Confirmed with Link: Bill Peters next head coach for Calgary

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
TL;DR - IMO this is the first time I've seen Treliving really seem emotional vs calculating on a move. He didn't just go out, he rushed out there to nab Peters and has essentially declared he doesn't mind living and dying with this decision. This is perhaps the first time where I felt Treliving put emotion into a decision. I don't think that many others have not noticed is part of his persona. Brad often comes off as genuine, but detached after exhausting all the options. But this time it felt genuinely like he didn't give a crap what the data said and what additional options he left on the table. He wanted Peters.


That being said, Treliving essentially admitting he didn't do an exhaustive coach search before Peters IMO isn't as bad as many posters may think. IMO, Treliving probably has a file on a ton of individuals in the league and outside of the league which he compiles. I think he's probably already 70-80% done even before he starts the official work. He probably spent time asking about coaches who weren't available when he did the Gully hire and had that on hand as of now. He probably also has a massive file on Peters from his time working with him. So when he says he didn't do an exhaustive search, I'm thinking he meant it to his personal standard. He probably was at 80%, but when a more realistic (vs longshot) option at Peters was available, he dropped all the existing work and threw all his cards at Peters to see if he could win that hand.

It seemed to me previously that Treliving's totally cold and analytical approach was like someone playing with someone else's money and doing a good job. But this Peters hire feels like Treliving opening up his personal stash of cash and throwing it onto the table to have some skin in the game.

IMO Treliving's weakness often has been that he has been too conservative. His major strength has always been to admit mistake. This was apparent with the logjam of vets after his first season where we weren't expected to make ploffs. He's been shaving those contracts off ever since he started. This conservative approach also created the 3 headed goalie monster which at one point hit 4 heads.

His most aggressive moves (ignoring contracts) backfired the most. Trying to hide Byron in the minors didn't work due to the Kassian out clause Montreal had (MTL was one of the last in line for waivers. Without Kassian out clause Byron is still a Flame. Otherwise, MTL over the contract limit IIRC).

Gully vs Green seemed like the only possible hires in hindsight. There really weren't too many other options on the market at the time. I think Boudreau already had chats with Minny just like Peters did with us. In Broudreau's case, we were the crowd going, "Dang we missed him".

As they said on 960, many other teams likely inquired on Peters, but probably no one was as aggressive as Treliving in poaching the guy. That speaks volumes. This is Treliving's guy who he has chosen to live or die with in the trenches. IMO, this is first move I've felt of Treliving's that is emotional. Everything else feels calculated and smart more than vested, if that makes sense. Coaches and management were historically paid low amounts. I think that's an owner's mandate thing. I really wonder if there's an internal budget that isn't well known like other teams in the league (ie: Carolina or Ottawa) which are obvious.

Consider Treliving has been here for :
2014-2015 - Newbie GM. Everything from drafting to FA felt like it was puppeteer work by Burke. Byron was a misstep. All interviews seemed to show management felt they'd keep Byron even though they waived him. I think they wanted to have roster flexibility to exploit the 30 day aspect of the waiving rule. (They didn't need to waive him with Raymond as doing so put them 1 player below max roster limit IIRC. It was a calculated risk that blew up)

2015-2016 - Hints of Burke exist, but I felt Treliving took the reigns at this point and started showing his trading abilities. Shrewd and strong armed tactics seemed to show in the contracts. Some interviews also hint the draft also seemed like it was 100% scouting staff with nearly no management interference after the first round. I think Treliving was trying to be shrewd with Byron, but losing him scared him. I believe this is why we ended up with the 3 headed goalie monster. His conservative approach screwed up the goalies and it was a major collapse under Hartley. I think Hartley could have stayed his last season, but comments on garbage day triggered something and he was fired. Treliving flew back (from Russia? Europe?) to consummate the hire. Maybe they wanted Boudreau, but it easily looked like Minny had the inside track. Mostly minor moves, but some genius swipes for the expansion draft for McCollum and Bartkowski to meet minimum requirements.

2016-2017 - Gully hired. New goalies. Growing pains. Playoff collapse. Additions of all sorts of "middle 6 RW" none of which really panned out.

