Treliving-Flames mutually part ways. Maloney POHO/interim GM and search on for new GM

[The_People1]

Maloney is intern GM, so technically, we have a GM right now.

[JTech780]

My guess is that Conroy and Love will fill the vacancies. 
 

I do wonder if we start to hear Mathieu Darche’s name a bit more now that Tampa is out of the playoffs. Tampa has navigated the cap better than most over the last few seasons, and that’s a trait that could prove beneficial over the next few seasons in Calgary.

[Heartbreaker]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

My guess is that Conroy and Love will fill the vacancies. 
...

 

I think you might be right about that, and I'm pretty good with that. That said, I think the Flames are good with that because they're paying Darryl Sutter $8,000,000 to not coach this team, and I think that this route will save them a lot of money.

 

For what it's worth, I would be willing to accept an order of magnitude less to not coach this team...

 

Love.

[Thebrewcrew]

Probably not a coincidence that a coach that wants to work again jumps on a sports station in a city looking for a coach.

 

I don’t see it happening. 
- I think there are better options out there

- I think Boudreau would also be too expensive, as the Flames are already paying 4 to Darryl

[cross16]

I actually like Boudreau a fair bit as a coach but don't think he should be considered by the Flames. 

 

I just think too highly of Mitch Love. I can get behind giving Andrew Brunette a look as I thought he did a nice job in Florida but I think the Flames are sitting on someone who could be pretty special in Love. Not saying it's for sure going to work but you have to give it a try IMO. Don't go after a coach like Boudreau and cost yourselves that chance. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Might as well let Huberdeau choose our next coach while we are at it.  Since his contract is untradeable, he will be here for the next 8-years.  Andrew Brunette it is.  Luckily Brunette appears totally qualified.

i don't really think it's fair. I think it is fair to tune out a douchebag coach who doesn't show any signs of respect though, or put players in positions to succeed. 
 

i think it is more about the usage than anything else when it comes to style... a forecheck game isn't his style either... 

[Thebrewcrew]

If ownership wants to "run it back" and contend for a playoff spot next year. The new GM is already being employed by the Flames. I think it would give the Flames a better chance at re-signing Lindholm and Hanifin.

 

If the new GM is an external candidate, a shakeup is more likely IMO. It brings an unbiased look at the roster. Easier to shake up the roster for a GM that doesn't have established relationships on the team.

 

Ultimately, I think it will be Conroy. 

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

If ownership wants to "run it back" and contend for a playoff spot next year. The new GM is already being employed by the Flames. I think it would give the Flames a better chance at re-signing Lindholm and Hanifin.

 

If the new GM is an external candidate, a shakeup is more likely IMO. It brings an unbiased look at the roster. Easier to shake up the roster for a GM that doesn't have established relationships on the team.

 

Ultimately, I think it will be Conroy. 

 

Makes a lot of sense.  Why go outside to find a new GM just to run it back with the same group?  A new GM will have new ideas and most likely, a new direction (because who in puck's name would think we are going in the right direction).

 

Conroy knows BT's plans well and has been a part of building it together with BT.  The only other considerations should be Brad Pascal and Chris Snow.

 

But of course, a team in this much trouble and this much mess requires a veteran GM with many years of experience because it cannot afford even one more bad move, bad contract, bad trade, etc.  Conroy, Pascal, and Snow will be first timers and mistakes are going to be made.  They are more suited to GM a rebuilding team with lots of runway, low expectations, and ample time.

[DirtyDeeds]

So when Don Maloney was asked "if Dutter had been let go earlier at seasons end" would Brad Treliving still be our GM?

 

His answer was "yes".

 

Too late now anyway....

 

Source: Was talked about on the fan 960 Thursday afternoon.

[The_People1]

48 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

So when Don Maloney was asked "if Dutter had been let go earlier at seasons end" would Brad Treliving still be our GM?

 

His answer was "yes".

 

Too late now anyway....

 

Source: Was talked about on the fan 960 Thursday afternoon.

 

Are you sure he said "yes"?  Pretty sure he said "no".

[JTech780]

Not a fan, and quite honestly that would go against everything Maloney has said to this point.

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Are you sure he said "yes"?  Pretty sure he said "no".

this is my recollection as well. 

[cross16]

30 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Not a fan, and quite honestly that would go against everything Maloney has said to this point.

horrible option on multiple fronts. I’d be thoroughly disappointed if they went that way.

 

ethics aside the guy wasn’t a good GM. Include the Beach situation? absolutely should be a non starter. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

Not a fan, and quite honestly that would go against everything Maloney has said to this point.

