Treliving

[DFF]

Yes, and I'm saying he isn't bottom six material and is in fact going to get better. He may not, but I'm saying it's more likely he will. hmmm...a 21 year old kid hasn't peaked yet...go figure

If he hasnt shown he gets it after 3 yrs in the league, chance of him getting it is much lower than you think.....

plenty of examples, start with guys like Yakupov....

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

Bennett needs to get way bigger. He isn't a dangler, he plays in the corners and around the net. If he gets physically stronger = stronger on the puck, I think you see a different player. This offseason, all they should have him do is pump weights. Next season, he either plays on the wing with Johnny and Money... or on the wing with Tkachuk and Tavares.

 

[The Gnome]

If he hasnt shown he gets it after 3 yrs in the league, chance of him getting it is much lower than you think.....

plenty of examples, start with guys like Yakupov....

This is an example of something I cannot even begin to argue with. You're saying no player after 3 years in the league can 'figure it out'. wow...I guess waiting on Backlund was a huge waste of time.

 

[Mr Snrub]

This is an example of something I cannot even begin to argue with. You're saying no player after 3 years in the league can 'figure it out'. wow...I guess waiting on Backlund was a huge waste of time.

Backlund was pretty good from his first season, or at least playing to expectations, and by his third he'd cemented himself as more or less the player we see now. You can't really use him as a comparable when his development curve is clearly different from Bennett's.

 

[The Gnome]

Backlund was pretty good from his first season, or at least playing to expectations, and by his third he'd cemented himself as more or less the player we see now. You can't really use him as a comparable when his development curve is clearly different from Bennett's.

What? Backlund didn't top 40 points until his 5th full year in the league, granted he had two years of injury issues, but still played a fair amount of games in those seasons. Even in 2009/10 he played 23 games and had 1 goal and 9 assists. What are you even talking about? He is the definition of a late bloomer.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Mmm, I mean if you look at Backlunds PPG over the course of his career he very slowly climbed from just under 0.5ppg to just over 0.5ppg. I think you could call Backlund a late bloomer, but I wouldn't call him that based upon his production. Instead, it took him time to learn how to not get injured and Butter turned him into a defensive force. Those are the things it took him time to learn.

 

[The Gnome]

Mmm, I mean if you look at Backlunds PPG over the course of his career he very slowly climbed from just under 0.5ppg to just over 0.5ppg. I think you could call Backlund a late bloomer, but I wouldn't call him that based upon his production. Instead, it took him time to learn how to not get injured and Butter turned him into a defensive force. Those are the things it took him time to learn.

You don't say...Look, I get the two are completely different players. It doesn't negate the fact that he is a late bloomer and took a ton of time to develop into something useful. If you want a very similar comparison in terms of playing style, I give you B. Schenn, granted he hit 40 points in his 3rd full year, but it still took him many years to become what he is now and he has a very similar style to Bennett.

 

[InfinityIggy]

You don't say...Look, I get the two are completely different players. It doesn't negate the fact that he is a late bloomer and took a ton of time to develop into something useful. If you want a very similar comparison in terms of playing style, I give you B. Schenn, granted he hit 40 points in his 3rd full year, but it still took him many years to become what he is now and he has a very similar style to Bennett.

I'm not really disagreeing with your main point Gnome, I only chimed in because Backlund came up.

 

[The Gnome]

I'm not really disagreeing with your main point Gnome, I only chimed in because Backlund came up.

Sorry, but HF posters in general annoy me on this topic. It's like everyone expects high draft picks to turn into instant stars like McDavid, Crosby, Stamkos, etc...When in reality, a lot of quality top 6 players take time to live up to their potential. If people do not see something special in Bennett, then I won't even bother arguing I guess. The kid has a lot of skill, he can be physically dominating, and is the toughest flame I've seen pound for pound since Iginla. At the age of 21 he is just starting to develop and grow into his body, meanwhile most seem content to just move on for whatever bag of pucks we can get for him. I just don't get it, not with Bennett, he can turn into a valuable top 6 player, it's worth being patient on imo.

 

[Dack]

Every move of consequence in the Treliving era (leaving out coach hirings) graded. Bored with nothing to do at work so I figured I'd go through it.

