TheGuardian Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Right off the bat, I don't think that "tanking" will work anymore, but.Without talking about Edmonton, leave that team out of the conversation, has "tanking" worked in the past? IMO, just about every time, whether the team ended up winning the cup later or not, each team ended up with a bonafide star player to market at the least, but many/most teams that "tanked" have gone on to be in the top third of the league for a decade and more than one was playing for a cup. Sometimes the "tanking" was obvious and even openly talked about and as the NHL has/had no rules against "tanking", it was often disguised as "building" the prospect pool or moving contracts. Tampa only "tanked" to get Leclavier, Stamkos and Hedman. the Nucks to get the Sedins, Pitt to get Malkin and Crosby, Washington, Ovechkin, Chicago, Toews and Kane, LA Doughty, on and on. Most times these team would endure two years of ineptitude, but the ploy could be recognized by the trades made over the two years prior. Indeed the issue became so apparent that the league finally introduced modified drafting rules, twice. Chicago was a different type of team because the senior Wirtz had a feud going with the owners of the Bulls and the arena management, they didn't even televise their games, but once senior let his son's take over they were quick to get out of the middle of the pact, drafting from 7 down to 3 then 1. Detroit is sometimes used as an example of astute drafting being the reason for their success, while correct in some details what is over looked is that Detroit traded away many of their first round picks for established top six players to help fill out the roster and much of the Wings success was the mining of European players that were over looked. Washington went from the 18 spot to #1 then back to #14 - Ovechkin Pittsburgh from 21 to the next four years drafting 1 to 5, Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal then back to 20, one season was cancelled which got them Malkin and Crosby, so only a 3 year turn around. LA, in the teens then 4, 2, 5, Doughty, they also traded many picks and prospects for many of their current roster Colorado maybe the best example of building through draft but since 1998 they have had 48 first and second round picks, that's an additional 12 first/seconds AND they still traded for established players. However as I stated, I don't think "tanking" would work anymore. That said the way the team is trending, investigating the top 3 or 4 draft picks this year might not be a total waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Case for: Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh Case against: Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton Conclusion: You cannot merely lose and expect to magically get better. There eventually needs to be a total commitment to winning. Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh did that. Edmonton has yet to do so and they may never will, which is fine, because the 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 3 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Case for: Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh Case against: Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton Conclusion: You cannot merely lose and expect to magically get better. There eventually needs to be a total commitment to winning. Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh did that. Edmonton has yet to do so and they may never will, which is fine, because the 80's. You make a strong case against. I dont think anyone can argue that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 You need to be able to draft outside the 1st round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMJohnJoseph Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Don't forget that the Atlanta Thrashers stunk just as much, and for just as long as the Edmonton Oilers. Tanking only works if you have good veterans around, and w/ the amount of NTC contracts in the NHL, it's difficult to acquire quality vets via trade; also, they'd be hard to sign in free agency. Furthermore, quality vets currently on a team's roster have more dignity than to cooperate w/ "tanking". Anyone that's played competitive sports knows how much losing frustrates players, and any player that it doesn't frustrate is a loser that you don't want on your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Edmonton's tanking fails because they do not know how to build a team. The draft a kid first overall and sit on their hands for the rest of the year. They suck at drafting past the 1st round. They don't draft/trade/sign any bottom 6 forwards who can play their role effectively. Their defense is abysmal. They don't have good goaltending. They haven't developed their prospects properly. I can go on and on but my point is the Oilers are just a failed team from top to bottom. I trust that Benning can build a team properly and we've already seen that. Regardless if we end up in a playoff spot or last play by the end of the season, I think we will be a competitive team next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 2 minutes ago, Patrick Kane said: You need to be able to draft outside the 1st round. This is vital. Otherwise you're just collecting a series of prima donna stars with no 'guts guys' to