 

It's so Flames to be interested in Stan Bowman.  I believe it.

 

In a weird way, we need a GM to manage us to the #1 pick overall.  We are so close.  Need a finisher to come in and take us the rest of the way.  Stan Bowman has a stacked resume for this task.

[Thebrewcrew]

Bowman would be disappointing.

 

The Bowman name carries weight in NHL circles. He will get another opportunity. It should not be in Calgary though

[DirtyDeeds]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Are you sure he said "yes"?  Pretty sure he said "no".

I am positive.

 

Sportsnet Today 960 - Sportsnet.ca

 

about the 26:30 minute mark of this podcast.

 

I was thinking it was Don Maloney asked the question but it was Frank Seravelli that said yes and felt that Brad Treliving would still be here.

 

He wanted to make the coaching after the Sharks game and was not given permission to do it.

[The_People1]

13 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I am positive.

 

Sportsnet Today 960 - Sportsnet.ca

 

about the 26:30 minute mark of this podcast.

 

I was thinking it was Don Maloney asked the question but it was Frank Seravelli that said yes and felt that Brad Treliving would still be here.

 

He wanted to make the coaching after the Sharks game and was not given permission to do it.

 

I see thanks.  Don Maloney was asked in the press conference the same question and he said "no".  The Sportsnet clip you posted is Frank Seravelli inserting his version of the truth... his own opinion.  He does go on to explain why he thought so but in the end, it's still his own opinion.

 

And for all we know, he could be right because as if Don Maloney would actually tell us the truth.

 

I don't think BT is perfect but he was doing a decent job under the circumstances.  If it's true BT left because of Sutter, then to fire BT first before firing Sutter would be a huge blunder.  We chased away a good GM.

[DirtyDeeds]

39 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I see thanks.  Don Maloney was asked in the press conference the same question and he said "no".  The Sportsnet clip you posted is Frank Seravelli inserting his version of the truth... his own opinion.  He does go on to explain why he thought so but in the end, it's still his own opinion.

 

And for all we know, he could be right because as if Don Maloney would actually tell us the truth.

 

I don't think BT is perfect but he was doing a decent job under the circumstances.  If it's true BT left because of Sutter, then to fire BT first before firing Sutter would be a huge blunder.  We chased away a good GM.

Yes BT WAS good. He also had some weaknesses. I think if you fault him for his contract tactics (waiting to last minute to get best price for example) that was the cause of losing Johnny, then you probably feel you can do better. Personally I can't say that was the reason Johnny left but leaving that situation to last minute and losing a franchise level player for nothing is bad asset management.

 

In the end we are left with a tough budget management situation for at least 2 more seasons and left with a core that is new to each other with only one season under their belts.

It would probably be best to have an experienced GM unless the ownership will let him tear it down somewhat. There is little flexability atm even when allowed to spend to cap.

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I see thanks.  Don Maloney was asked in the press conference the same question and he said "no".  The Sportsnet clip you posted is Frank Seravelli inserting his version of the truth... his own opinion.  He does go on to explain why he thought so but in the end, it's still his own opinion.

 

And for all we know, he could be right because as if Don Maloney would actually tell us the truth.

 

I don't think BT is perfect but he was doing a decent job under the circumstances.  If it's true BT left because of Sutter, then to fire BT first before firing Sutter would be a huge blunder.  We chased away a good GM.

I don't think they fired BT though. I think BT just left due to being fed up with how aggravating it was to do business with the ownership group and the micromanaging. What's the point to be working 20 hour days, Maloney said that BT would be on calls at 11pm, only to get the deals he worked hard for to be not okayed. Maybe not that many, but still...  

 

I don't think the Sutter situation was the whole picture. It was a part of it and maybe the last straw. Could be a big part of it, but maybe the disrespect of going over his head on hiring Sutter in the first place was where the last straw was pulled, then the way things transpired this past season almost undid all of the good will BT tried to build through his time here. 

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I don't think they fired BT though. I think BT just left due to being fed up with how aggravating it was to do business with the ownership group and the micromanaging. What's the point to be working 20 hour days, Maloney said that BT would be on calls at 11pm, only to get the deals he worked hard for to be not okayed. Maybe not that many, but still...  

 

I don't think the Sutter situation was the whole picture. It was a part of it and maybe the last straw. Could be a big part of it, but maybe the disrespect of going over his head on hiring Sutter in the first place was where the last straw was pulled, then the way things transpired this past season almost undid all of the good will BT tried to build through his time here. 

