The Sutter Impact

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, kehatch said:

Second, his transactions haven't reflected him building that type of team. At least not to me.  They have been about filling a positional need rather then acquiring a specific type of player. 

 

• A series of transactions attempting to find a starting goalie (Elliott, Smith, Markstrom, Hiller, Ramo)
• A series of transactions attempting to find a top line RW (Frolik, Neal, Brouwer, Lindholm)
• A series of transactions attempting to add top 4 D (Hanafin, Hamilton, Hamonic, Tanev)
• A series of coaching hires (Gulutzun, Peters, Ward, Sutter)
• A bunch of depth moves

 

 

If you separate the moves into years, you see the change in approach.

Hiller, Ramo, Elliott and Smith were kneejerk to get a starter to buy time.

Failed to follow that up with picking up a potential starter before they had a breakout.

Add role players like Frolik and Brouwer, but only Frolik had the work ethic to match the role.

Neal was a complete miss on the type of player that would fit the team.

The D was a homerun swing followed by picking up a Zarodov type (Hamonic) who just didn't have enough game left in him.

Hanifin and Tanev were smart to get a puckmover and a defensive guy.

The coach decisions were not well thought out and seemed to be based on someone's recommendations, not results or ideas.

 

But who really knows.  Part of a plan or as a reult of previous decisions.

We had the Burke effect prior to and post rebuild.

This really hampered building in stages.

BT didn't really have a free reign for a lot of his time here.

 

[kehatch]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with this and I think your picture of their discussions is almost exactly that.

 

An example, do we need a RW?  yes.    Do we need a top RD?   Way more.  And an actual D.

 

I side with Sutter between these two styles.  Without any doubt he puts a better hockey club together next season than Treliving would.

 

But....   there is a reason Sutter's not GM.  We've tried that.   And since he's come in we've lost a good number of draft picks already.   Sutter will improve the team in some ways now, but imho it won't be enough, and each of these role acquisitions is further depleting an almost empty pipeline.   It makes me sad to see those 2022 draft picks go, and I think we are all going to be a lot sadder a year from now.

 

We need a GM that is as good of a GM as Sutter is a coach.

 

Sutter wasn't a good GM because he lacked a lot of what Treliving is good at. 

 

Treliving knows the market value of his players as well as the other teams players.  He is constantly communicating across the league so he isn't surprised when a player is available, and other teams aren't surprised when one of his players is available.  He is concerned about the long term impact of trading away futures or signing a long term deal.  He is patient, and he isn't going to make a panic move for the sake of making a move.  Treliving will never have a Hagman/Kotalik/JokinenX2/Phaneuf/Stajan/White/etc stretch.  Treliving won't put us into a position where we are trading all of our futures while we are trying to win with a group of players well beyond their best before dates.  

 

But I think Sutter is a good influence on Treliving.  He knows what types of players he needs on HIS team and I think he is advocating for those types of players.  

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with this and I think your picture of their discussions is almost exactly that.

 

An example, do we need a RW?  yes.    Do we need a top RD?   Way more.  And an actual D.

 

I side with Sutter between these two styles.  Without any doubt he puts a better hockey club together next season than Treliving would.

 

But....   there is a reason Sutter's not GM.  We've tried that.   And since he's come in we've lost a good number of draft picks already.   Sutter will improve the team in some ways now, but imho it won't be enough, and each of these role acquisitions is further depleting an almost empty pipeline.   It makes me sad to see those 2022 draft picks go, and I think we are all going to be a lot sadder a year from now.

 

We need a GM that is as good of a GM as Sutter is a coach.

 

Do we need a GM to do this or do we lack scouting at all levels that identify the right players for us.

Neal and Brouwer and Bolig and Hamonic and Smith and Forbort and Gus and and and...

BT doesn't really have a great understanding of what exact players you need to build a SCF team.

He needs people to tell him the right players he needs.

Stevie Y and Sakik are two ex-players that have learned how to be a good GM and how to identify the players.

Sure, some of it comes from scouting.

