King_Canuckian Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I figured this topic really needs its own thread, for those advocating tanking vs. those that say it doesn't work... this topic does not address either side, but rather addresses something that makes tanking vs non-tanking completely irrelevant. Have we forgotten about the NHL's new draft lottery procedures? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795. They have a weighted system where the top 3 draft picks could literally fall to ANY team that misses the playoffs. A team that finishes dead last in the league could still have to pick 4th overall if the lottery does not fall their way. And knowing the Canucks' luck with lotteries (Perreault), this could EASILY occur. Yet, a team could finish 1 point out of a playoff spot, and, although the odds are low, they could land that top draft pick. And further, look at the standings. If the playoffs started today, a team that is 15th overall in league standings (New Jersey Devils) would be on the outside looking in, just because they are 9th in the conference, yet ahead of playoff seeded teams in the West. They could legitimately end up with one of those top 3 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 The great thing about the Pacific is teams can push for the playoffs, but even if they barely miss they're likely drafting in the top 10. McIndoe had a nice piece about this just the other day: Quote Current playoff format has worked so far, but things could get crazy this season You're not supposed to think about playoff matchups in December. You're not supposed to think about them at all, in fact, at least until they're set in stone. If you're a player, you're "looking ahead," which one of hockey's great sins. And if you're a fan, you know not to bother because the hockey gods will take away any matchup they catch you getting too excited about. And yet it was awfully hard not to start thinking ahead Tuesday night, as the NHL rolled out a busy nine-game schedule. All nine featured at least one team that went into the night holding down a playoff spot, with 11 such teams in action in total. We were facing the possibility of some great matchups, including great rivalries Boston Bruins-Montreal Canadiens, St. Louis Blues-Chicago Blackhawks and New York Islanders-New York Rangers. But we have the potential for something even more entertaining: chaos. Maximum chaos. It's going to happen one of these years, and this just might be the one. When the NHL announced the new format in 2013, it was spun as an upgrade over the old six-division setup, one that would encourage rivalries while also making use of wild cards and a crossover system to ensure the playing field was as level as possible. "We tend to use common sense around here and this seems to make a lot of common sense," Columbus Blue Jackets' president John Davidson said at the time. Three years later, the system has largely been a success. We've had two years of exciting postseasons, and while the crossover format always causes a bit of confusion, it hasn't resulted in anything that particularly goes against intuition. In the Eastern Conference, both divisions sent four teams to the playoffs in both 2014 and 2015. In the Western Conference, the Central sent five teams both years, meaning first the Dallas Stars and then the Winnipeg Jets had to temporarily become Pacific Division teams, but even that made sense -- it ensured that the conference's best eight teams went to the playoffs. The system works. Common sense, indeed. But the reality is that the league has been at least a little bit lucky so far. That's because the new format makes it possible for things to get truly weird. For one, there's the possibility of the dreaded double crossover. While many fans still don't realize it, the current format allows for both wild-card teams in a conference to cross over to the other division. That doesn't sound like it should be possible -- the "common sense" approach would be to leave everyone where they are if four teams from both divisions make the playoffs. But that's not how it works, and the Eastern Conference could be heading to a double switch. If the playoffs had started Tuesday, the Bruins and New Jersey Devils would have swapped divisions, although the Devils' shootout loss Tuesday night flipped the two teams back into their own divisions as of Wednesday. (Also, if the playoffs started Tuesday, we'd all be furious because the NHL would have skipped two-thirds of the season. Look, I said it was too early.) But while an Eastern Conference double crossover would offer up some entertainment as fans try to figure out what had happened and why their favorite team is in the wrong division, it pales in comparison to what could happen in the Pacific, where two nightmare scenarios are brewing. The first and most glaring is the one that would see the sixth-place team in the Central miss the playoffs, despite finishing with a better record than the third-place team in the Pacific. Today, the Jets sit sixth in the Central with 28 points, the same total that the Pacific's third-place Vancouver Canucks have. The Jets have played fewer games, and would easily own the regulation/overtime win tiebreaker because the Canucks are relying on the loser point to mask the fact that they lose almost two-thirds of their games. There's a long way to go, but the Jets are on pace to finish with one of the eight best records in the West but still miss the playoffs, a scenario we haven't seen play out since 1992. It gets worse. Let's take a moment to talk about the Los Angeles Kings, a red-hot team that's won five straight and has been virtually unbeatable since a shaky 0-3-0 start. Their comeback win over the Blue Jackets Tuesday night left them with a nine-point cushion on top of the Pacific. They're running away with it, and with the division's other six teams treading water or worse, the Kings aren't far from being able to go into cruise control to ride out the season. But is that a good thing? The team that finishes first in the Pacific will draw one of the wild cards, which will almost certainly come from the Central. Meanwhile, the Pacific's other two playoff teams will face each other. Based on today's standings, the Kings' reward for their division dominance would be a very tough meeting with the Minnesota Wild. Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks and Canucks would get far easier matchups against each other. The Pacific's third-place finisher would get a better draw than the first place team. Common sense! Again, it's only December. The post-November standings don't change anywhere near as much as the league would like you to believe, but they do change a little, and they'll look different in April. This isn't a prediction. It's more like a warning. Things might be about to get weird. If you're a fan of the Jets, or the Kings, or maybe one of those Eastern wild-card teams, that's bad. If you're a fan of confusion, complaining and, most of all, chaos, get ready to enjoy the ride. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14326996/nhl-common-sense-give-way-chaos-stanley-cup-playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 We are all still aware the top 3 are lottery picks. It's just common discussion valid for Canucks fans, awe are not gauranteed a top 3 but still we can increase our odds off drafting in the top 3, let's not forget despite 2 straight wins , we are still 6 points out of last place, and what's the point of playing to a 1st round exit, I rather finish low, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 It would be to secure the 2nd overall pick in case of a draft that features more than one tremendous prospect. If Eichel turns out to be better than or at least to comparable to McD, then that is a successful tank job by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 37 minutes ago, King_Canuckian said: ... Have we forgotten about the NHL's new draft lottery procedures? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795. They have a weighted system where the top 3 draft picks could literally fall to ANY team that misses the playoffs. ... Don't worry, it's been mentioned. Even before the new lottery procedures we've seen multiple teams who weren't last overall win the top draft pick (Edmonton and Pittsburgh to name a few). We have so many tanking threads everything has literally been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Go and try the draft simulator. Being last is no guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Its not about being last its about gaining more picks. Trading expiring vets in Hamhuis and Vrbata COULD mean 3 picks in the top 30. As opposed to 1 pick, missing the playoffs and watching the two players walk in free agency anyway. Hypothetically speaking say they keep them and just miss the playoffs now they're picking 8th overall or they trade both and we find ourselves picking 5th, 26th and 30th. I feel like in the long run we're better off with option 2. This isn't about tanking because in no way am I saying stop trying. It's merely asset management from a team thats not winning the cup this year. Who knows maybe the team plays better without the two and I'd still be happy with that because we'll have gained pieces for our future with players that were going to be gone soon anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 10 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said: Its not about being last its about gaining more picks. Trading expiring vets in Hamhuis and Vrbata COULD mean 3 picks in the top 30. As opposed to 1 pick, missing the playoffs and watching the two players walk in free agency anyway. Hypothetically speaking say they keep them and just miss the playoffs now they're picking 8th overall or they trade both and we find ourselves picking 5th, 26th and 30th. I feel like in the long run we're better off with option 2. This isn't about tanking because in no way am I saying stop trying. It's merely asset management from a team thats not winning the cup this year. Who knows maybe the team plays better without the two and I'd still be happy with that because we'll have gained pieces for our future with players that were going to be gone soon anyway. well they won't be trading Hamhuis now, so that's a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Canuckian Posted December 11, 2015 Author Share Posted December 11, 2015 2 hours ago, flickyoursedin said: Its not about being last its about gaining more picks. Trading expiring vets in Hamhuis and Vrbata COULD mean 3 picks in the top 30. As opposed to 1 pick, missing the playoffs and watching the two players walk in free agency anyway. Hypothetically speaking say they keep them and just miss the playoffs now they're picking 8th overall or they trade both and we find ourselves picking 5th, 26th and 30th. I feel like in the long run we're better off with option 2. This isn't about tanking because in no way am I saying stop trying. It's merely asset management from a team thats not winning the cup this year. Who knows maybe the team plays better without the two and I'd still be happy with that because we'll have gained pieces for our future with players that were going to be gone soon anyway. Trading assets for high picks has nothing to do with tanking. Besides, you're not likely going to move players of Vrbata's caliber or Hamhuis for 1st round picks. They are probably going for 3rd round or later + prospect. I'd say right now the Sedins are the only assets capable of getting 1st round picks for us, and we all know they aren't going to be traded. If you could, you would package a veteran and prospect for a 1st rounder to a bubble team that can realistically fall short, and you hope that they pull off an improbable lottery pick. Scary thought... imagine a team trades for a 1st rounder to a bubble team, and they both fail to make the playoffs, and both win lottery picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 2 hours ago, stawns said: well they won't be trading Hamhuis now, so that's a non-starter. Why not? If he's back in a month (Burr was out a month with his jaw) there's still time before the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I think retaining salary from both players makes their value close to first round picks. If you retained 50% on both players teams like Dallas, Montreal and Chicago could fit one