Two years into his tenure as Leafs general manager, Brad Treliving finds himself in the hot seat. After producing what was, arguably and marginally, the Leafs best season of the Auston Matthews era, it has been followed by what is inarguably their worst. One last hurrah for Brendan Shanahan and the core four era came at a steep cost.
The Leafs appear broken, rudderless, aimlessly drifting down the standings. Two of the next three years’ worth of first-round picks have already been sold down the river; lifelines appear few and far between. Worse still, the Leafs are failing in areas that Treliving prioritized as foundational pillars of their new identity. The Leafs are a bad defensive team that still does not fight for each other when the time comes. Were the Leafs falling because of the areas in which Treliving deprioritized, the conversation might be different.
Muted by a re-signed apathy, fans are left to ponder some existential questions. Is it time for the Leafs to move on from Treliving? Is he the worst Leafs GM in recent memory? Should he be responsible for the attempt to turn things around? Discerning any answers forces us to ponder the question of what makes a good GM.
Autonomy?
An important thing to remember is that GMs must answer to others. The ownership, however it is represented, will have priorities, stipulations, limitations, and aptitudes of its own. A president might even bridge the gap between these two as well. Regardless of how much autonomy any GM is viewed as having, they must still ask permission, or at least align themselves with ownership in some capacity.
For Treliving, his tenure as GM comes after a long stretch of Kyle Dubas as GM, and as the even longer Brendan Shanahan presidency came to an end. Both received a good amount of criticism in Toronto, though their track records elsewhere continue to speak for themselves. Of course, the Leafs struggles this season do not help either. Both have a hand in some of the issues that lead to this point as well.
Shanahan and Dubas turmoil
In particular, the culture of the core four era Leafs is often tied to Shanahan and Dubas. There were times when the two seemed to be at odds, Shanahan vetoing or influencing Dubas’ decisions. Dubas often gets the brunt of enabling the perceived entitlement of the Leafs stars. But Shanahan went down with his commitment to the core four. After Dubas’ dramatic exit, it was solely on Shanahan to trade Mitch Marner before his no movement clause kicked in.
Shanahan might have seen the writing on the wall as his contract wound down. Some ownership changes above saw Keith Pelley take over operations of all of MLSE’s teams. Shanahan, like Toronto Raptors president Masai Ujiri, was on thin ice from that moment.
When Treliving was hired, it was quite late in the league year. In fact, he was not even allowed to sit at the Leafs draft table in the first round, due to the odd process of his quick move from the Calgary Flames to the Leafs. Shanahan would have known it to be his last chance, and Mitch Marner’s contract status underscored the feeling that the 2024–25 season would be the last dance.
Year one successes
It is easy to see how that atmosphere led to aggressiveness on the Leafs part. One might argue that, while belief in the core four waned each season, this was exactly the time to be aggressive. Going big on the final season of the Leafs most talented core in the salary cap era, the end looming with Marner’s contract status, does have some logic to it.
While some might be critical of that concept, believing the idea of the core four failed already, that criticism does not necessarily fall on Treliving. To an extent, Treliving navigated the Marner situation as well as possible. Treliving, reportedly, tried to re-sign Marner and pivoted to trying to trade him last season. In the end, Treliving was able to scratch and claw his way into getting the Vegas Golden Knights to trade for Marner. Getting Nic Roy, and subsequently the draft picks that Roy was traded for, was Treliving making the best of a bad situation.
Other changes went over well in the first season. The Leafs reached maturity, becoming a strong defensive team. This led to winning the Leafs Atlantic Division for the first time, and delivered what was marginally their best playoff run.
GMs cannot play the games. They have no effect on whether their team wins a given game. It is their responsibility to build a roster that is, or at least seems, to have a chance at doing so. To an extent, last season showed that Treliving did that. Granted, the Leafs were in exactly that position for a better part of a decade before Treliving took over.
Year two collapse
Given Treliving’s unflattering record with the Calgary Flames, an optimistic expectation would be that he brought a different style to the team that would help push the overall ceiling. To that point, Treliving was successful. Still, towards the end of his second season as Leafs GM, it has been anything but successful.
Treliving obviously overextended his roster; the future picks dealt away look like prime assets lost for very little return. The result is disastrous, the Leafs unable to establish anything resembling the identity that Treliving built towards. The roster is old, depleted of growing reinforcements and future picks, and career primes another year removed.
Despite the departure of Shanahan, the mandate from ownership remained quite similar. Pelley was intent on pushing for a Stanley Cup, using the same rhetoric of aspirational contention that had followed the Leafs the past decade. With so many of their assets pushed to the moment, the goal remained unchanged.
Considering the damage done this season (the Leafs are 14 points out of a playoff spot), not to mention in the future, many fans have seen enough from Treliving. There is very little belief that there is even a small path towards significant improvement for the Leafs, and even less that Treliving is the one to navigate it.
Is Treliving good as gone?
Based on this disappointment, it seems quite likely that Treliving is done as the Leafs GM. Coach Craig Berube remains in place, but it seems even less likely that the coach will return. Perhaps a new coach could reinvigorate the roster, and some changes might have the Leafs outlook looking much more positive next season.