 

We have differences of opinions on drafting, which points to scouting.

I have said that Button looks at more than just skill.

We don't draft poorly overall, but we do hit on some guys that don't work out.

The pro scouting is where we really struggle IMHO.

Someone said we were told to avoid Risto like the plague.

Yet, we somehow went after Neal.

Spent way too many picks on has-been goalies instead of a starter understudy when they were cheap.

May have cost us a 1st to get a Saros or Sorokin or whatever.

Never were in on Raanta or Grubauer when they were available.

Who said we needed to go after Lazar?

Or that Hamonic was a good choice considering his drop off?

 

My point is that BT takes the heat, but he is not the guy who knows how to evaluate players.

He may say he wants a type of player, but he deals with the names and trades to get those players on a provided list.

He says get me a Kreider type and ends up being recommended a Brouwer.

Or get me a Perron type and ends up with a Neal.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the disconnect is matching the type of player to an effective player evaluation.  

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Do we need a GM to do this or do we lack scouting at all levels that identify the right players for us.

Neal and Brouwer and Bolig and Hamonic and Smith and Forbort and Gus and and and...

BT doesn't really have a great understanding of what exact players you need to build a SCF team.

He needs people to tell him the right players he needs.

Stevie Y and Sakik are two ex-players that have learned how to be a good GM and how to identify the players.

Sure, some of it comes from scouting.

 

We have differences of opinions on drafting, which points to scouting.

I have said that Button looks at more than just skill.

We don't draft poorly overall, but we do hit on some guys that don't work out.

The pro scouting is where we really struggle IMHO.

Someone said we were told to avoid Risto like the plague.

Yet, we somehow went after Neal.

Spent way too many picks on has-been goalies instead of a starter understudy when they were cheap.

May have cost us a 1st to get a Saros or Sorokin or whatever.

Never were in on Raanta or Grubauer when they were available.

Who said we needed to go after Lazar?

Or that Hamonic was a good choice considering his drop off?

 

My point is that BT takes the heat, but he is not the guy who knows how to evaluate players.

He may say he wants a type of player, but he deals with the names and trades to get those players on a provided list.

He says get me a Kreider type and ends up being recommended a Brouwer.

Or get me a Perron type and ends up with a Neal.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the disconnect is matching the type of player to an effective player evaluation.  

 

the scary thing is, a lot of true smart hockey fans could say, don’t go after Brouwer or Neal, or Raymond or other players. And yet there are guys who get paid to do it who are there making decisions that don’t make sense. 
 

 

[zima]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

the scary thing is, a lot of true smart hockey fans could say, don’t go after Brouwer or Neal, or Raymond or other players. And yet there are guys who get paid to do it who are there making decisions that don’t make sense. 
 

 

So I'm curios we have taken every one of these guys and they didn't do what we were hoping for in fact we could say they failed miserably for us and has cost us millions of dollars in yearly payments just to not play here now we have grabbed Coleman a Sutter type player big and suppose to be exactly what we need. I know this is a very dumb thought but why can't teams make some kind of deal like if you don't do your job with use you leave and can go else where and we don't pay you for what's left of contract. I know crazy but if a player can't do the job he is hired for then we shouldn't have to stick to the contract we made with him.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Do we need a GM to do this or do we lack scouting at all levels that identify the right players for us.

Neal and Brouwer and Bolig and Hamonic and Smith and Forbort and Gus and and and...

BT doesn't really have a great understanding of what exact players you need to build a SCF team.

He needs people to tell him the right players he needs.

Stevie Y and Sakik are two ex-players that have learned how to be a good GM and how to identify the players.

Sure, some of it comes from scouting.

 

We have differences of opinions on drafting, which points to scouting.

I have said that Button looks at more than just skill.

We don't draft poorly overall, but we do hit on some guys that don't work out.

The pro scouting is where we really struggle IMHO.

Someone said we were told to avoid Risto like the plague.

Yet, we somehow went after Neal.

Spent way too many picks on has-been goalies instead of a starter understudy when they were cheap.