of these guys (top 6 forward and top 4 d) under their limited cap space with only having to move a league min contract/whoever is sitting in their press box every game. Vrbata 50% retained > Vermette and Hamhuis 50% retained > Sekera and both those players fetched 1rst round picks just last year. Some GM's get pretty desperate so I wouldn't say our guys couldn't fetch that much. I mean you're probably right 2nds seem more reality but that happened just last year so one could think it could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 2 or 3 first round picks could be traded up to get a very high pick. This may be better than tanking to get a great pick. It's debateable whether it's better to hold 3 mid round firsts or a single top 3 or 4 pick unless you happen to be Don Sweeney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Prophet Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Crabcakes said: 2 or 3 first round picks could be traded up to get a very high pick. This may be better than tanking to get a great pick. It's debateable whether it's better to hold 3 mid round firsts or a single top 3 or 4 pick unless you happen to be Don Sweeney. A top 3 or 4 pick should get us Chychrun, and that would make a lot of people here happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 9 hours ago, King_Canuckian said: I figured this topic really needs its own thread, for those advocating tanking vs. those that say it doesn't work... this topic does not address either side, but rather addresses something that makes tanking vs non-tanking completely irrelevant. Have we forgotten about the NHL's new draft lottery procedures? http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795. They have a weighted system where the top 3 draft picks could literally fall to ANY team that misses the playoffs. A team that finishes dead last in the league could still have to pick 4th overall if the lottery does not fall their way. And knowing the Canucks' luck with lotteries (Perreault), this could EASILY occur. Yet, a team could finish 1 point out of a playoff spot, and, although the odds are low, they could land that top draft pick. And further, look at the standings. If the playoffs started today, a team that is 15th overall in league standings (New Jersey Devils) would be on the outside looking in, just because they are 9th in the conference, yet ahead of playoff seeded teams in the West. They could legitimately end up with one of those top 3 picks. The new draft procedures have been frequently mentioned in various threads where "tanking" come up. If anything, the new procedures increase the incentives for the Canucks to tank. Before the lottery it was very hard to get the top pick as you had to come dead last in the NHL to "achieve" that. Even last year, only the very top pick was subject to the lottery so the last place team was guaranteed to get at least the second best player. Under the new years, any team that misses the playoffs has a shot at getting the #1, #2, or #3 overall pick. So even if the Canucks finish, say, 21st or 22nd, they still get shot a really good player instead of having to settle for the #8 or #9 pick. Realistically, the Canucks were never likely to finish last or 2nd to last, but they could reasonably finish in the low to mid 20s. Also, the other advantage of giving up on making the playoffs is that you can trade vets for draft picks and have a really strong draft -- maybe getting 2 or 3 players who can really contribute in the future instead of zero or one (as happened to the Canucks for most years in the Gillis regime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo.Horvat53 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm all for tanking, but every game I watch, I will still hope they win. I just cannot program my brain to hope they lose. It's just not possible. I tried my very hardest to be happy when Boston smoked us, but just couldn't. The way I look at it is win/win. If we lose, I start thinking don't worry, a good pick is coming. However if we win, I'm still happy. And as the OP mentioned, even if we barely miss the playoffs, we still have a good chance at a promising player. Add to the fact that I am confident in Benning's drafting ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFleetwoodMack Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Bo.Horvat53 said: I'm all for tanking, but every game I watch, I will still hope they win. I just cannot program my brain to hope they lose. It's just not possible. I tried my very hardest to be happy when Boston smoked us, but just couldn't. The way I look at it is win/win. If we lose, I start thinking don't worry, a good pick is coming. However if we win, I'm still happy. And as the OP mentioned, even if we barely miss the playoffs, we still have a good chance at a promising player. Add to the fact that I am confident in Benning's drafting ability. I'm with this thinking. Hope for wins, but accept the losses as they come. Eg. In 2014, I had hoped that Torts could get the most out of the boys. But once the season was done I was excited that we could pick as high as we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Bo.Horvat53 said: I'm all for tanking, but every game I watch, I will still hope they win. I just cannot program my brain to hope they lose. It's just not possible. I tried my very hardest to be happy when Boston smoked us, but just couldn't. The way I look at it is win/win. If we lose, I start thinking don't worry, a good pick is coming. However if we win, I'm still happy. And as the OP mentioned, even if we barely miss the playoffs, we still have a good chance at a promising player. Add to the fact that I am confident in Benning's drafting ability. Same here. I am just going with 'It is what it is.' As long as the team shows effort I am fine. That is why I am totally cool with all those 1 goal loses. Those shutout loses though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamth Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I hope -NHL eliminates the idea of winning @ losing- this isnt good - when a team tanks it should not be a chance at a great pick. this is very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.