TimberWolf Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 On 2016-02-10 at 11:20 AM, Canucks Prophet said: The irony of all this is incredible. Every time the Canucks lose, a bunch of you guys cry and tell us that the Canucks should tank. But when another team (that you personally dislike, for whatever reasons) actually does tank, you call them shameless and pathetic? It's crazy. It's almost like we have thousands of individual posters that speak for themselves with individual opinions and not a hive mind that is bipolar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, TimberWolf said: It's crazy. It's almost like we have thousands of individual posters that speak for themselves with individual opinions and not a hive mind that is bipolar. Free thought in this day and age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Canucks Prophet said: The irony of all this is incredible. Every time the Canucks lose, a bunch of you guys cry and tell us that the Canucks should tank. But when another team (that you personally dislike, for whatever reasons) actually does tank, you call them shameless and pathetic? Has it ever occurred to anyone that if we tank now, we might have to tank for several years before we reach playoff success again? Tanking is cancerous, and many teams have shown that it's hard to get out of that system. This is why I'm so happy that our young guys are giving 110% every night, and saying NO to the tank mentality. We don't want that garbage thinking on our team and franchise, leave that to the Oilers and whoever else wants it. We might not make the playoff,s but it's not for a lack of trying, that's for sure. The Canucks won't tank. Benning and Linden aren't going to let that happen. It's a disingenuous way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 46 minutes ago, TimberWolf said: It's crazy. It's almost like we have thousands of individual posters that speak for themselves with individual opinions and not a hive mind that is bipolar. No, you are wrong. I love Vrbata...I hate Vrbata. GM Benning is the worst...but he also the best. Willy is being out-coached nightly...but he should win the Jack Adams. Trade the Sedins, but keep them as Canucks for their entire career. Burrow is a rat...but he has heart...wait, there's actual truth to that one. Trade Hammer...re-sign Hammer...wait, that is also possible...OK, I'll shut up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 In all seriousness, I can't see FAQ, Linden or Benning orchestrating a tank. Personally, I don't think we need to strip the team down as much as the Leafs did anyways. They were in way worse shape than we are. JB needs to draft well over the next couple years, and we need a healthy mix of talent and luck from our Management team...and we need Shea Weber....or equivalent...no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 On 2/10/2016 at 10:06 AM, Apple Juice said: Islanders and Panthers are becoming a better team because of their high draft picks. Look no further than Tavares, Strome, de Haan, Ekblad, Huberdeau, Barkov, and Gudbranson... Yes it’s only taken the islander 21 picks in the top 10 (17 in the top 5) over the last 26 years to finally get there…And where there again? It’s been 21 years since they’ve made it past the first round. Yes it’s only taken the panthers 17 picks in the top 10 (10 in the top 5) over the last 22 years to finally get there…And where there again for the panthers? A total of 7 playoff series in 22 years. 17 non playoffs with 3 first round exists. Sure these teams have some exciting players, but is it really long term success. Panthers are running the fumes of a 43 yr old legend. Two D that are a year away from retirement and a Vezina year from a 36 (turning 37) year old Luongo. People put far too much emphasis on success based on high draft picks. High draft picks give you a better chance to draft a top end talent. That talent is a small piece of what building a cup winner. Drafting in the top 5 also isn’t the only way to find that talents, there is later draft steals, UFA signings, and trades, but again, that top talent is only a fraction of what’s needed. Doughty doesn’t win the cup, Doughty with Kopitar, Brown, Quick, and a coaching change in Sutter, mixed in with good trading for Gaborik, Carter, Richards, and Williams, sprinkled with some luck (matchups, puck luck, good calls) is what won the cups for the Kings. But again too many people single out drafting that one player 2nd overall in 2008 as the sole key, when the reality is even if they drafted the player taken 15th overall that year instead, they’d still would have likely had the same cup success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 On February 10, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Alflives said: Sounds like a TANK for Austin Matthews to me. I'm shocked the league doesn't step in, and stop the Leafs from being so blatant about trading their best players for crappy guys. Their "best" guys weren't getting it done, why keep them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat James Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 22 hours ago, GarthButcher5 said: Edmonton Oilers, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Colorado, Calgary.....? Calgary have mostly been