Bollig trade: F waste of a pick.

2014 Draft: D awful one NHLer who so far has been a massive disappointment. The only reason it's not an F is because you can't fault them for picking Bennett. The good news is maybe this taught them not to pick big overagers who can't score well with 2nds.

Hiller contract C- first year was good second year was awful

Raymond contract F no good came from this

Engelland contract C too much money and the first two years weren't very good.

Brodie extension A- wish it were a little longer but still a damn fine contract.

GlenX trade A way more value then he should've gotten GlenX was bad that season.

Baertschi trade B Fair value trade. Getting a 2nd for Baertschi was good but ideally he left the division in case he ever actually became a first line player (looks really unlikely).

Backlund contract B- Fair value but nothing special here.

Hamilton trade A+ We couldn't have known Barzal would be available and no guarantee we pick him. Hamilton > Senyshen+.

2015 Draft A looking better than 2014 despite barely having any picks. Still at least one wasted pick (see my avatar) but it was a 7th so no biggy.

Hamilton contract B+ Much lower than what was expected but ultimately slightly less than Hamilton is worth.

Ramo re-signed C

Frolik contract B Slightly overpaid but that's free agency.

Bouma contract D Can't let him go for free but if someone was interested he should have been moved.

Gio contract A- Maybe too long cap hit is great though

Byron waived F Bolig was the guy who was given the last roster spot. Lost a valuable bottom 6er for nothing.

3 Headed goalie monster F sunk the start of the season

Granlund for Shink C I have a hard time getting mad at this move despite us "losing the trade". Granlund is trash and we got a high potential player for him even if it didn't work out.

Hudler trade C- This trade was lukewarm when it happened. I am see if there were any crazy offers for Hudler after his 70+ point season.

Russell trade B+ Good value

Jones trade A+ Forgetable trade that got us a lottery ticket (Matthew Phillips) from a guy who did almost nothing post Colorado and made too much money.


Rittich signing A found money but a pretty low end move

2016 Draft A looking great right now. Almost no wasted picks and have gotten great prospects in the 2nd, 3rd and 6th round.

Elliot trade D+ looked good at the time but Elliot wasn't great in the regular season and sewered us in the playoffs. It would have been nice to get Debrincat or even Jordan Kyrou.

Chiasson trade B Chiasson was a good Pker for us and Sieloff had no value but at the same time Chiasson spent 20 games on our top line so maybe we secretly lost the trade.

Johnson contract C run of the mill

Brouwer contract F two years too long 2.5 million too much I suppose it could be worse.

Monahan contract A- Fair value

Gaudreau contract A wish it were longer

Grossman contract F Start the season off in style

Versteeg contract A He helped us a tonne last year for his cap hit

Bartkowski signed F When he got his PTO I thought it would be just for competition (like Douglas Murray) but nope there he is playing... in the playoffs I guarantee someone better was on waivers that season.

Stone trade B we needed an NHL D man

Lazar trade F brutal value for a guy who is a 4th liner and likely nothing more.

Mike Smith trade A Bled more picks but Smith has been a rock

2017 Draft B+ not quite the homerun that 2016 looks to be but still very solid

Hamonic trade D+ This will no doubt be very controversial but I just don't think Hamonic justifies the price tag especially with the pick unprotected.

Ferland contract C longer would be good so we could keep him or sell him for more value

Foo signed B- Free player

Lack trade C meh

Stone signing D to long and you just traded for a similar player it cost us another future puck to sign this contract.

Versteeg B no reason not to bring him back

Jagr signing A It was fun and a good gamble

Backlund contract B fair value

Shore trade B+ good acquisition but he's barely played so far.

What do you guys think? I think he's a very average GM who could be upgraded (I'd like Fenton or Dubas someone from somewhere successful) but could also be downgraded (Our rivals Gms come to mind.

 

[Baxterman]

I disagree with the Lazar, Hamonic, jagr and Stone grades but think everything is pretty bang on (or close enough not to argue).

Considering that Lazar is a useful bottom 6 player I can't give that move an F. I know I like him a lot more than others and am fine with the move so my grade would be much higher but considering that we have a useful player that is still only 23 I just don't think that it should be an F.