May have cost us a 1st to get a Saros or Sorokin or whatever.

Never were in on Raanta or Grubauer when they were available.

Who said we needed to go after Lazar?

Or that Hamonic was a good choice considering his drop off?

 

My point is that BT takes the heat, but he is not the guy who knows how to evaluate players.

He may say he wants a type of player, but he deals with the names and trades to get those players on a provided list.

He says get me a Kreider type and ends up being recommended a Brouwer.

Or get me a Perron type and ends up with a Neal.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the disconnect is matching the type of player to an effective player evaluation.  

 

It's definitely possible to source that to the scouts yes, and in that way Sutter would help at the veteran level.

 

I wouldn't peg Sutter as my top choice to pick prospects lol.  But in terms of existing NHL players I suspect he would be helpful.

 

My other issue with our scouts is not actually them, per see, but how they are distributed and how our prospect knowledge is so localised.    And yet we still manage to miss out on most Alberta talent, to be quite frank.

 

But, that again does roll up to the GM and the GM at very least needs to be in touch enough to know who to believe.   Nobody can be on top of all players and prospects.  And certainly not someone with a job as busy as a GM.   But he does have a responsibility to surround himself with the right people.   Also, it doesn't explain our management of existing assets, getting back nothing for core players etc.   That, he should know the value of as well as their projected value.  

[jjgallow]

18 minutes ago, zima said:

So I'm curios we have taken every one of these guys and they didn't do what we were hoping for in fact we could say they failed miserably for us and has cost us millions of dollars in yearly payments just to not play here now we have grabbed Coleman a Sutter type player big and suppose to be exactly what we need. I know this is a very dumb thought but why can't teams make some kind of deal like if you don't do your job with use you leave and can go else where and we don't pay you for what's left of contract. I know crazy but if a player can't do the job he is hired for then we shouldn't have to stick to the contract we made with him.

 

I've wondered that myself, why performance based contracts aren't used more.   I am sure there's a reason for it.   I feel they were more popular a few years ago.    It's also tough to do on a team that doesn't have high chances of playoff success.

[zima]

I just hope he didn't deside to play here just to get a pay day site on his but like Bowmesster and Neil just to name a few Olli was the best at that sucked us in a couple of times.

[robrob74]

26 minutes ago, zima said:

So I'm curios we have taken every one of these guys and they didn't do what we were hoping for in fact we could say they failed miserably for us and has cost us millions of dollars in yearly payments just to not play here now we have grabbed Coleman a Sutter type player big and suppose to be exactly what we need. I know this is a very dumb thought but why can't teams make some kind of deal like if you don't do your job with use you leave and can go else where and we don't pay you for what's left of contract. I know crazy but if a player can't do the job he is hired for then we shouldn't have to stick to the contract we made with him.

 

i agree! I mean they do it in the NFL. I think the structure being used really screws up actual revenue. Players want guaranteed contracts, but can’t guarantee they can live up to it. 
 

I guess if they get injured, that’s what the life insurance is for? Reality is, it has taken me 28 years just to make $1m in my life so far. And will be another 15 or so to make another $1!

[zima]

I'm guess im not the only one with this thought if every team did the same thing then a player can't say no I won't play here because you will not guarantee my wage if I fail to produce ;like I did last yr. But I guess NHL players Association would have something to say to that. If these player didn't get paid as much as they do I would be able to go to a game but that will never happen and I will never be able to go sniff

[kehatch]

43 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I've wondered that myself, why performance based contracts aren't used more.   I am sure there's a reason for it.   I feel they were more popular a few years ago.    It's also tough to do on a team that doesn't have high chances of playoff success.

 

They are only available to players in certain age ranges (35+ and rookies basically).

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

It's definitely possible to source that to the scouts yes, and in that way Sutter would help at the veteran level.

 

I wouldn't peg Sutter as my top choice to pick prospects lol.  But in terms of existing NHL players I suspect he would be helpful.