mediocre, they've only had two picks in the top 10 the last ten years. Colorado have had a playoff spot basically all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 9 hours ago, N7Nucks said: Their "best" guys weren't getting it done, why keep them? Especially when you get guys like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Fellas love to point out all the tankers who havent found success yet, whether they drafted the wrong players, just havent had enough time, had poor management and coaching, or didnt draft well in later rounds to get solid supportive players, etc, but we all know the success stories. So my question is, how many teams that didnt tank in the cap era have won a cup? Now compare with how many tanked/did poorly, whatever, and did win a cup? So yeah you can point out teams that tanked and havent found success yet, but id rather have a solid chance at a cup than virtually little to no chance at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 18 minutes ago, BI3KSA- said: Fellas love to point out all the tankers who havent found success yet, whether they drafted the wrong players, just havent had enough time, had poor management and coaching, or didnt draft well in later rounds to get solid supportive players, etc, but we all know the success stories. So my question is, how many teams that didnt tank in the cap era have won a cup? Now compare with how many tanked/did poorly, whatever, and did win a cup? So yeah you can point out teams that tanked and havent found success yet, but id rather have a solid chance at a cup than virtually little to no chance at all What is the definition of tanking? "Tanking," as we are to understand it, is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. So I guess the question is, what teams in a cap era have actually tanked? Lets take the hawks as an example, In 2006, if that Hawks put in motion a plan to put out a pour season to pick up the highest draft pick possible, than then why did they finish 8 points ahead of the last placed Blues? Did STL just tank harder, if tanking is key, t. If Hawks plan was to tank why would they go out and sign the reigning Stanley cup winning goalie in Khabibulin. That doesn't seem like a tanking move? Was the hawks goal in 2007 to finish as low as possible and pick up Kane 1st overall? If that was their plan they had a pour strategy, they finished 15 points higher than the last placed flyers and ended the season tied for 6th worst record in the league. They actually finished with a better record than they did in 2006 with 5 more wins and 6 more points. If not for the lottery in the draft (introduced in 2007), the hawks would have drafted been slated to draft Sam Gagner (6th) or Karl Alzner (5th). The fact of the matter is people are mesmerized by the success of a few players, they don't actually have a clue to what tanking actually means. Did hawks and Kings actually tank or did they just really have a pour teams. Missing playoffs 9 out of 10 years would suggest other wise. That would support the idea of rebuilding through the draft due to not having any other options (no assets in their system to help them win vs selling off all their assets to put out the worst possible line up they possibly could). Simply put if you're going to support tanking, make sure that the teams that you use as a foundation for your argument actually fall in line with that theory, but that would involve doing a little bit of research rather than simplifying, high pick = tank, do people actually realize that when hawks drafted Kane 1st overall they finished tied for 24th in the league? If Canucks finished 22nd (where we are currently placed) and managed to win the lottery, does that mean we tanked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: What is the definition of tanking? "Tanking," as we are to understand it, is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. So I guess the question is, what teams in a cap era have actually tanked? Lets take the hawks as an example, In 2006, if that Hawks put in motion a plan to put out a pour season to pick up the highest draft pick possible, than then why did they finish 8 points ahead of the last placed Blues? Did STL just tank harder, if tanking is key, t. If Hawks plan was to tank why would they go out and sign the reigning Stanley cup winning goalie in Khabibulin. That doesn't seem like a tanking move? Was the hawks goal in 2007 to finish as low as possible and pick up Kane 1st overall? If that was their plan they had a pour strategy, they finished 15 points higher than the last placed flyers and ended the season tied for 6th worst record in the league. They actually finished with a better record than they did in 2006 with 5 more wins and 6 more points. If not for the lottery in the draft (introduced in 2007), the hawks would have drafted been slated to draft Sam Gagner (6th) or Karl Alzner (5th). The fact of the matter is people are mesmerized by the success of a few players, they don't actually have a clue to what tanking actually means. Did hawks and Kings actually tank or did they just really have a pour teams. Missing playoffs 9 out of 10 years would suggest other wise. That would support the idea of rebuilding through the draft due to not having any other options (no assets in their system to help