With the Hamonic deal again we got a very good player for a fair value. The only complaint I can see with the deal is if a. it was the right time and b. if we should have gone for a top 6 F instead, but in a vacuum the value was very good if not great for the player we got so at worst it should be a C I would give it a B.

Jagr cost little in terms of money and term but he was flat out bad. I know people like to look back at his time here with rose colored glasses because of who he is and have seen a lot of spinning of how good that 3rd line supposedly was with him on it (it was not) but whether healthy or not he was a bad player during his short time here and a detriment to the team. I am not sure if by adding him it stopped them from adding someone else (also not sure if they could have added anyone helpful anyways) but I do think they had expected him to improve the secondary scoring and he obviously did not do that. Because the money was nothing and contract easily ended plus he wasn't taking the spot of a young kid I can't judge it too harshly but I would say C at the very best likely lower.

Stone again I think in a vacuum is decent value for what he brings, but as you say with Hamonic coming in did we really need that? Also with our top 4 I think we could have gone cheap with the bottom pair and if need be double shift the top 4 to shelter Kulak and player X (not bart). I would say it was more of a C than D. If the contract was bad then I agree with the D but i don't think that money was going somewhere else to help us up front and I think we can move it for a 3rd this offseason.

 

[Dack]

I disagree with the Lazar, Hamonic, jagr and Stone grades but think everything is pretty bang on (or close enough not to argue).

Considering that Lazar is a useful bottom 6 player I can't give that move an F. I know I like him a lot more than others and am fine with the move so my grade would be much higher but considering that we have a useful player that is still only 23 I just don't think that it should be an F.

With the Hamonic deal again we got a very good player for a fair value. The only complaint I can see with the deal is if a. it was the right time and b. if we should have gone for a top 6 F instead, but in a vacuum the value was very good if not great for the player we got so at worst it should be a C I would give it a B.

Jagr cost little in terms of money and term but he was flat out bad. I know people like to look back at his time here with rose colored glasses because of who he is and have seen a lot of spinning of how good that 3rd line supposedly was with him on it (it was not) but whether healthy or not he was a bad player during his short time here and a detriment to the team. I am not sure if by adding him it stopped them from adding someone else (also not sure if they could have added anyone helpful anyways) but I do think they had expected him to improve the secondary scoring and he obviously did not do that. Because the money was nothing and contract easily ended plus he wasn't taking the spot of a young kid I can't judge it too harshly but I would say C at the very best likely lower.

Stone again I think in a vacuum is decent value for what he brings, but as you say with Hamonic coming in did we really need that? Also with our top 4 I think we could have gone cheap with the bottom pair and if need be double shift the top 4 to shelter Kulak and player X (not bart). I would say it was more of a C than D. If the contract was bad then I agree with the D but i don't think that money was going somewhere else to help us up front and I think we can move it for a 3rd this offseason.

I'd bump up the Stone signing to a C or C- but I think it's too much, too long and blocked Andersson (who has the chance to much more impotant going forward) but so long as it's moved this offseason it's fine.

I know you like Hamonic I'm meh on him and don't see it as a win.

The Lazar trade I'd have as a D at highest. 4th liners are available for free all the time I don't think trading a 2nd for a 4th line guy is alright because he's young because at the end of the day these players are so expendable and interchangeable that putting much more value than a late pick into one is dumb.

I still like the Jagr signing I fully realize he's done and wasn't a tonne of help here but hopefully he taught the guys some stuff. On the ice I don't think he was bad. Better than Hathaway at least, his last 10 or so games were bad but he was good when playing on the top line early in the year. Also the result is fairly inconsequential because I don't think it really affected us much this year and won't alter the future of the team.

 

[Lunatik]

I stopped reading when he said every move of consequence and started with the Bollig trade

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Treliving doesn’t know what good forwards look like. I am convinced.

He did a good job adding blue line depth but it took him 3 seasons and a boatload of picks.

Don’t think he’s the guy to fix this roster. He should be a contract advisor. Not a GM!!

 

[Body Checker]

I would like to know if the hamonic lottery protection was an intense negotiation or if Treliving relented easily or didn’t really care.