2017-2018 - Smith and Hamonic brought on perhaps as an aggregate for the missing out on the goalie Treliving wanted. Stumbled out of the gate, seemed to get on track by the TDL... then something happened. TBH, if the performance up to the TDL was an indicator, Treliving's overall moves were appropriate. But something derailed the whole thing which I think is easier to blame Gully for than anyone else.

As for Gully, I really hope someone immediately snaps him up as a AC. I think he'd been fantastic under Torts or some other cycle guy. I think he'll be around for a long time, but just needs time to marinate and develop. There is no reason to think he's a failure because he doesn't have the same level of HC experience as a guy like Mike Yeo.
 

Bjornar Moxnes

Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Oct 16, 2016
11,490
3,942
Troms og Finnmark
I have a stupid conspiracy theory. :squint:

Was Treliving anticipating Peters being fired two years ago?

This may have caused him to drag his heels on other options available at the time, ultimately forcing him into hiring GG instead.

This has no basis in fact of course, but it makes for a good "missed connections" love story.

 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
I have a stupid conspiracy theory. :squint:

Was Treliving anticipating Peters being fired two years ago?

This may have caused him to drag his heels on other options available at the time, ultimately forcing him into hiring GG instead.

This has no basis in fact of course, but it makes for a good "missed connections" love story.

In Darren Haynes' blog about the hiring, he talked about how Treliving's head coach search coincided with him and Peters working together at the World Championships two years ago. However, at that time, there wasn't really any reason to think Peters would be fired, as he looked to have the Hurricanes going in the right direction.
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
In Darren Haynes' blog about the hiring, he talked about how Treliving's head coach search coincided with him and Peters working together at the World Championships two years ago. However, at that time, there wasn't really any reason to think Peters would be fired, as he looked to have the Hurricanes going in the right direction.
Ah so that was the original "meet-cute". :P
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
I have a stupid conspiracy theory. :squint:

Was Treliving anticipating Peters being fired two years ago?

This may have caused him to drag his heels on other options available at the time, ultimately forcing him into hiring GG instead.

This has no basis in fact of course, but it makes for a good "missed connections" love story.

Wasn't Peters extended *very* shortly after Hartley was fired? Doesn't seem at all like a stretch to me to suggest he may have wanted Peters last time around.
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,955
8,449
I have a stupid conspiracy theory. :squint:

Was Treliving anticipating Peters being fired two years ago?

This may have caused him to drag his heels on other options available at the time, ultimately forcing him into hiring GG instead.

This has no basis in fact of course, but it makes for a good "missed connections" love story.

Even with Anglesmith's take, I don't think it's that crazy of an idea that Treliving wondered if Peters wouldn't be extended two years ago during the search. Tre exhausts the options and does ridiculous due diligence in general. He probably at least asked the basic question, "What's the likelihood he's available, let's ask/wait and see.

However, my conspiracy theory is more along the lines of ownership meddling. A "You can have any color you want as long as it's black" situation.

I think Gully may have been chosen because ownership has a history of being cheap on management in general. Seriously, the guy was paid around 800K. That's only around 20% of some other coaches. Peters is rumored to be around 2 mil, which is around 50% or less. This an our previously long held belief ownership would rather lose value in trades than buy out players or retain salary. The former has been done by Treliving now, but no so much the latter yet.

Treliving demanding more autonomy before extending is a part of that rumor. Ownership rumored to have overruled or foiled a Bishop trade not once, but twice (cheap price to LA was part of that rumor). This may also mean other players were never on our radar when made available as they were outside the scope that ownership had allowed Treliving to operate.

Now, it's possible it's not ownership meddling, but ownership/King being so engaged or giving Treliving a restrictive mandate (other than internal cap) that Treliving is on occasion handcuffed in the options he is allowed to pursue. It's plausible that ownership would never allow him to hire a high flyer like AV, but in general leaves him to his own devices for other aspects of the hockey ops.

This theory isn't infallible though, because having guys like Burke as POHO seemingly goes against the idea that ownership is cheap on management/coaches.
 

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
Team wastes money on dinosaurs like Burke and Maloney but wont pony up for a decent coach. Classic Flames.
 