them win vs selling off all their assets to put out the worst possible line up they possibly could). Simply put if you're going to support tanking, make sure that the teams that you use as a foundation for your argument actually fall in line with that theory, but that would involve doing a little bit of research rather than simplifying, high pick = tank, do people actually realize that when hawks drafted Kane 1st overall they finished tied for 24th in the league? If Canucks finished 22nd (where we are currently placed) and managed to win the lottery, does that mean we tanked? I didnt just say "tanked", I said "tank/did poorly". There is no difference in this context. Has there even been a single team in the cap era that won the cup that didnt have a very high draft pick, or multiple high draft picks, in their core? How you get the draft picks, whether its from stripping your team down and tanking, or just legitimately doing terrible, couldnt be more inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 20 minutes ago, BI3KSA- said: I didnt just say "tanked", I said "tank/did poorly". There is no difference in this context. Has there even been a single team in the cap era that won the cup that didnt have a very high draft pick, or multiple high draft picks, in their core? How you get the draft picks, whether its from stripping your team down and tanking, or just legitimately doing terrible, couldnt be more inconsequential. The argument is tanking, this topic is about the leaf purposely tanking so you there is a difference in context, a big difference. The whole argument is canucks NEED to tank in order to be successful. Again if Canucks finish this year with the 22nd worst record and win the lottery did we tank? Does that follow your method of "the only way to be successful is through tanking".. But Now you're back pedalling from the idea of tanking is key, to just getting high draft picks is key. But again....drafting high only gives a team a better opportunity to draft a top end talent. Top end talent doesn't only come from drafting in the top 5. Also since you keep asking the idea of "has a team won a cup in the cap era without a high draft pick" is another over simplification. And the fact that you present your statement as a supporting fact to your argument implies that you should already know the answer. But Boston, Detroit and Ana have won the cup without having to "strip their team down and tanking, or just legitimately be terrible" to build their stanley cup winning core. Again over simplification is the biggest flaw in the tankers theory. You found a common denominator and just assume, in order to win a cup you need a top X or Y draft pick. "People put far too much emphasis on success based on high draft picks. High draft picks give you a better chance to draft a top end talent. That talent is a small piece of what building a cup winner. Drafting in the top 5 also isn’t the only way to find that talent, there is later draft steals, UFA signings, and trades, but again, that top talent is only a fraction of what’s needed. Doughty doesn’t win the cup, Doughty with Kopitar, Brown, Quick, and a coaching change in Sutter, mixed in with good trading for Gaborik, Carter, Richards, and Williams, sprinkled with some luck (matchups, puck luck, good calls) is what won the cups for the Kings. Too many people single out drafting that one player 2nd overall in 2008 as the sole key, when the reality is even if they drafted the player taken 15th overall that year instead, they’d still would have likely had the same cup success." Over simplification only has merit when all variables have the same outcome, in this case, 91% of top 3 picks over the last 30 year didn't win a cup for the team that drafted them. Thus your "solid chance" doesn't hold value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: The argument is tanking, this topic is about the leaf purposely tanking so you there is a difference in context, a big difference. The whole argument is canucks NEED to tank in order to be successful. Again if Canucks finish this year with the 22nd worst record and win the lottery did we tank? Does that follow your method of "the only way to be successful is through tanking".. But Now you're back pedalling from the idea of tanking is key, to just getting high draft picks is key. But again....drafting high only gives a team a better opportunity to draft a top end talent. Top end talent doesn't only come from drafting in the top 5. Also since you keep asking the idea of "has a team won a cup in the cap era without a high draft pick" is another over simplification. And the fact that you present your statement as a supporting fact to your argument implies that you should already know the answer. But Boston, Detroit and Ana have won the cup without having to "strip their team down and tanking, or just legitimately be terrible" to build their stanley cup winning core. Again over simplification is the biggest flaw in the tankers theory. You found a common denominator and just assume, in order to win a cup you need a top X or Y draft pick. "People put far too much emphasis on success based on high draft picks. High draft picks give you a better chance to draft a top end talent. That talent is a small piece of what building a cup winner. Drafting