If it’s the latter then we’re talking jay feaster - Ryan oreilly level of incompetence. Heck even Cheveldayoff protected the Stastny pick; a scenario that was never going to happen anyways.

 

[Anglesmith]

I would like to know if the hamonic lottery protection was an intense negotiation or if Treliving relented easily or didn’t really care.

If it’s the latter then we’re talking jay feaster - Ryan oreilly level of incompetence. Heck even Cheveldayoff protected the Stastny pick; a scenario that was never going to happen anyways.

... which is why the other GM wouldn't have cared.

 

[Dack]

I stopped reading when he said every move of consequence and started with the Bollig trade

I meant any trade bigger than a minor league deal but cool man.

 

[DFF]

This is an example of something I cannot even begin to argue with. You're saying no player after 3 years in the league can 'figure it out'. wow...I guess waiting on Backlund was a huge waste of time.

Read my post again ...that's not what I said.

18 yrs old Bennett performed better than 21 yrs old Bennett.

Sure you can point to Backlund but there are 100s of other failures, Flames prospects included.

ODD is AGAINST Bennett to become a good top 6 player at this point. That's not to say he cant become one but for BT to count on that next year is MORONIC

 

[72hockey guy]

Sorry, but HF posters in general annoy me on this topic. It's like everyone expects high draft picks to turn into instant stars like McDavid, Crosby, Stamkos, etc...When in reality, a lot of quality top 6 players take time to live up to their potential. If people do not see something special in Bennett, then I won't even bother arguing I guess. The kid has a lot of skill, he can be physically dominating, and is the toughest flame I've seen pound for pound since Iginla. At the age of 21 he is just starting to develop and grow into his body, meanwhile most seem content to just move on for whatever bag of pucks we can get for him. I just don't get it, not with Bennett, he can turn into a valuable top 6 player, it's worth being patient on imo.

Perfect Example of this is Josh Bailey. He was kept on the Isles so wang could use his bonuses to reach the cap floor and It Pejorative Slured his progress and confidence. Sometimes it is a struggle for talented Players to adapt in that situation. They need to wait until they get their Man-Strength and regain confidence to really blossom. It's way too soon to say Bennett is all he will be

 

[72hockey guy]

I would like to know if the hamonic lottery protection was an intense negotiation or if Treliving relented easily or didn’t really care.

If it’s the latter then we’re talking jay feaster - Ryan oreilly level of incompetence. Heck even Cheveldayoff protected the Stastny pick; a scenario that was never going to happen anyways.

As a matter of Interest Garth Snow has said it was a bidding war between Edmonton and Calgary, So I doubt protection was even an option. Either do it or he's in edmonton. To this day Oiler fans thought they had him. Given Sekeras injury and Klefboms regression, I'm pretty sure not getting Hamonic cost the oilers the playoffs.

Treliving did what he felt he had to do or run the risk of falling further behind Edmonton

 

[DomBarr]

Read my post again ...that's not what I said.

18 yrs old Bennett performed better than 21 yrs old Bennett.

Sure you can point to Backlund but there are 100s of other failures, Flames prospects included.

ODD is AGAINST Bennett to become a good top 6 player at this point. That's not to say he cant become one but for BT to count on that next year is MORONIC

I hate the Backlund comparison. Backlund stayed most of 2 years after his draft in Sweden before he came over for 1/2 a season in the WHL. Then he spent most of his D+3 year in the AHL before coming up to the NHL for good. Though I think that if Bennett was developed the same way then we would have a different player on the team.

But if you want to make that comparison...
Bennett's D+1 was lost to injury though he had an impact on our playoff series.
Bennetts' D+2 season was significantly better than Backlunds
Bennett's D+3 season was also better
Bennett's D+4 season is comparible to Backlund's

Bennett's D+2 season should have been spent in the AHL except for 2 things...he was still too young to be sent to the AHL that season and 2 because of where Calgary was in their rebuild he was the best choice for the 2nd line LW roster spot.

 

[The Gnome]

Read my post again ...that's not what I said.

18 yrs old Bennett performed better than 21 yrs old Bennett.

