Brad Treliving is doing a great job.
- Thread starter LEAFANFORLIFE23
- Start date
In response to a comment trying to absolve the GM of his failures by attributing our regular season drop off to worse seasons by core players, I pointed out that the core 4 collectively scored more than ever. How each one did individually wasn't all that important to the discussion. I was in fact the one adding the context, after the poster attempted to look only at the core players that did worse, while leaving out the core players that did better, to paint the wrong picture.
Dreakmur
Registered User
He failed to even build a contender. Considering the situation he inherited, that is a huge failure.
Hunter selected Marner.
McMann was brought into the AHL first. That makes him an AHL GM acquisition.
Sounds like Shanahan was trying to convince gullible people that Tre wasn’t involved in the decision.
Of course, it doesn’t matter anyway. The guy was picked after Dubas was fired.
He built a contender. Unfortunately it didn't result in a cup, but still pretty successful considering the team situation he inherited and the league situation he had to maneuver.
Hunter and Dubas selected Marner, after internal discussions with the rest of the team staff about this franchise-altering lottery pick. McMann was brought in by Dubas, and signed by Dubas. Even by your interpretation, it would still be Dubas, because he brought in the AHL GM. It's a bit odd that you're attempting to strip Dubas of credit for things he actually did, while simultaneously attempting to give Treliving credit for something he had no involvement in.
Sounds like you're calling the President of the team a liar in an attempt to convince people of something you have zero evidence of.
Dreakmur
Registered User
He built a team that made it out of round 1 once. That is not a contender.
Dubas was a low-knowledge GM who was fooled by regular season win. He didn’t understand that playoff hockey is different. Many low-knowledge fans also followed him in this delusion.
Hunter selected Marner.
The AHL GM brought in McMann.
There’s lying and there PR management. He did the latter.
(Apologies for the length of this post...obviously, feel free to skip or ignore!)
Well, it seems like Defense for Dubas has gone supernova during the dying days of the season. There's been plenty of hot gas spewed out over the years but perhaps they will finally lose some energy as their shining star fades into the background. Now, I hope you don't mind me indulging myself a bit with a retrospective, as I've slowly moved towards becoming a Treliving supporter and I think analysing the support he gets -- or doesn't get -- as GM (the title of this thread) goes hand-in-hand and overlaps with his predecessor and the attacks against him by Dubas apologists. So, I'm going to take some time to look back on what I've long considered to be the strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon after having observed it on HFBoards for years (mostly) from the periphery.
Why strange and curious? Well, to start, just look at the vast number of posts and the sheer verbiage defending all things Dubas from the small cabal of prolific posters who we're all too familiar with. The time, energy and emotion required is significant. But, how can anyone truly CARE so much for a GM? So much frantic intensity, so many hours typing out lengthy, anonymised arguments defending a GM who:
- is a stranger who doesn't know they exist
- stopped playing organised hockey at age 14
- was given his first job in management as a nepotism hire by the team his dad and grandfather worked for
- few people outside of the Soo ever heard of before he became Leafs Assistant GM
- is not a former player or coach
Please note I'm not rendering judgement (yet) on how good a job Dubas did or didn't do as Leafs GM. I'm pointing out how Dubas' pedigree is seemingly lacking in qualities that make him an obvious choice for such loyal fandom. Please also note I haven't mentioned the most glaring reason Dubas' detractors point to: the disparity between regular season success and playoff failure. This is something that arguably comes after the zealotry had already started to ramp up. For me, it's always been far easier to comprehend why Dubas became and still is scorned by many Leafs fans and pundits.
Perhaps the fandom started, therefore, simply because he was young, photogenic and had successfully marketed himself as having newfangled ideas -- he was hockey's Billy Beane, according to the publicity of the time. Dubas was presented to us as being proficient with fresh-faced analytics and as not reliant on the failed tactics of bumpy-knuckled, gap-toothed old boys (like yours truly). Analytics undoubtedly can be interesting and useful in sports. 'Moneyball' is a good book and an even better movie, but it exaggerates the role of analytics in the onfield success of the A's in those years and understates the contributions of established star players and experienced coaches. Analytics are a pivotal part of NHL teams' approaches, no doubt, but I think it's also vital to have people running a team who personally know what it's like to bleed on the bench. Dubas doesn't. He also always struck me as being a bit shallow and, frankly, fairly juvenile and cliched in the way he articulated himself. Is he shrewder in private? Possibly, although the circumstances of his firing suggest otherwise. Outwardly at least, Treliving appears wiser, less attention-seeking and much more down-to-earth to me -- he seems like he's more of a real hockey guy who's actually been in the trenches.