 

My other issue with our scouts is not actually them, per see, but how they are distributed and how our prospect knowledge is so localised.    And yet we still manage to miss out on most Alberta talent, to be quite frank.

 

But, that again does roll up to the GM and the GM at very least needs to be in touch enough to know who to believe.   Nobody can be on top of all players and prospects.  And certainly not someone with a job as busy as a GM.   But he does have a responsibility to surround himself with the right people.   Also, it doesn't explain our management of existing assets, getting back nothing for core players etc.   That, he should know the value of as well as their projected value.  

 

I get that we didn't pick players you wanted, but I think we need to give some time on the picks made.

The 2017 and 2018 drafts were so limited due to when they picked (not the amateur scouts' fault), yet we have 3 guys that could make the NHL.

4th rounders or late.  That's not anything to complain about really.

The 2019 and 2020 is way too soon to call a pick a bust or a win.

 

But those scouts are not the one to suggest pro players.

 

[rocketdoctor]

12 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

the scary thing is, a lot of true smart hockey fans could say, don’t go after Brouwer or Neal, or Raymond or other players. And yet there are guys who get paid to do it who are there making decisions that don’t make sense. 
 

 

 

Haha there wasn't many smart fans on here!!  As I recall there was a clamour for both Brouwer and Neal and acqusitions were both roundly applauded.  But it turned sour very quickly.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I get that we didn't pick players you wanted, but I think we need to give some time on the picks made.

The 2017 and 2018 drafts were so limited due to when they picked (not the amateur scouts' fault), yet we have 3 guys that could make the NHL.

4th rounders or late.  That's not anything to complain about really.

The 2019 and 2020 is way too soon to call a pick a bust or a win.

 

But those scouts are not the one to suggest pro players.

 

 

It's not that I don't want the players we picked.   Even this last draft I'm pretty happy to have Coronato and I'm quite interested to watch the outside chance on Sergeev.    

 

On the whole, yes, I have issues with it and scouting is for sure a big part of that although there's no single scout I would point the finger at, more the system itself and that brings us back to BT.

 

But it's not like I hate everything he does.   Sutter was a good acquisition for sure.  He always was, other than trying to make him a GM.

[kehatch]

2 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

 

Haha there wasn't many smart fans on here!!  As I recall there was a clamour for both Brouwer and Neal and acqusitions were both roundly applauded.  But it turned sour very quickly.

 

I think hockey fans are a pretty smart and informed bunch. But we are also fans. We are limited in how much first hand exposure we have to players and prospects, and we don't have access to detailed pro and prospect scouting reports, video, experts, and all of the other things teams have to make their assessments. 

 

I remember most fans being a bit concerned re Brouwers contract along with his age and speed, but otherwise things were generally positive. The Neal pickup was taken pretty well overall, especially since it was a pretty active off season. 

 

Is that because fans aren't knowledgeable? No. We all knew the Flames were short on the right side, the contract was a small raise to his previous one, the guy was a proven goal scorer on four separate teams, and he was going to be playing on an offensive line. 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

It's not that I don't want the players we picked.   Even this last draft I'm pretty happy to have Coronato and I'm quite interested to watch the outside chance on Sergeev.    

 

On the whole, yes, I have issues with it and scouting is for sure a big part of that although there's no single scout I would point the finger at, more the system itself and that brings us back to BT.

 

But it's not like I hate everything he does.   Sutter was a good acquisition for sure.  He always was, other than trying to make him a GM.

 

Well, like I was saying, the scouts really come up with the lists.

BT can make arbitrary decisions with it, but that's not really how they work.

His fault that he gives that power.

 

[pikey7883]

I’m really enjoying this discussion, it’s a nice break from the Eichel talks, lol.