Sure you can point to Backlund but there are 100s of other failures, Flames prospects included.

ODD is AGAINST Bennett to become a good top 6 player at this point. That's not to say he cant become one but for BT to count on that next year is MORONIC

Literally the majority of NHL players who are 21 are nowhere near their prime. The fact that Bennett can actually hang in the top 9 as a 21 year old, while not exemplary, is pretty decent. He has youth on his side and can be a dominate force as we've seen on brief instances. I am betting he turns into a great piece for us moving forward, and patience is the way to go. In no way is he a bust at this point. So no the ODDS are not against him, the ODDS are more favorable than not that he succeeds and continues to mature physically and mentally.

BT shouldn't be counting on it next year, as I've already stated many times, we need a top 6 upgrade regardless and better bottom six options. Bennett, based on his progress next year, can slot anywhere into our top 9. With better line mates, and another off season for Janko, Bennettt should be in a better position to succeed. We have holes in our lineup for sure, but a very young kid with lots of promise isn't one of them. He's simply taking a very natural route for a lot of players his age.

Our problems lies in these players Brouwer/Stajan/Stewart/Hathaway/Brodie (having a bad year, can easily rebound under a different coach)/Lazar (though I still see promise)/Frolik (not bad, but should ideally be on our 3rd line). In short, our bottom six needs a massive overhaul, and we need another top 6 option to move Frolik down thus supporting a better 3rd line.

 

[72hockey guy]

I hate the Backlund comparison. Backlund stayed most of 2 years after his draft in Sweden before he came over for 1/2 a season in the WHL. Then he spent most of his D+3 year in the AHL before coming up to the NHL for good. Though I think that if Bennett was developed the same way then we would have a different player on the team.

But if you want to make that comparison...
Bennett's D+1 was lost to injury though he had an impact on our playoff series.
Bennetts' D+2 season was significantly better than Backlunds
Bennett's D+3 season was also better
Bennett's D+4 season is comparible to Backlund's

Bennett's D+2 season should have been spent in the AHL except for 2 things...he was still too young to be sent to the AHL that season and 2 because of where Calgary was in their rebuild he was the best choice for the 2nd line LW roster spot.

agreed, but dont give up hope, thats what i meant by bringing up Bailey, for years Isles fans rode him calling him a bust, when realistically he was developed wrong. players are human beings, and asking an 18 year old kid to excel at the top level in the world with all the expectations that go with it, is inherently unfair.

 

[72hockey guy]

Literally the majority of NHL players who are 21 are nowhere near their prime. The fact that Bennett can actually hang in the top 9 as a 21 year old, while not exemplary, is pretty decent. He has youth on his side and can be a dominate force as we've seen on brief instances. I am betting he turns into a great piece for us moving forward, and patience is the way to go. In no way is he a bust at this point. So no the ODDS are not against him, the ODDS are more favorable than not that he succeeds and continues to mature physically and mentally.

BT shouldn't be counting on it next year, as I've already stated many times, we need a top 6 upgrade regardless and better bottom six options. Bennett, based on his progress next year, can slot anywhere into our top 9. With better line mates, and another off season for Janko, Bennettt should be in a better position to succeed. We have holes in our lineup for sure, but a very young kid with lots of promise isn't one of them. He's simply taking a very natural route for a lot of players his age.

Our problems lies in these players Brouwer/Stajan/Stewart/Hathaway/Brodie (having a bad year, can easily rebound under a different coach)/Lazar (though I still see promise)/Frolik (not bad, but should ideally be on our 3rd line). In short, our bottom six needs a massive overhaul, and we need another top 6 option to move Frolik down thus supporting a better 3rd line.

great post.its easy for fans to be critical when they arent the ones dealing with unreasonable expectations, Not everyone is a McDavid or a Barzal, and even those can take a step back on occasion.

 

[4Flames]

Brad Treliving gets a hard-on from trading boatloads of picks for overated top 4 d-men. Hamilton was good, eventually, but Hamonic has been a let down as of this point. If he can turn it around like Hamilton did, the trade might be more even, but right now, with us out a playoff spot, and with the 1st rounder not being lottery-protected, the trade is super lopsided.