed to bringing in energy and excitement, and we need a management group that is willing to build this franchise the right way and not take shortcuts. Till those things happen we will be perpetually stuck in this mediocrity.

 

Quite frankly I am getting frustrated with this franchise and the only way we will ever have change is for us to stop spending money on mediocrity and ask for more, even if that means going through a rebuild, which is where this team is at.

 

i think it’s kind of what some of us have been saying for years. Although many had the right to see the positives that were happening over the last 5+ years. All the ones who wanted to “do it right” wanted was to be patient and not skip steps. It’s hard when Bennett doesn’t turn out, or Valamaki has a few injuries and Monahan too. 
 

but we still felt a year or two more in the build would have gone a long way to solidifying a perpetual contender.