Brad Treliving didn't pull the trigger on a single deal that would mortgage the future in Calgary.
See, we're going disagree a little on who exactly is important for the future, specifically Kylington but also maybe the first rounder.
My impression of the aftermath of the deadline was that Treliving seemed a little too eager, maybe even desperate to get a deal done but I fully recognize a lot of this is still uncorroborated, especially the stuff coming from Canucks reporters around Edler (Kylington being involved and the Flames wanting an extension).
I've long believed this current group needs a proper playoff evaluation before rushing to make changes so naturally, the amount of rumored deals seems bizarre to me. Others will feel different, I'm sure. But again, lots of misinformation and it's hard to know what's true and what's not. Flames media had the Zucker deal as Frolik+1st+something else substantial. That would have been terrible. On the other hand, Russo had it as Frolik plus a pick, which may have been a first or a second, which might not have been as bad, even if Zucker's cap hit is problematic going forward. There was the rumored Simmonds deal which fell apart after he wouldn't waive to come here. The Edler stuff, which ranges from the Flames inquired to the Flames blew Benning away with their offer but Edler wouldn't waive. The Stone deal, which entirely hinges on your valuation of Kylington (I think the whole deadline might).
A lot of people tend to sweep aside or outright ignore the deals a GM tries to make but fails to complete for one reason or the other, which I've never understood. Going back to Feaster (no, I'm not comparing that clown to Treliving) and his attempts with the offersheet, the Richards contract, going after Smyth, etc.), these things can matter. Would any of the rumored deals have crippled the Flames? No and no one's saying that. But they might not have been all that great either and it's okay to ponder that too.
And yeah, Treliving looks into everything but a lot of this stuff seemed to go a lot further than just inquiring. regardless of what he says, it really did seem like he really wanted to make some deals. But that's why the statement was qualified with a '
might'. My sentiment earlier was that
if some of these rumors were true, then there's a good chance everyone looks back at them as 'the best deal was the one that never happened' type of thing and I stand by that.
Not really sure why.
That trade with Boston (Hamilton) worked out just fine.
That trade with the Isles (Hamonic) worked out just fine, albeit dodged a bullet with the lack of lottery protection.
That trade with Carolina worked out just fine.
Doc was looking a bit sketchy at first, but has turned out to be decent.
Not making a deal with Ottawa for Stone appears to have worked out just fine.
Brouwer was less than ideal, and Neal appears to be trending that way, but perhaps those are the mistakes of a rookie GM? Perhaps lessons have been learned?
Uh technically, not one of those trades happened on either the trade deadline or July 1st. They all happened on draft day, in which Treliving has been largely stellar in both trades and actually drafting.
His free agent signings seem to be hit or miss.
Pretty short sighted.
Has Tre been perfect? **** no. But some of our young guys were drafted via picks that Brad got at the trade deadline. Some of the picks Brad picked up deadlines were part of the Hamilton deals. Czarnik and Ryan that have been a huge boon to our offense in February? July 1st signings. Michael Frolik who has been at worst a middle six guy his entire contract here? July 1st.
No GM in the entire NHL has a perfect TDL or July 1st record. Why we expect BT to is beyond me.
Don't think anyone's expecting perfection. But that doesn't mean one can't point out the errors or disagreements. As was said, if lessons were learned, then all is well.