hammer out the big wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Orcas #Beach4Chych Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 10 minutes ago, TheGuardian said: Right off the bat, I don't think that "tanking" will work anymore, but. Without talking about Edmonton, leave that team out of the conversation, has "tanking" worked in the past? IMO, just about every time, whether the team ended up winning the cup later or not, each team ended up with a bonafide star player to market at the least, but many/most teams that "tanked" have gone on to be in the top third of the league for a decade and more than one was playing for a cup. Sometimes the "tanking" was obvious and even openly talked about and as the NHL has/had no rules against "tanking", it was often disguised as "building" the prospect pool or moving contracts. Tampa only "tanked" to get Leclavier, Stamkos and Hedman. the Nucks to get the Sedins, Pitt to get Malkin and Crosby, Washington, Ovechkin, Chicago, Toews and Kane, LA Doughty, on and on. Most times these team would endure two years of ineptitude, but the ploy could be recognized by the trades made over the two years prior. Indeed the issue became so apparent that the league finally introduced modified drafting rules, twice. Chicago was a different type of team because the senior Wirtz had a feud going with the owners of the Bulls and the arena management, they didn't even televise their games, but once senior let his son's take over they were quick to get out of the middle of the pact, drafting from 7 down to 3 then 1. Detroit is sometimes used as an example of astute drafting being the reason for their success, while correct in some details what is over looked is that Detroit traded away many of their first round picks for established top six players to help fill out the roster and much of the Wings success was the mining of European players that were over looked. Washington went from the 18 spot to #1 then back to #14 - Ovechkin Pittsburgh from 21 to the next four years drafting 1 to 5, Marc-Andre Fleury, Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby, Jordan Staal then back to 20, one season was cancelled which got them Malkin and Crosby, so only a 3 year turn around. LA, in the teens then 4, 2, 5, Doughty, they also traded many picks and prospects for many of their current roster Colorado maybe the best example of building through draft but since 1998 they have had 48 first and second round picks, that's an additional 12 first/seconds AND they still traded for established players. However as I stated, I don't think "tanking" would work anymore. That said the way the team is trending, investigating the top 3 or 4 draft picks this year might not be a total waste of time. Glad you see building a winning team does not have just ONE aspect. Other examples of teams that have sucked and picked up top picks are Columbus, Florida,Islanders, Nashville and Winnipeg. As you pointed out Colorado had/has had drafted great players but still are no better off. Even with teams that have elite players on their team(Washington,Pittsburgh) it still does not guarantee them anything. Pittsburgh has won a cup in 2009 but what since then?What about Ovi's Caps? To me spending to the cap is the real tell tale sign a team is willing to build a winning team. Whether you draft them,trade for them or pick them up via UFA/RFA you still need to pay them. Where does it matter where a player comes from as long as he can help your team? The other main concern is that the GM brings in the right players which will help and not be a detriment to the team. We have a few of those players who need to go for the team to become better. Contracts have hampered our ability to move out those who do not help and bring in those players that we need. I am thinking with our better draft picks and our upcoming cap space will allow us to improve the team. Balance is key and we are getting closer to that with a GM who has an understanding of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 What works is knowing all the personel out their - from top to bottom - and understanding that team building runs from top to bottom. You can tank all you want, but if you still have the old school Coilers club running your franchise, or a dimwit like Murray in Buffalo, you're still have a long and painful sh1tstorm in front of you that is not guaranteed to lead to anything but a long continuum of incompetence regardless of a premier asset or two. People always look to saviours when life turns down turd road. One high draft pick gives a franchise......one high draft pick. So no - tanking is not and should not be an end in itself - and arguably it's the stupidest approach a team can take. Rebuilding vs retooling on the other hand is a different debate entirely - and should have literally nothing to do with obsessing over draft position or deluding oneself that a single draft pick will bring a franchise the promise of contending. This much has been beaten to death on these boards, and yet there remains endless streams of tank dreamers that need themselves a saviour. No team has ever won a thing on tanking alone. There is simply so much more to turning around a franchise. Good, well managed franchises leapfrog the tanking jokes in short order - because all the other assets a team has - aside for their 1st overall saviour - are also vitally important. So it's a simple no, tanking does not work - it's simply the case that a premier young player might become a vital piece of a well-built franchise - however, it's also exceedingly obvious that it's also not necessary to have a tank piece in order to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Tanking certainly worked for the Pens...not so much for the Oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milk and honey Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 32 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Case for: Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh Case against: Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton, Edmonton Conclusion: You cannot merely lose and expect to magically get better. There eventually needs to be a total commitment to winning. Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh did that. Edmonton has yet to do so and they may never will, which is fine, because the 80's. 2 Tampa. Boston, Washington, Canucks(Sedins), Don't forget about Toronto, NYI, Florida, CBJ and Arizona/Phoenix as well. Atlanta as mentioned before. St Louis took a long time to rebuild, but I guess it kinda paid off as now they have a decent squad. Basically, 50/50 chance at best(Canucks, Washington could be on or off the list) . Look at what the ducks did. They had an awful year and I believe got 5th overall and didn't have a ton of prospects coming up. They drafted well, traded Ryan for more young help, gave youth a chance and then of course added Bieksa and Kesler lately. One could argue the ducks did what JB is trying to do. Although Getzlaf, Perry were younger then the Sedins when they began this process but the same idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Tampa? NYI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 10 minutes ago, Chalky said: Tanking certainly worked for the Pens...not so much for the Oil. In 2009 for the Pens? What since then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 It could be argued that it did before but with the new lottery system I don't know if it's worth it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 7 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Tampa? NYI? So the Isles last won in 1983 and TB back in 2004. Not really relevant to this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 2 minutes ago, EdgarM said: So the Isles last won 1983 and TB back in 2004. Not really relevant to this conversation. Everything is on the table, really. The Lemieux tank job is the most classic example. Another factor to consider is a push from ownership to acquire a money-making franchise player. Win or lose Stanley, they sure won at the box-office, until salaries went sky-high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 9 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Everything is on the table, really. The Lemieux tank job is the most classic example. Well you should look at all the failures to "tanking" then because you will probably find a lot more failures than you would winners. Also, what would you classify as a team tanking"? Some teams just plain old "suck" period. TB was an expansion team who sucked for quite few years "not on purpose" for 12 years I would guess. Don't really think you could say the 83' Islanders tanked on purpose either. Back then there was no cap and teams sometimes could not afford top end players whether they wanted to or not. You should really do more reasearch on some of your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 7 minutes ago, EdgarM said: In 2009 for the Pens? What since then? I was referring to Mario and Sidney Crosby. The Pens have won the "tank game" I would suggest Chicago wasn't "tanking" in 2009/10, they just had a terrible owner in Bill Wirtz and they sucked so hard for so long they inadvertently ended up with a Toews and Kane. The Oil have tried to tank, and they have a great roster, but years of inept asset management from a joke of a management team has seen it wasted. Buffalo tanked for Eichel and Reinhart, we'll have to see how that works out. The Leafs are tanking right now! Again, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. For the record, I don't like the term tanking. I have no issue with rebuilding, but no player or coach will intentionally lose, it's just not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Just now, EdgarM said: Well you should look at all the failures to "tanking" then because you will probably find a lot more failures than you would winners. Also, what would you classify as a team tanking"? Some teams just plain old "suck" period. TB was an expansion team who sucked for quite few years "not on purpose" for 12 years I would guess. Don't really think you could say the 83' Islanders tanked on purpose either. Back then there was no cap and teams sometimes could not afford top end players whether they wanted to or not. You should really do more reasearch on some ofyour arguments. Agreed. But a big, fast, uber-skilled player like Lemieux is generational and you see a greater urgency to pull off a tank in that case. However, Lemieux won no cups in Pittsburgh until they had went to a 100% commitment to winning cups, top-down. Scotty Bowman brought in, various playoff-proven vets, 'grit', a lot of expense, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.