But, ultimately, it shouldn't be about personalities. We should focus on actual (not just expected!) outcomes, as well as on consistent team success (especially in the post-season) when judging a GM's performance. Of course, the playoff failures are a matter of record. But, for me, Dubas was mediocre at best in the role throughout his tenure, and not just because of the lack of playoff success. The whole Marner contract saga -- the negotiations, the number/term and the aftermath -- sickened me and soured me on Dubas (and on Marner and his camp) in the early going. I grudgingly accepted suspension-machine Kadri probably had to go at the time but hated the soft return. I cringed at the Foligno, Mrazek and Murray moves. I despaired at losing Hyman. Many of us will remember the discussion thread here on Dubas' supposed best moments a while back; I recall a notable absence of posts in there advocating for Dubas' best moves as GM. To this day, I'm not sure what anyone here, particularly his most ardent supporters, would agree on as his 'greatest' move: is it the Muzzin trade, before injuries took their toll? That would get my vote -- it wasn't Dubas' fault he broke down. Is it getting Schenn, O'Reilly and Acciari last year for a few weeks? I liked all three (especially the prodigal son Schenn) but who knows for certain if Dubas could have retained any of them -- I tend to doubt it given the contracts they got elsewhere. Late Dubas-era adds McCabe and Knies are promising and so he deserves credit for both; McCabe is turning into a real beauty, and Knies too, but any continued/future success for both will be developed on Treliving's watch and within his system. So, given the lack of pro hockey experience in his pedigree, the utter lack of playoff success during his tenure, the contract overpayments, the trades for damaged goods and the relative dearth of long-term character, why the never-say-die, past and ongoing Defense for Dubas?
Because of what I saw as the absence of bona fide reasons to become a vocal supporter of Dubas, I was for a long time bewildered by how Dubas could gain such persistent, unconditional fandom when GM/executives like HoF legends Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, Ron Francis, Cam Neely and, yes, Brendan Shanahan have never seemed to be granted the same level of adulation in their current roles. So, I have now come to agree with some of the veteran posters I follow here about how this strange and curious phenomenon was/is actually never about Dubas' qualities. It's simply just about a few attention-seeking posters needing validation -- something commonly found on millions of discussion forums about a zillion different topics, I suppose. For some, the need to say 'I'm right, you're wrong' is a potent stimulus. I would argue that, as Dubas' reputation tanked and the consensus went against him, the few who had fallen for him needed to double down and thus 'Dubasite' entered the lexicon in Leafland.
I tested this theory a while back with a couple of my own posts, which predictably prompted some hyper-emotional reactions about Shanahan and Treliving, depicting the former as an impulsive backstabber who was completely unjustified in firing Dubas, justifying calling the latter a clown from the day he was hired and before he'd made a move as GM, and demonstrating constant fealty to the Defense for Dubas above all. Therefore, in my opinion, the most likely explanation is that fragile egos (and a seemingly limitless amount of spare time!) fuel much of the tedious, strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon.
(I'm grateful to anyone who had the patience to read this -- and thanks in advance for any responses. Hopefully we'll see some significant changes this offseason and I, for one, would like to see Treliving back).
Well, it seems like Defense for Dubas has gone supernova during the dying days of the season. There's been plenty of hot gas spewed out over the years but perhaps they will finally lose some energy as their shining star fades into the background. Now, I hope you don't mind me indulging myself a bit with a retrospective, as I've slowly moved towards becoming a Treliving supporter and I think analysing the support he gets -- or doesn't get -- as GM (the title of this thread) goes hand-in-hand and overlaps with his predecessor and the attacks against him by Dubas apologists. So, I'm going to take some time to look back on what I've long considered to be the strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon after having observed it on HFBoards for years (mostly) from the periphery.
Why strange and curious? Well, to start, just look at the vast number of posts and the sheer verbiage defending all things Dubas from the small cabal of prolific posters who we're all too familiar with. The time, energy and emotion required is significant. But, how can anyone truly CARE so much for a GM? So much frantic intensity, so many hours typing out lengthy, anonymised arguments defending a GM who:
- is a stranger who doesn't know they exist
- stopped playing organised hockey at age 14
- was given his first job in management as a nepotism hire by the team his dad and grandfather worked for
- few people outside of the Soo ever heard of before he became Leafs Assistant GM
- is not a former player or coach
Please note I'm not rendering judgement (yet) on how good a job Dubas did or didn't do as Leafs GM. I'm pointing out how Dubas' pedigree is seemingly lacking in qualities that make him an obvious choice for such loyal fandom. Please also note I haven't mentioned the most glaring reason Dubas' detractors point to: the disparity between regular season success and playoff failure. This is something that arguably comes after the zealotry had already started to ramp up. For me, it's always been far easier to comprehend why Dubas became and still is scorned by many Leafs fans and pundits.
