The Tanking Arguement Corrected (Discussion)

[A NEW BEGINNING]

I think it is way too easy for people to define Tanking as deliberately going to the bottom of the league for the purpose of collecting high draft picks. Re: Canucks trading Veterans.

My reason for saying this is as soon as you suggest selling off high valued assets, people start suggesting that is tanking. I would argue that it may not be, and by moving veterans that are at or near the end of their careers it is only good management.

Take in case, our players over 29 years of age, how many years of play do they have left and would they contribute to a winning environment?

This of course that would depend on their supporting players. So basically, as our older players age, our young players must improve at the "NHL" level. Looking at our Canucks, we do not seem to have too many of these players who can step up into genuine high level players.

Edler, Tanev and Horvat can honestly be the only 3 that are at the level, that would be considered that.

The rest, Baertschi, Kassian, Sbisa, Corrado, Kenins, Clendening, Vey, even Lack etc. are all unproven, and/or are inconsistent.

My view, is that the Veterans must be moved for assets before they become too old. Ultimately, trading these assets at the trade deadline would yield a much better return, and 2016 being a even stronger draft, may give you a better bang for your buck, but the noise of a mass sell off would be deafening.

I would like to see Benning target a high draft pick this year, to add another multiple 1st round draft year to our prospects list. To me Trading a high value Vet or 2 would be a good asset management.

My dream would be to see Benning complete this by moving the remaining tradable vets out in 2016 at the deadline or at the 2016 draft.

Example:Moving Hamhuis, and Lack at the draft would be enough this year, unless moving a lesser vet could be added as well. By moving these, who could be replaced by UFA's or promotion from within, or both, we could still say somewhat competitive, yet still adding multiple high end picks.

So in conclusion, I can not see how this is tanking, as it is not deliberately heading for the bottom, aka Buffalo and Edmonton....this is asset management... not tanking.....as I would think we would remain in somewhat our current trajectory or rather decline

[Guest]

I have done my very best to avoid asset management in my professional life only to have creep into one of my escapes. Thanks a lot!

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

if we keep the veterans, how far can this team realistically go? That's the question Mr Benning and his staff has to answer. I'm not answering it but in all honesty. Let's say, this team grabs a Franson and Ward, will this team be good enough to compete in the West? If Benning doesn't sell he has option b, which is picking up free agents. Therefore, depends on what path Benning takes. I hope he picks option a, and trades some of the veterans.

[Baggins]

1 - High end picks come from bad teams. What are the odds of a player waiving his ntc to go to a bad team?

2 - Why would a bad team trade their high pick for an aging player approaching free agency?

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

1 - High end picks come from bad teams. What are the odds of a player waiving his ntc to go to a bad team?

2 - Why would a bad team trade their high pick for an aging player approaching free agency?

Any team will who is a elite team or a team who was missing a certain piece would make the trade for Hamuis. There is no way Canucks' get a top 10 in this years draft, but a Hamuis could get you a 20th to 30th range draft pick.

Also doesn't necessarily have to a pick, it could be prospects. eg Shea Theodore? Maybe the Ducks feel their window is closing and need a veteran guy to help them? Something like that is totally possible.

[BI3KSA-]

There are many, many top players that are over 29. If teams just sold off their vets that were over 29 the entire contender landscape would dramatically change. Kesler, Perry and Getzlaf are all over 29 should the Ducks sell them off and start over, cause thats "good" asset management? Decent/good/elite 30 year old players usually have 5-10 more solid years left, 2-3 of which are prime years of their careers. So I dont think the logic that a team should sell off aging players when they hit a certain age is sound.

That being said, I do think we need to slowly sell off vets over the next 3 years and transition to a much younger core. This year it should probably be one of either Lack or Miller, as well as one or all of Higgins, Hansen and Richardson, should be transitioned out and replaced by younger plays that are ready. Next year at the latest it should be a massive overhaul of our defense. The year after it should be a possible transition from the Sedins being the first line, or possibly even the Sedins retiring. Depending on how we are doing by the deadline this year the overhaul of the defense might happens sooner, along with Vrbata and maybe other forward vets going as well.

[BI3KSA-]

1 - High end picks come from bad teams. What are the odds of a player waiving his ntc to go to a bad team?

2 - Why would a bad team trade their high pick for an aging player approaching free agency?