First thing regarding the performance bonuses are in deed limited to 35+ and rookie contracts (which are still mandated through the CBA) there is very little wiggle room how those contracts are negotiated. And you can’t compare it to the NFL, because they have an entirely different cap structure. 
Secondly, I have been a supporter of BT and I’m mostly ok with the amateur scouts we have. I do agree that there has been some local kids that haven’t been as high on their list that should’ve been, and that should be questioned. 
But my concern as was mentioned in the Pro Scouting, who we only have Steve Pleau. I obviously don’t know enough about the inner workings of the team to point the finger at him specifically. But someone mentioned that Stevie Y and Sakic are good GMs because they’ve played at a high level and understand the dynamics of building good teams and targeting the correct players. I also agree Sutter will be able to correctly identify the right players for his team, but I think the organization really needs to consider better investing in their pro scouting so as to better equip the GM. 

[kehatch]

I would suggest that Flames drafting has been a strength under Treliving. 

 

• Its tough to rate the last three drafts, but there are some interesting names outside of the first two rounds including Wolf, Poirier, and Francis. 
• 2018 is also tough to judge since they didn't pick until the 4 round  But Pospisil and Pettersen both have potential and have shown pretty well at the AHL level.   

But the other three full drafts until Treliving were strong. 

 

• He got Andersson, Kylington, and Mangipane in 2015 despite not having a first and only picking 5 times. Getting a top 6 forward and at least one top 4 D in that scenario is great drafting.  
• Tkachuk was a no brainer in 2016, but they also picked a Norris winner in the third. Dube was also drafted this year, and Phillips still has a chance to make the NHL (I think he is a long shot, but I guess we will see). Two NHL stars in one draft is a big win, though there are a few unfortunate misses in there as well.  
• 2017 is interesting.  The jury is still out on Valimaki.  Pretty sure he will be an every day NHLer, but I could see him anywhere from a top pairing to bottom pairing guy.  Other then that they only picked 4 more times, and it wasn't until the fourth.  

Compare that to before Treliving got here (I include 2014 since he had just arrived).  Excluding our top 6 picks (Bennett and Monahan), we only hit once in the first round since the 05 lockout (Backlund in 2007).  Our non first round picks were pretty underwhelming as well wiht the exception of Brodie and Gaudreau.  There are a few depth guys scattered here and there, but otherwise that's it.  To be fair, Ferland could have been good if not for injury, and some people like Kulak.  But no matter how you slice it, we had more success in Trelivings first three drafts then we had in the previous eleven, and things look reasonably positive for the last three (again, excluding top 6 picks).  

 

 

[conundrumed]

It's time to kick this thread back up.

This board and the insistence of 500 page threads is turning into a quagmire of negativity.

Not from all, I get it.

But the rants get old so I'm getting on my soapbox.

So first, special Thanx to kehatch and this perfectly titled thread.

So we acquired Coleman, Pitlick, Lewis, Zadorov and strengthened our G pool.

Lost Gio.

Don't roll your eyes.

Sutter is a top 5 coach in this league, easily. I'd surmise Sutter is all over all of these moves. Historically, these are not BT moves.

Should we not assume Sutter knew Gio would be exposed, and he didn't fight it?

The, "he's hard on Valimaki" crowd, he's hard on Dube too.

What that tells me is that he likes both, a lot. This is what he does.

Valimaki after signing, re: Sutter, I paraphrase, "He's tough, brutally honest" etc.

After, he said, "I have to be a difference maker, every game. Whether it's a D play that stops a goal or I score a goal, I have to make a difference every game".

I'm guessing that's what Sutter keeps telling him.

Don't be surprised to see Vali and Dube take a good step this year.

Mony took a step as a 200' C under Sutter.

Can we say, Blockchain the Sabres and Eichel yet?

We're in zero position to sell the future.

We have a coach that has seen it all.

I hope Ruzicka can impress him with his soft hands for a big right shot.

Some things can annoy me, but this team hasn't had a well-respected voice around it since, well, our current coach.

I said this from the outset, a star isn't saving the glaring holes at a chunk of bottom 6 and too soft on D. And Wolf the only G prospect.

They're seeing things Sutter's way.

Building from G out isn't:

G

D

1st line

2nd line

That's backwards after D.

But it's what we've been doing.