Perhaps the fandom started, therefore, simply because he was young, photogenic and had successfully marketed himself as having newfangled ideas -- he was hockey's Billy Beane, according to the publicity of the time. Dubas was presented to us as being proficient with fresh-faced analytics and as not reliant on the failed tactics of bumpy-knuckled, gap-toothed old boys (like yours truly). Analytics undoubtedly can be interesting and useful in sports. 'Moneyball' is a good book and an even better movie, but it exaggerates the role of analytics in the onfield success of the A's in those years and understates the contributions of established star players and experienced coaches. Analytics are a pivotal part of NHL teams' approaches, no doubt, but I think it's also vital to have people running a team who personally know what it's like to bleed on the bench. Dubas doesn't. He also always struck me as being a bit shallow and, frankly, fairly juvenile and cliched in the way he articulated himself. Is he shrewder in private? Possibly, although the circumstances of his firing suggest otherwise. Outwardly at least, Treliving appears wiser, less attention-seeking and much more down-to-earth to me -- he seems like he's more of a real hockey guy who's actually been in the trenches.
But, ultimately, it shouldn't be about personalities. We should focus on actual (not just expected!) outcomes, as well as on consistent team success (especially in the post-season) when judging a GM's performance. Of course, the playoff failures are a matter of record. But, for me, Dubas was mediocre at best in the role throughout his tenure, and not just because of the lack of playoff success. The whole Marner contract saga -- the negotiations, the number/term and the aftermath -- sickened me and soured me on Dubas (and on Marner and his camp) in the early going. I grudgingly accepted suspension-machine Kadri probably had to go at the time but hated the soft return. I cringed at the Foligno, Mrazek and Murray moves. I despaired at losing Hyman. Many of us will remember the discussion thread here on Dubas' supposed best moments a while back; I recall a notable absence of posts in there advocating for Dubas' best moves as GM. To this day, I'm not sure what anyone here, particularly his most ardent supporters, would agree on as his 'greatest' move: is it the Muzzin trade, before injuries took their toll? That would get my vote -- it wasn't Dubas' fault he broke down. Is it getting Schenn, O'Reilly and Acciari last year for a few weeks? I liked all three (especially the prodigal son Schenn) but who knows for certain if Dubas could have retained any of them -- I tend to doubt it given the contracts they got elsewhere. Late Dubas-era adds McCabe and Knies are promising and so he deserves credit for both; McCabe is turning into a real beauty, and Knies too, but any continued/future success for both will be developed on Treliving's watch and within his system. So, given the lack of pro hockey experience in his pedigree, the utter lack of playoff success during his tenure, the contract overpayments, the trades for damaged goods and the relative dearth of long-term character, why the never-say-die, past and ongoing Defense for Dubas?
Because of what I saw as the absence of bona fide reasons to become a vocal supporter of Dubas, I was for a long time bewildered by how Dubas could gain such persistent, unconditional fandom when GM/executives like HoF legends Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, Ron Francis, Cam Neely and, yes, Brendan Shanahan have never seemed to be granted the same level of adulation in their current roles. So, I have now come to agree with some of the veteran posters I follow here about how this strange and curious phenomenon was/is actually never about Dubas' qualities. It's simply just about a few attention-seeking posters needing validation -- something commonly found on millions of discussion forums about a zillion different topics, I suppose. For some, the need to say 'I'm right, you're wrong' is a potent stimulus. I would argue that, as Dubas' reputation tanked and the consensus went against him, the few who had fallen for him needed to double down and thus 'Dubasite' entered the lexicon in Leafland.
I tested this theory a while back with a couple of my own posts, which predictably prompted some hyper-emotional reactions about Shanahan and Treliving, depicting the former as an impulsive backstabber who was completely unjustified in firing Dubas, justifying calling the latter a clown from the day he was hired and before he'd made a move as GM, and demonstrating constant fealty to the Defense for Dubas above all. Therefore, in my opinion, the most likely explanation is that fragile egos (and a seemingly limitless amount of spare time!) fuel much of the tedious, strange and curious Dubasite phenomenon.
(I'm grateful to anyone who had the patience to read this -- and thanks in advance for any responses. Hopefully we'll see some significant changes this offseason and I, for one, would like to see Treliving back).
He built one of the best teams in the league year after year, through some of the most difficult situations. They were a contender.