I'd say San Jose, Columbus and Colorado arent nearly as bad as their draft pick placing indicates, and they could possibly be looking for other players to get over the hump, all three of which draft in the top 10. Then you got Dallas, Calgary, LA, Boston, Florida, Oilers, Ottawa and the Jets all picking in the mid area that could all possibly want to get over the hump/improve.

You're also not mentioning the fact that players could be traded to contenders for higher picks and multiple higher picks could be traded for lower picks, too.

Anything is possible.

[24K PureCool]

Selling off all your vets especially when they are just at the 30 age mark cannot be more a indication of a team tanking. Tanking always start from the top where managers get rid of all of their seasoned players and throw in bunch of rookies thus leading to failure. No coach or player will intentionally lose games, it is all about creating the environment that will cause losing no matter how hard a coach or player try just because either the talent is not there or a lack of experience. What the OP suggested, unless I completely misread it and that is totally possible seeing how it is 0am here in the the land of the blackhawks, is tanking in its finest form.

[Quoted]

Selling off all your vets especially when they are just at the 30 age mark cannot be more a indication of a team tanking. Tanking always start from the top where managers get rid of all of their seasoned players and throw in bunch of rookies thus leading to failure. No coach or player will intentionally lose games, it is all about creating the environment that will cause losing no matter how hard a coach or player try just because either the talent is not there or a lack of experience. What the OP suggested, unless I completely misread it and that is totally possible seeing how it is 0am here in the the land of the blackhawks, is tanking in its finest form.

I agree if the idea was to move/sell/retire all of the "vets" (a term like "core" which can mean a wide range of things depending on the person). Moving one or two from the current roster is not enough to change to potential of the team in a positive way. Trading too many ends up in that darker place of missing enough leadership and experience to mentor the younger players. That balance is the huge challenge for the current management group. Unfortunately, I think bigger changes should have been made last year but with all the new execs and coaches that wasn't realistic. It was a bit of a wasted year in that way IMO and not the "vets" are a year older and just a bit harder to move.

[LaBamba]

Drafting in the later rounds is what builds championship teams, there are plenty of franchise players after the top 15.

You need to build a blueprint of what a Canuck is and draft those players that fit that mold.

[Winter Soldier]

Any team will who is a elite team or a team who was missing a certain piece would make the trade for Hamuis. There is no way Canucks' get a top 10 in this years draft, but a Hamuis could get you a 20th to 30th range draft pick.

Also doesn't necessarily have to a pick, it could be prospects. eg Shea Theodore? Maybe the Ducks feel their window is closing and need a veteran guy to help them? Something like that is totally possible.

Whut?

[Spotted Zebra]

The year to tank was 2013.

You'd only have to put up with 48 games with losing and you'd have your pick on a guy like mackinnon or jones

[J.I.A.H.N]

Players on the Block 2015 Draft

Hamhuis and Lack for Edmontons 2015-15th OA and 2015-33 OA

Higgins for a late 2nd or early 3rd

Players on the Block 2016 Trade Deadline

Vrbata late first, early 2nd

Hansen 3rd rounder

[Monty Mahla]

the way you saying it sounds like a game...of course JB needs cap space, and need more promising player...but doesnt mean he will trade rest vets by 2016...he wants a younger team but also a winning team...its like learning to drive the car for our prospects...everybody is not a nhler..you have to learn it the right way... in coming 3 years you'll see the difference..you saw the first hit this year rest is coming....talking about trading they gonna trade one goalie and a d-man..we have 9 d-man...hopefully we move up this year in the draft and prolly keep our pick too....you cant just trade players like that..even if you can you shouldnt ..dont talk like u know what should be done...benning knows better..and u seen his work...KEEP CALM AND LET BENNING DO THE JOB...

[DeltaSwede]

I agree with you that 2016 is the bigger year for Benning in terms of the draft and player movement around the deadline. I think the Canucks will struggle next season and by trade deadline will see them move a few bigger pieces in return of draft picks and prospects. - They've got quite a few! (Burrows, Vrbata, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Miller)

With the rumours that the Canucks are in the market for draft picks this year I also see some smaller pieces move around the draft this year. I can see Lack being traded and I can also see Higgins traded. Lack should return an early 2nd round pick and Higgins should return a 3rd.