With two future first-round picks gone and Auston Matthews under contract for another two seasons, it is likely that the Leafs will look to get back to the top of the standings as soon as possible. If Pelley decides to fire Treliving, he will likely be searching for a replacement who shares that vision.
Putting a new GM in place might have to happen soon. Treliving joining so late in the yearly schedule put the Leafs at a big disadvantage, and that point is quickly approaching. With reports that the Leafs do not wish to leave Treliving in power without an extension, there is undoubtedly change coming soon, one way or another. With Matthews’ contract status, it will be vital for the Leafs to have a GM who can handle that relationship. History and familiarity might play huge factors here, which emphasizes the need to be decisive.
In short, next season the Leafs will come back with similar expectations, choosing to see this season as an aberration more than it redefines their reality. If the Leafs hired a new GM this offseason, they would do so under that prerogative. Perhaps a different GM could target better players, though that is no guarantee, but the mission statement will remain.
Should the Leafs just rebuild?
Some have already lost faith in the current team, and instead are eyeing some kind of rebuild. One might argue that the quickest path towards a Stanley Cup goes backwards first. Unfortunately, without their own firsts for two of the next three seasons, any temptations of doing so are extinguished. Any attempts to rebuild will have to wait and will likely coincide with Matthews’ next contract in some manner. Any change to the Leafs overall philosophy will take more time to materialize.
This is how the rationale for extending Treliving becomes possible. Yes, he authored some devastatingly poor trades and his history with the Flames does him no favours. Still, seeing as the Leafs will look to reprise their efforts for immediate contention, a different GM might push the timeline of the entire operation back. New GMs will often be cautious to learn the ins and outs of their new team before making huge changes.
At the same time, this timeline might affect Pelley as well. Pelley could save himself from starting the clock with his first GM hire, and potentially prove to the league and future candidates that one poor season will not be an automatic dismissal. He could hire a president in the future to absolve him of some of the heat, but that appears to be a position that ownership sees as redundant.
In other words, it might take another poor season for the Leafs to question their beliefs. This would open the floor for Pelley to interview potential GMs with a different vision for the team.
What happens if Treliving is replaced?
If Treliving is replaced this offseason, and next season goes poorly, it might look poorly on the new GM. Might they have to pivot their views, or might they be more aggressive to avoid rebuilding? When things look as poorly as they do right now, there are no easy answers.
The brightest hope stems from the fact that next season will begin at zero, giving the Leafs a chance to move forward. Until then, there will not be a lot of reasons for optimism. A new coach, a new GM, and some new players might serve as a refresh. Even if certain moves pay off in the long term, the short term will be scrutinized through the lens of time running out. The end of the wick draws nearer.
Hypothetically, a perfect GM would help the Leafs regardless of the mess above or below them. Small wins on minor deals will be just as vital as those that grab headlines. In reality, no GM will have a perfect track record, and they are very much at the mercy of their circumstances.
Vector
The onus passes to Pelley, who must decide the best course of action. A short extension might give Treliving a year or two to try to dig himself out of his own mess. A quick firing might paint the way Pelley’s leadership is viewed. A new GM might not have time to make the changes required before the team is forced into some deeper soul-searching. Perhaps Pelley will hand the keys over to one of the Leafs assistant GMs, trying to avoid this issue.
Regardless of what Pelley decides, there will be scrutiny. It will have to convey enough strength that players and fans are eager to renew optimism, that there is something other than two years’ worth of a slow-motion car crash before the Leafs can decide to be bad on purpose.
There is, of course, some chance that the Leafs can find their way back to their winning ways, but the goal is to reach beyond that. After the injury to Matthews, including the lack of response afterwards, it seems increasingly unlikely that this roster has what it needs to fight its way back, let alone beyond.
To be competitive for the next 2 or more years, the Leafs obviously need good leadership on the ice which they clearly have not had for the past 10 years. NONE of the current players with a letter should have that letter. A good team has good leaders at the top and Matthews and Nylander are not leaders, let alone good ones. One or both MUST be replaced with good Canadian leaders for this Canadian team. Think Darryl Sittler, Doug Gilmour, Wendel Clark, Dave Keon. A new president would stall change for too long. A new (GOOD!) GM is needed ASAP. For the following two huge failures that were so obvious all along and yet, Treliving did them, he needs to go… A big priority they were talking about a year ago was size. Not only have they not prioritized it but they don’t seem to understand why they want size! They got Carlo at 6’5″ and 227 lbs but he plays like he’s 5’8″ and 160 lbs! They got Joshua who hits but he doesn’t seem to do that well in battles or scrums and doesn’t really fight. They “traded” for Roy who has size but is not effective in battles, scrums and doesn’t fight either. They got Maccelli who is not size at all. So, it’s a huge fail on getting size! The other huge fail was the trades at the deadline for Laughton and Carlo. Treliving’s had his shot for the past year in building a team and it’s been a failure, in large part due to the two above reasons along with not providing a better RW for Matthews than Domi or Maccelli and bringing back exactly the same defense then not responding to Tanev being out almost the entire year. All of this has been discussed tons along the way yet he did not address any of it.