No, Hunter did not get free rein to personally decide a franchise-altering lottery pick as a temporary co-interim GM. We know that there were widespread internal discussions, from the scouts, to the coach, to management, that Dubas was an equal part of. Whoever you think brought in McMann (Dubas, or the guy Dubas hired), it still goes back to Dubas.
Yes, he was doing PR management. PR management to calm concerns about the fact that he brought in a GM that couldn't be involved in the team's draft decision.
Clocks started on Brad.
If he doesn't see the 2nd round before the 28/29 season, he won't be seen as the joint best GM the Leafs have ever had.
If he doesn't see the 2nd round before the 28/29 season, he won't be seen as the joint best GM the Leafs have ever had.
Dreakmur
Registered User
The attachment to Dubas is very simple. People tend to gravitate to people with whom they have things in common. The recent wave of calculator-wielding GM-wannabees has attached themselves to Dubas because he is the champion of unqualified future executives. If he can get a job with no experience or expertise, they can too.
MilkofthePoppy
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2022
- 832
- 1,473
Dreakmur
Registered User
Contender for the President's Trophy, but not the Stanley Cup.
Mark Hunter led the draft. You know that.
You are really grasping here. All to fabricate credit for a 3rd line player. If Dubas really did a good job, you wouldn't need to fight to hard to fake credit for Bobby McMann....
I'd ask if you were really gullible enough to believe he wasn't involved, but you bought the Dubas sales pitch, so I know the answer....
Contender for both.
Hunter's focus was the draft, but he did not have free rein to decide the lottery pick on his own. We all know that.
Let's be clear here. You attempted to evaluate a GM's performance by the playoff roster the next GM put together after he's gone. In the process, you claimed to list the players on the playoff roster that he brought in, but conveniently 'forgot' the majority of the list. When I responded with the actual list, you made a big deal about stripping credit for McMann, even though Dubas was the GM when he was brought in, Dubas hired the AHL GM that was here when he was brought in, and Dubas signed him to the NHL contract that he's on. If Dubas really did a bad job, you wouldn't need to fight so hard to unjustifiably strip credit for Bobby McMann.
This pretty much sums it up. He didn't have the offseason I'd have liked but recognized the failings and tried to address it. Didn't do any long term harm, has himself in a pretty good spot to reload and implement a vision this offseason. All we can do is hope for the best.
This season was more of the same. A great situation, a divisional playoff spot (not a divisional win) a disappointing playoff exit. Pretty much table stakes for any GM handed the keys. Don't break it, try and figure a way to get over the hump.
Whether anyone considers it a strike or a foul tip the result is the same- the at bat has started and we didn't move forward, another year has been lost. (Carrying the analogy backward, Dubas had 4 straight foul tips, finally hit a single than got tagged out stepping off the base to argue with the coach).
The Matthews extension essentially bought Tre a 5 year window (including this year). The expectation is to do better than the last guy, and he's got 4 more years to do it.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Contenders win. Pretenders explain why they lost. The Leafs were never Cup contenders.
Hunter was in charge and made the he decision, and he didn’t respect Dubas enough to value his opinion.
Yes. If Dubas did such a great job, he would have left a huge number of valuable players behind. He didn’t do a particularly good job of drafting or developing, and he mostly acquired UFAs who left. It’s not surprising that he didn’t leave many good pieces behind.
I really don't want get caught in this back and forth, but this is objectively wrong.
"Contender" is a status determined before the games are played, fight is fought/ race is run, it's a subjective assessment of a contestant's quality relative to the field going in, and doesn't get revoked after the fact.
Favourite > Contender > Rest of Field (With the odd darkhorse)
Favourites and contenders lose all the time. Sometimes they disappoint, sometimes they get beat by someone else rising to the occasion. But revising history to erase their status going in does sporting discussion a disservice- because it negates the ability to praise David for slaying goliath, or lampoon goliath for choking.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Marner is a god. In the 7th game, he rested.
DarkKnight
Professional Amateur
- Jan 17, 2017
- 32,473
- 50,493
Dreakmur
Registered User
Yes, contenders do sometimes lose…. But don’t lose every year, over and over. If they did, they couldn’t have been real contenders.
They keep saying that they’re so close, but the best they’ve done is 5 wins in a season. That’s very far away from the 16 required.
keonsbitterness
Registered User
I watched this for a minute thinking he'd finally make a shot.
Tak7
Registered User
"Dubas was blowing up the core last summer" is the hill I'm prepared to die on.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
BRUINS GDT 9 AM May 19th, 2024 - Garbage Bag Day at Warrior Arena- Latest: AngryMilkcrates