At #23 I am sure the Canucks will get a quality player and I really hope they push on to acquire picks in the 2nd round as I believe there are plenty of gems to be found there (Roslovic, Dunn, Bracco, Juulsen, Fischer, Spencer, Pilon, Carlsson, Chlapik). The Canucks shouldn't deliberately tank, but it feels like it is the natural direction they are going to go in. The core only have a few years left in them and those players need to be replaced eventually.

This just has to be the year that Edmonton climbs out of the basement and makes an impact, LA will most likely not miss the playoffs, and Calgary have nowhere to go but up. Teams that were behind the Canucks are quickly catching up and with the diminishing quality in the line-up I don't expect another playoff appearance next season.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows

Baertschi - Bonino - Vrbata

Dorsett - Horvat - Kassian

Kenins - Richardson/Vey/UFA - Hansen

[Baggins]

Any team will who is a elite team or a team who was missing a certain piece would make the trade for Hamuis. There is no way Canucks' get a top 10 in this years draft, but a Hamuis could get you a 20th to 30th range draft pick.

Also doesn't necessarily have to a pick, it could be prospects. eg Shea Theodore? Maybe the Ducks feel their window is closing and need a veteran guy to help them? Something like that is totally possible.

I guess you didn't understand my response to the op at all. The op said "high end" picks. I don't see drafting 20 to 30 as "high end". I'm said players with ntc's don't typically waive to go to bottoms feeders and bottom feeders don't typically trade their high picks for aging vets heading towards free agency. Understand now?

[tas]

right now the organization is most likely focused more on marketing than on winning, and rightly so. the tortorella season did tons of damage to the team financially, with fans leaving in droves, and while the changes this past offseason and the surprisingly successful regular season showed some promise, the fans remained skeptical and the playoffs felt like more of the same old, same old.

i can't imagine how the front office could possibly find a way to successfully sell the current group to this fan base again. there's just way too much baggage there.

if they want to get fans excited again, which certainly seems to be their intention, they need to move out at least 2 core pieces, promote at least 1-2 exciting rookies, and probably make a big splash in free agency or on the trade market to acquire a new, younger, "name-brand" core piece for the future.

this is a business, and making changes in this case isn't about success on the ice, it's about success on the ledger.

[A NEW BEGINNING]

It is not simply trading away everyone, and as I have suggest, I have not suggested trading away Hank or Dank, Nor Burrow or Bieska for the mere fact they have character and leadership skills, and do give the team some normalcy.

I believe that the UFA's the Canucks do bring in over the next few years should be of strong character, and have immense drive , and include size in what they bring.....McQuaid comes to mind when thinking of this.

Long term, I am not about buying and selling, but short term (Next 2 -3 years) I would like to see some serious movement,

As we do grow, Edler and Bonino should be considered as well, although not in the first 2 years or at least not unless there is a significant return , I see this as a journey, and not something that is done overnight.

So, yes this is my opinion and I am willing to wait and see what Benning does, but what I was getting at was, is that moving vets for younger assets, being they be picks or other prospects, does not necessarily signify a "Tanking"

[Mongrel]

I don't think history would suggest this is a working strategy.

[Warhippy]

A sell off is not how a team needs to do this.

I was an advocate of selling assets to let the team sink or swim on its own merits last season and I am an advocate of the same this year

We can do without all of or any combination of

Higgins

Matthias

Richardson

Bieksa

HamhuisHansen

Miller

And fill these players in from within our own organization.

People whinging about veteran depth will need to understand that we still have veteran depth and that the bulk of these players could be gone within a season or two anyways

I would add Vrbata in there but the scoring depth is always needed.

By shuffling these players out and introducing a prospect or three per season we are in fact facilitating the rebuild so many are calling for without visibly tanking or having a fire sale.

Fact is after this season we will be playing without a top line as the Sedins will be playing in the twilight of their career thus leaving us without a line of players capable of netting 80-90 points per season. We will be drafting on our own merits and I think most can see the writing on the wall in terms of the standard cyclical upswing/downswing of sports teams.

We were good for a long time, now we're going to be mediocre or worse while we reorganize. Our top 10 picks will come in the next 5 seasons based on the merits of our own roster as is, not with a fire sale a sell off or the like. but by the introduction of 1 two or 3 players per season to transition older guys out.

Again, the time to tank is in the off season and even then it is just questionable asset management as anything can happen during the course of a season.