in the top 5 also isn’t the only way to find that talent, there is later draft steals, UFA signings, and trades, but again, that top talent is only a fraction of what’s needed. Doughty doesn’t win the cup, Doughty with Kopitar, Brown, Quick, and a coaching change in Sutter, mixed in with good trading for Gaborik, Carter, Richards, and Williams, sprinkled with some luck (matchups, puck luck, good calls) is what won the cups for the Kings. Too many people single out drafting that one player 2nd overall in 2008 as the sole key, when the reality is even if they drafted the player taken 15th overall that year instead, they’d still would have likely had the same cup success." Over simplification only has merit when all variables have the same outcome, in this case, 91% of top 3 picks over the last 30 year didn't win a cup for the team that drafted them. Thus your "solid chance" doesn't hold value. 14 Firstly, I said "tanked/did poorly, whatever, and did win a cup?" I said in my origanal comment, so no, I'm not backpedaling or changing anything up, you are just failing to read or failing to comprehend what it is I'm saying. "drafting high only gives a team a better opportunity to draft a top end talent. Top end talent doesn't only come from drafting in the top 5." Absolutely agreed on all points in this quote. "High draft picks give you a better chance to draft a top end talent. That talent is a small piece of what building a cup winner." I believe this is very incorrect. Yes, top end talent, first line talent, superstar talent. The Kanes, the Toews, the Crosbys and so on, are only a piece of what it takes to win a cup, to be a cup winning team. I've been quoted on saying that before. But to say top end talent is only a small piece of a cup winning team is silly. Doughty is no small piece. Crosby is no small piece. Kane and Toews are not small pieces. "Drafting in the top 5 also isn’t the only way to find that talent, there is later draft steals, UFA signings, and trades, but again, that top talent is only a fraction of what’s needed. Doughty doesn’t win the cup, Doughty with Kopitar, Brown, Quick, and a coaching change in Sutter, mixed in with good trading for Gaborik, Carter, Richards, and Williams, sprinkled with some luck (matchups, puck luck, good calls) is what won the cups for the Kings. " Agreed, no matter how good a player is, even if the second coming of Gretzky was drafted, he alone would not be enough to win a cup by himself. You need to draft well in later rounds. You need to added pieces, whether from trade, UFA signings or other means, that will be your supportive players, role players and secondary scoring. "Too many people single out drafting that one player 2nd overall in 2008 as the sole key, when the reality is even if they drafted the player taken 15th overall that year instead, they’d still would have likely had the same cup success." Doughty is massive, massive to the success of the Kings. I think you are understating him a lot, which is pretty common here in Canuck land. Not really any reason to argue over hypotheticals like that though. Look, I think you are misunderstanding me and/or painting me with the same brush as many other pro tankers. I'm not saying even half the things you are pretending/insinuating I'm saying. You can get late draft steals, but its throwing out a wish, and drafting in the top 5 is more likely to garner you high-end talent. Yes, I'm aware of the stats, but regardless, its still a higher chance. Us drafting in the top 5 isnt an insta-cup either, we will still have work to do. We still need to develop, we still need to draft well in later rounds, we still need to trade and sign UFAs and do many of the other things that are instrumental in building cup winning teams. I actually think we have a decent amount of the secondary scoring, role players and the like to fill in much of our next core, what we desperately need is high end talent to replace the Sedins when they leave. As well as, the obvious massive hole on our defense. I think its quite obvious that, with our current needs, and our current situation with our top end players likely retiring in the near future, that drafting in the top 5 is what would be best for our club. Is there a chance we draft a Kopitar in the mid first round? Sure, and crap, we may have already drafted one, but more than likely where we will get our next top end, Sedin-esque talent, is going to be in the top 5. So, do we need to tank to be successful? Absolutely not! Is it the best thing for our team? Probably, a certain degree of tanking, turning over old vets into picks and drafting lower, yeah, I'd say so. If we dont get high end talent soon we are going to be terrible and drafting in the top 5 soon anyways, cause we have no one to replace the Sedins production and they still carry this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Leafs are showing what is possible when Canadian ownership buys in and gets fully on board with the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 First of all I have to say I hate the word tanking, it is too often misinterpreted by many people. I prefer the term "pro-rebuild" better than "pro-tank". Some assumptions that people make up about pro-rebuilders that I disagree with. 1) The pro-rebuild crowd is advocating for the players and coaches to deliberately toss games. No this form of tanking is against the rules. It results in fines, loss of draft picks etc, anyone that engages in this is effectively tanking their career. 