It's getting fixed, bottom up.

 

I should have video'd my 2-1/2 backflip with a full twist dismount from the soapbox.

Stay positive. Maybe we just might be pretty good.

 

 

[conundrumed]

Outside of a contract year, I'm really interested to see Gaudreau's year when his hands aren't getting hacked.

When you wonder why Ritchie's on the top line....a real coach protects the star.

JG's never had that, just gets frustrated.

Sutter will end that.

The cabal of old school guys in the NHL is alive and well. Couldn't be happier we have one for this slackass bunch.

Can't help but feel that we'll be very competitive, at last.

 

[cross16]

On the topic of Sutter impact, interesting chart here. Looking at expected goals rate for the coaches. 

 

Big change for the Flames moving from Ward to Sutter which matches the eye test for me. 

 

 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

On the topic of Sutter impact, interesting chart here. Looing at expected goals rate for the coaches. 

 

Big change for the Flames moving from Ward to Sutter which matches the eye test for me. 

 

 

 

Sutter is one of the best coaches in the past 20 years.  Too bad our roster just isn't built for his style of play.

[conundrumed]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sutter is one of the best coaches in the past 20 years.  Too bad our roster just isn't built for his style of play.

Alternatively, our roster adjusts to his style. He has what he needs. I won't be surprised if we keep decent cap space to make moves during the season.

Chevaldayoff, McCrimmond, Quenneville, Sutter.

There's an old-school cabal all over this league. 

We've got one of them.

Be thankful.

These guys know hockey, sure they used to spit chew on your back in jr and slap you in the head for a lousy play even though you're on the bench.

Nobody cared. Great teachers.

Great motivators.

Get ready.

 

 

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Alternatively, our roster adjusts to his style. He has what he needs. I won't be surprised if we keep decent cap space to make moves during the season.

Chevaldayoff, McCrimmond, Quenneville, Sutter.

There's an old-school cabal all over this league. 

We've got one of them.

Be thankful.

These guys know hockey, sure they used to spit chew on your back in jr and slap you in the head for a lousy play even though you're on the bench.

Nobody cared. Great teachers.

Great motivators.

Get ready.

 

 

 

Will have to see how the new bottom six pans out.  Right now looks like there's not enough scoring and not enough speed.  The 3rd/4th line grinders is the definition of Sutter hockey and we lack there.

 

Our D is also not great at defending and that's always been a staple of Sutter teams.  Hanifin will get huge minutes but he cannot defend top end talent like Mcdavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, Schefeile, etc.  It's beyond his abilities. Only someone of Giordano's level can handle it. Andersson has the drive and passion but he lacks tools and dynamics.  Valimaki has all the tools but needs seasoning.  Tanev is going to be counted on big time but he's injury prone so hope he holds up.

 

I want to believe our D is like the 2004 Flames... A bunch of no names and castaways that found a way and made a name for themselves.  We will have to see.

[conundrumed]

46 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Will have to see how the new bottom six pans out.  Right now looks like there's not enough scoring and not enough speed.  The 3rd/4th line grinders is the definition of Sutter hockey and we lack there.

 

Our D is also not great at defending and that's always been a staple of Sutter teams.  Hanifin will get huge minutes but he cannot defend top end talent like Mcdavid, MacKinnon, Pettersson, Schefeile, etc.  It's beyond his abilities. Only someone of Giordano's level can handle it. Andersson has the drive and passion but he lacks tools and dynamics.  Valimaki has all the tools but needs seasoning.  Tanev is going to be counted on big time but he's injury prone so hope he holds up.

 

I want to believe our D is like the 2004 Flames... A bunch of no names and castaways that found a way and made a name for themselves.  We will have to see.

Where do I start...the bottom 6 adding Pitlick and Lewis. Adding to Lucic. 

Not bad at all.

Zadorov? Why? Because he controls the play. No one wants to mess with his side of the ice. All of the dump ins will be his side. Sutter can exploit that.

As I said before, these are Sutter driven moves.

He's dumb like a fox.