Yotes4Cup

Registered User
Dec 1, 2017
1,026
1,053
The posters saying "Treliving is next to go if it doesn't work, Treliving made a mistake, etc." - what is the point? Treliving clearly knows that his job is tied to the coaching hires he's made. I'm not saying that they've been solid or even my own preferred choices, but it's not like he thinks he's immune to the results of his hires. It's such a non-contribution.

Treliving should have been let go at the end of this season. He shouldn't even have been in a position to pick another coach. He has failed to address the top six forward need for two straight seasons now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

Flames Fanatic

Mediocre
Aug 14, 2008
13,329
2,888
Cochrane
Treliving should have been let go at the end of this season. He shouldn't even have been in a position to pick another coach. He has failed to address the top six forward need for two straight seasons now.

I can maybe give you last season, as we were only middle of the league in scoring. The previous season we were dead last in Goals Against and 10th in Goals For. There's a reason he shored up goaltending and defense the last two seasons.

Last year it wasn't goal scoring that sunk us, it was goaltending and defense as well. He improved those things and the team regressed.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
I can maybe give you last season, as we were only middle of the league in scoring. The previous season we were dead last in Goals Against and 10th in Goals For. There's a reason he shored up goaltending and defense the last two seasons.

Last year it wasn't goal scoring that sunk us, it was goaltending and defense as well. He improved those things and the team regressed.

Well, the Brouwer signing was actually a signing made at a time when a top 6 forward was considered a need, two off-seasons ago. Since then, our top-six forward scoring hasn't really changed all that much. It isn't as though that problem has been solved, but I don't think it's an easy fix.

Treliving definitely can be looked at as a guy who identifies an issue and goes out and makes a move to solve it. He doesn't trust that time will heal roster issues. I think that was to his detriment with the Brouwer signing. None of us can know if Brouwer was who he wanted to sign that off-season, or if he signed him because his preferred targets went elsewhere. But he obviously had it on his priority list that that summer, they were going to sign someone to be a top-six right-winger, and he went out and did it. The thing with UFA contracts like that is that they generally don't leave you the flexibility to take another shot if the first one doesn't work. You can't just sign UFA RWers until you get one that works. They're stuck with that Brouwer contract whether they like it or not, and that probably makes them hit the brakes with regards to bringing on another big-ticket winger for the time being. Maybe this summer they can finally make something work around that.

Then two seasons ago it was clear that the thing that was holding the team back was that our fourth defenceman had to be someone playing over their head- be it Wideman, Engelland or anyone else. He went out and got Stone and fixed that issue. He didn't want to be in that situation again, so he went out in the off-season and fixed it permanently. The team had been let down in the playoffs by their goaltending, so he fixed that too. He sees an issue, and he goes out and takes a stab at fixing it. That's all you can ask of a GM. No GM makes good decisions 100% of the time on player personnel, but you have to like that he can identify problems and takes the initiative to go out and fix them.
 

Yotes4Cup

Registered User
Dec 1, 2017
1,026
1,053
Well, the Brouwer signing was actually a signing made at a time when a top 6 forward was considered a need, two off-seasons ago. Since then, our top-six forward scoring hasn't really changed all that much. It isn't as though that problem has been solved, but I don't think it's an easy fix.

Treliving definitely can be looked at as a guy who identifies an issue and goes out and makes a move to solve it. He doesn't trust that time will heal roster issues. I think that was to his detriment with the Brouwer signing. None of us can know if Brouwer was who he wanted to sign that off-season, or if he signed him because his preferred targets went elsewhere. But he obviously had it on his priority list that that summer, they were going to sign someone to be a top-six right-winger, and he went out and did it. The thing with UFA contracts like that is that they generally don't leave you the flexibility to take another shot if the first one doesn't work. You can't just sign UFA RWers until you get one that works. They're stuck with that Brouwer contract whether they like it or not, and that probably makes them hit the brakes with regards to bringing on another big-ticket winger for the time being. Maybe this summer they can finally make something work around that.