 

Yes, right.  Both parties agreed to part ways.

 

I also wonder if BT took responsibility over losing Gaudreau for nothing.  He was so sure he could get Johnny signed.  When it didn't happen, I wonder if he "fired himself" from the guilt.  Maybe he promised ownership he could get the job done and failed them.  Who knows.

 

BT knows he took a huge gamble with the Huberdeau trade.  Instead of taking the Rebuild Deal, he took the Win Now one... and also dished out big money to Kadri only to get mediocre results.  Maybe BT understands this roster is screwed and it's time to bail before things go so bad he'll never find another job again in the NHL.

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Yes BT WAS good. He also had some weaknesses. I think if you fault him for his contract tactics (waiting to last minute to get best price for example) that was the cause of losing Johnny, then you probably feel you can do better. Personally I can't say that was the reason Johnny left but leaving that situation to last minute and losing a franchise level player for nothing is bad asset management.

 

In the end we are left with a tough budget management situation for at least 2 more seasons and left with a core that is new to each other with only one season under their belts.

It would probably be best to have an experienced GM unless the ownership will let him tear it down somewhat. There is little flexability atm even when allowed to spend to cap.

 

It's not clear what's going to happen from here.  I thought for sure Sutter would be back and was shocked to see the Flames eat the money and fire him.  Had Sutter come back, a bounce back season was certain.  Now with a new coach, that's not certain anymore.

[cross16]

13 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes, right.  Both parties agreed to part ways.

 

I also wonder if BT took responsibility over losing Gaudreau for nothing.  He was so sure he could get Johnny signed.  When it didn't happen, I wonder if he "fired himself" from the guilt.  Maybe he promised ownership he could get the job done and failed them.  Who knows.

 

BT knows he took a huge gamble with the Huberdeau trade.  Instead of taking the Rebuild Deal, he took the Win Now one... and also dished out big money to Kadri only to get mediocre results.  Maybe BT understands this roster is screwed and it's time to bail before things go so bad he'll never find another job again in the NHL.

 

They can spin it this way but I don't think anyone in the know believes that is what happened. Even at the press conference there were times both Bean and Maloney would slip up a bit and speak as if Treliving made this call on his own. I don't believe there was anything mutual about this split. 

 

I also don't' think the order mattered (BT vs Sutter). I think BT is gone for more reasons than just Sutter. The gap in between the two is because hockey ops has to build an air tight case to take to ownership to get the approval to let him go. 

[The_People1]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

They can spin it this way but I don't think anyone in the know believes that is what happened. Even at the press conference there were times both Bean and Maloney would slip up a bit and speak as if Treliving made this call on his own. I don't believe there was anything mutual about this split. 

 

I also don't' think the order mattered (BT vs Sutter). I think BT is gone for more reasons than just Sutter. The gap in between the two is because hockey ops has to build an air tight case to take to ownership to get the approval to let him go. 

 

Yes trues.

 

Basically the Flames are where they are today because they wouldn't let the GM do his job.  The next GM is going to ask questions.  Maybe they already did... 

 

Candidate: do I have permission to fire Sutter and hire my own coach?

Maloney/Bean: No.

Candidate: Okay bye.

 

After one week GM searching: we have announced the firing of Darryl Sutter.

 

This ownership group is probably finding out the hard way why they need to step away and let GMs do what they feel needs to be done.  You hire someone you feel qualified and then you must have their back.  Let them do their thing.

[JTech780]

On the 32 Thoughts podcast Friedman mentioned Mark Hunter is in the radar and that Conroy is still near the top of the list. He said they have interviewed former GM’s and people who haven’t been a GM.

 

The worst part he mentioned is that he has heard that Calgary isn’t giving permission for teams to talk to Treliving till July. He did say he hasn’t been able to get confirmation. If true that is a bad look for the Flames.

[cross16]

41 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

On the 32 Thoughts podcast Friedman mentioned Mark Hunter is in the radar and that Conroy is still near the top of the list. He said they have interviewed former GM’s and people who haven’t been a GM.

 

The worst part he mentioned is that he has heard that Calgary isn’t giving permission for teams to talk to Treliving till July. He did say he hasn’t been able to get confirmation. If true that is a bad look for the Flames.

honestly I don’t think it is. Treliving is under contract to the organization until that time and he is the one who chose to leave under those circumstances. I’d view it the same as a non disclosure agreement 

 

he also said that at this point Bettman and the NHL have not given Bowman and Quinville permission to speak to teams. Puts cold water in the flames interwar in Bowman