2) The pro-rebuild crowd only believes that high picks are necessary to build a successful team. Also not true, most of us have the shining example of Edmonton to see this phenomenon. Top picks are only a part of the puzzle albeit a very important part. These pieces often though become the foundation of the team. They are the irreplaceable parts, most of the depth guys can be replaced but these guys are your glue. 3) Pro-rebuild crowd believes that successful drafting only happens at the top of the draft. This is also not true. You do get pieces outside of the top 5 of every draft but a rebuild also allows you to acquire more picks for players that are not in your long term plans. Guys like Hamhuis, Vrbata, Burrows and maybe even Edler will all not be part of the team when it is done rebuilding. You don't have to put up the for sale sign and sell them off at once but you wait and bide your team for the right offer before pulling the trigger. If you have confidence that your scouts can do a good job drafting anywhere in the draft, then why not give them more picks to accomplish the job. You can retain salary, take back a poor contract and it all helps you maximize return for your best assets. 3) Pro-rebuild crowd wants to decimate the roster to the point where it has only AHL caliber players. This is also something I disagree with it. With the changes to the lottery this is no longer a viable strategy for any franchise. You no longer have the option of replicating the 2014-15 Sabres and guaranteeing a top 2 pick. Hence a complete scorched earth rebuild is not necessary any more. As you can see this year, the bottom 5 are fairly close to each other in the standings. You don't have to be unbelievably bad to be in the bottom 5. 4) Pro-rebuild crowd thinks tanking guarantees a Cup. No there are no guarantees in sports. 5) Pro-rebuild crowd does not acknowledge the risk to this strategy. I think we all recognize that there is a considerable bit of risk here. But you have to take risks in this business. In this case you are risking the next few years in the hope that things turn around and they may never turn around. You could become the Edmonton Oilers and wallow in the basement for a decade. We can all acknowledge that it is a possibility but the hope is that the management you have put together is better than Kevin Lowe and MacT. IMO it is worth it to do something to get out of mediocrity and fail rather than go with the status quo. You need to take risks to reap the rewards. 6) Pro-rebuilders do not realize that core players can be found in other areas of the draft, in free agency and via trade. No in fact we are counting on it. This is the reason you sell off your expendable pieces and acquire more draft picks. If you get a #1C, #2C and #1W from the top 5, then you use your other draft picks to try and acquire the other pieces for your team. You can make a move like the Ryan O'Reilly trade or Mike Richards trade where you move some good prospects to acquire a player that you need. No one (I hope) wants to spend 8 years at the basement drafting your entire core. 7) Pro-rebuild crowd is short sighted, they want instant gratification of a top prospect, a savior in short. No I think we all realize that rebuilding is not easy especially as fans. You will have to put up with some terrible teams which is hard as a fan. It is still better though than knowing you have no shot at winning. It is better than hoping that your team makes every pick count and miraculously finds a Jamie Benn in the 5th round. 8) Pro-rebuild crowd thinks rebuilding is the only way to build a team. No there are other ways to do things. Most of us just believe that rebuilding is the best way and relies less on luck than any other strategy. If you disagree with my position I can accept that. Not everyone needs to share an opinion on team building. But please don't misrepresent my position, throw me into the "tank crowd" and insult my intelligence for taking a position contrary to your own. Thanks for reading my essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Average Joe Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Wow all Canadian team tank. Will Canadian fan watch if no Canadian team represent in the playoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hmm nope, I didn't even watch the SCF last year nor the year before that, only watched playoffs until all Canadian teams were out. If no Canadian teams are in this year then no playoffs on my TV. Oh and looks like Toronto are succeeding at sitting in last place, actually all Canadian teams are lined up for the bottom 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 On 2/10/2016 at 2:17 AM, Winter Soldier said: The same way drafting high endlessly has worked out for the Islanders, Avs, Oilers, Panthers and Coyotes. Three of those 5 teams are currently in playoff position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 minute ago, Gnarcore said: Three of those 5 teams are currently in playoff position So? They haven't won anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.