Then two seasons ago it was clear that the thing that was holding the team back was that our fourth defenceman had to be someone playing over their head- be it Wideman, Engelland or anyone else. He went out and got Stone and fixed that issue. He didn't want to be in that situation again, so he went out in the off-season and fixed it permanently. The team had been let down in the playoffs by their goaltending, so he fixed that too. He sees an issue, and he goes out and takes a stab at fixing it. That's all you can ask of a GM. No GM makes good decisions 100% of the time on player personnel, but you have to like that he can identify problems and takes the initiative to go out and fix them.

Why did Treliving trade for Hamonic anyway? Stone is capable of playing in the top 4 and if I remember correctly he and Brodie had chemistry together. Calgary has lots of D-Men knocking on the door. The D-core was fine before Hamonic came on board. I think you could get a pretty good top six forward for a 1st and two 2nds...Or hey one in the draft this year.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
Why did Treliving trade for Hamonic anyway? Stone is capable of playing in the top 4 and if I remember correctly he and Brodie had chemistry together. Calgary has lots of D-Men knocking on the door. The D-core was fine before Hamonic came on board. I think you could get a pretty good top six forward for a 1st and two 2nds...Or hey one in the draft this year.
Before the Hamonic trade, in terms of proven NHL defencemen they had Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton. That was it. The Stone signing came after, for what it's worth.

While Stone had proven to be far more stable on the second pairing than Wideman or Engelland, he still has mobility issues that make him a step down from most #4 defencemen in the league. In addition, if we had only gone out and signed Stone, we'd be living with three NHL defencemen if any of the top 4 had gone down. And finally, we'd just had a playoffs which saw Nashville push through all the way to Game 6 of the SCF on the backs of an elite top-4 on the blueline. While you are correct that we have a number of defenceman prospects, not many were considered NHL-ready last season. Meanwhile, a number of our young forwards in the system were either already on the roster (Bennett, Lazar, Ferland, etc.), or predicted to push onto it this year (Jankowski). So I think Treliving probably felt that internal solutions were going to be found more likely up front than on the back end.

I think all of this contributed to Treliving's decision to put his assets into the blueline instead of the forwards. Hindsight is 20:20, of course. Our blueline was very healthy all year, and we probably would have been fine with one of Stone or Hamonic given Andersson's progression. But I think he had valid reasons for his choices.
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
Why did Treliving trade for Hamonic anyway? Stone is capable of playing in the top 4 and if I remember correctly he and Brodie had chemistry together. Calgary has lots of D-Men knocking on the door. The D-core was fine before Hamonic came on board. I think you could get a pretty good top six forward for a 1st and two 2nds...Or hey one in the draft this year.
Not sure, why (he's a good defensive player so there's that) but it was Engelland that had pretty good chemistry with Brodie - I don't recall him playing with Stone much.
 

1989

Registered User
Aug 3, 2010
10,361
3,865
Treliving should have been let go at the end of this season. He shouldn't even have been in a position to pick another coach. He has failed to address the top six forward need for two straight seasons now.
Okay, sure. That has little to do with what I posted or the reality of the situation at hand. You want accountability, that's fine, but I'm talking about making "Captain Obvious" statements.
 

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
Treliving should have been let go at the end of this season. He shouldn't even have been in a position to pick another coach. He has failed to address the top six forward need for two straight seasons now.

Yeah Brouwer was a bad signing, but Tre has done far more good moves than bad ones. The team also has a young core with a bright future and a relatively full cupboard. You don’t fire GM’s that have accomplished that.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
Not sure, why (he's a good defensive player so there's that) but it was Engelland that had pretty good chemistry with Brodie - I don't recall him playing with Stone much.
Stone and Brodie was the pairing after the trade two seasons ago. Prior to that, Brodie had been paired with Engelland pretty much any time Gio was injured.
 

Yotes4Cup

Registered User
Dec 1, 2017
1,026
1,053
Before the Hamonic trade, in terms of proven NHL defencemen they had Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton. That was it. The Stone signing came after, for what it's worth.

While Stone had proven to be far more stable on the second pairing than Wideman or Engelland, he still has mobility issues that make him a step down from most #4 defencemen in the league. In addition, if we had only gone out and signed Stone, we'd be living with three NHL defencemen if any of the top 4 had gone down. And finally, we'd just had a playoffs which saw Nashville push through all the way to Game 6 of the SCF on the backs of an elite top-4 on the blueline. While you are correct that we have a number of defenceman prospects, not many were considered NHL-ready last season. Meanwhile, a number of our young forwards in the system were either already on the roster (Bennett, Lazar, Ferland, etc.), or predicted to push onto it this year (Jankowski). So I think Treliving probably felt that internal solutions were going to be found more likely up front than on the back end.

I think all of this contributed to Treliving's decision to put his assets into the blueline instead of the forwards. Hindsight is 20:20, of course. Our blueline was very healthy all year, and we probably would have been fine with one of Stone or Hamonic given Andersson's progression. But I think he had valid reasons for his choices.
A player can't be proven until he gets the chance to play. On the defensive front, the flames do not give the D prospects enough of a chance. Andersson was ready to play a top-six role at the start of the season. Wotherspoon was and still is a capable #6. Giordano-Hamilton, Brodie-Stone, Andersson-Wotherspoon and then Tre could have signed a depth guy or two in case of injuries. These pairs would have been fine. Now Tre would have been able to use the assets he used on Hamonic to pick up a top-six forward that the first line desperately needs or like I said draft one with the first this year.
 

Calculon

unholy acting talent
Jan 20, 2006
16,578
4,035
Error 503
I don't disagree with the idea that Treliving could have saved his assets for a forward instead of using them all on Hamonic and maybe instead signed/acquired a cheaper option like Hainsey or Cole.

But I do disagree with this persistently asinine notion that the first line needs any help at all. Prior to Monahan breaking down, the first line were all on pace to break individual scoring totals; Monahan was on pace to be a point game player, Gaudreau over 100 and Ferland over 50. The problem with the offense this past season was never ever the first line, it was all the other lines.

Steinberg breaks it down:
xuWhEEU.png


Lines go cold. Injuries happen. The goal shouldn't be to get Monahan and Gaudreau an extra 10 points and make the team even more absurdly top heavy; the focus of the offseason should instead be to actually bring in a legit offensive threat for the second and/or third line. Until Bennett or Jankowski can put up significant numbers (45+) over a season, they shouldn't be relied upon to carry a line offensively.
 

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,177
8,337
Padded Room
FOr those wondering why Hamonic was acquired, it's because he is a defense first defenseman, one that skates well, is relatively young and is signed for multiple years at a very good cap hit. We lacked defensemen that actually excelled at the defensive side of the game
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
Its utterly ridiculous to spend those assets on a defensive defenseman, these guys are looking for jobs each year as cheap UFAs or you draft them in later rounds.

Smart teams use their first rounders to find talent because thats pretty much the only way to acquire it.

Flames need their first rounder to find their Boeser / pastrnak / barzal because there is no way any team will trade them to us.

Hamonic is dime a dozen player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief Mucker

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
I don't disagree with the idea that Treliving could have saved his assets for a forward instead of using them all on Hamonic and maybe instead signed/acquired a cheaper option like Hainsey or Cole.

But I do disagree with this persistently asinine notion that the first line needs any help at all. Prior to Monahan breaking down, the first line were all on pace to break individual scoring totals; Monahan was on pace to be a point game player, Gaudreau over 100 and Ferland over 50. The problem with the offense this past season was never ever the first line, it was all the other lines.

Steinberg breaks it down:
xuWhEEU.png


Lines go cold. Injuries happen. The goal shouldn't be to get Monahan and Gaudreau an extra 10 points and make the team even more absurdly top heavy; the focus of the offseason should instead be to actually bring in a legit offensive threat for the second and/or third line. Until Bennett or Jankowski can put up significant numbers (45+) over a season, they shouldn't be relied upon to carry a line offensively.

I completely agree. I feel like the desire to add a top-6 forward is a matter of slotting, not a matter of top-6 scoring itself being a problem. For instance, if you can put a guy on the top line to replace Ferland, then you have the luxury of having Ferland on the third line, which would improve bottom-6 scoring while presumably also helping top-6 scoring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyrano

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->