For the "Lets Tank" Crowd

[FireGillis]

16 hours ago, hlinkas wrister said:

Sorry, I don't buy it. They are a franchise looking to find their way under a new coach / system who, if things go south, would probably jettison some of the crap free agents they have as part of good asset management. If they are in a playoff spot or close to it at the deadline there's no way in hell they fire sale it. Look at it this way, if they are in "tank mode", why aren't their recent high draft picks in the lineup ?

Make no mistake the leafs were constructed to tank from a lack of talent standpoint. However, Babcock doesn't coach to tank but to win and management could not have foreseen reimer posting a .930 sv%. Babcock will be riding reimer because he wants to win. I'll laugh if reimer is the reason leafs finish 9th in the east. 

The top prospects are kept out of the team because they would hurt the tank by being good. Don't believe the reason nylander is in the ahl due to development.  He's tearing up the ahl but if they called him up he would immediately be one of their best players and would hurt the tank.  The leafs tanking plan was going according to schedule until reimer suddenly went superman.  

[-DLC-]

So how'd that plan work for Edmonton?  Having 4-5 top picks over the past 5 years?

[ice orca]

16 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

So how'd that plan work for Edmonton?  Having 4-5 top picks over the past 5 years?

They have a decent coach and GM now as well as a top notch president. They also have a couple of those high draft picks they can trade to fill holes, unlike the Canucks. That high end talent is going to pay off soon, you better get used to it.

[-DLC-]

20 minutes ago, ice orca said:

They have a decent coach and GM now as well as a top notch president. They also have a couple of those high draft picks they can trade to fill holes, unlike the Canucks. That high end talent is going to pay off soon, you better get used to it.

You speak in certainties...that's your first mistake.   The pay off is to win a SC and no one is a sure bet.  Which is why we watch.

 

I get that young prospects are a desirable building block in a long range plan.  But it's anyone's cup to win and individuals don't do it, teams do.

 

And your first sentence actually proves that it takes more than a top pick or two.  So tanking for a top pick isn't a surefire recipe for success...there are other factors in that equation, as suggested by you (management/coaches).  Also  - if they're to be traded away, then they weren't "the answer"...they were but a stepping stone in getting there.  Thanks for helping to make my point. 

[ice orca]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

You speak in certainties...that's your first mistake.   The pay off is to win a SC and no one is a sure bet.  Which is why we watch.

 

I get that young prospects are a desirable building block in a long range plan.  But it's anyone's cup to win and individuals don't do it, teams do.

Of course teams win, pretty sure the owner finally realized that and got rid of the old boys club and went with a different mgmt team. As far as tanking goes i am kind of on the fence about it as a fan. Do you think the fans in Pittsburgh give rats ass about the tank job for Mario and again for Crosby? it got what we don't have..a cup. Same goes with Chicago and L.A. It gave them a better chance.

[flickyoursedin]

I'm not a tank suporter all I want the Canucks to do is to trade its old soon to be ufa's for picks and prospects before they lose them for nothing in free agency. That means trading players like Vrbata and Hanhuis for first round picks this year and brining up and playing more youth. If they win more games great! However if they lose more games than we'll have done it by testing our most ready prospects and gaining multiple first round picks to stock the cupboards with players we were soon to lose for nothing. Is that tanking? To me if we're a long shot to make the playoffs doesn't it make sense to trade these guys and have two more picks from the 15-30?

[Winter Soldier]

Just now, flickyoursedin said:

I'm not a tank suporter all I want the Canucks to do is to trade its old soon to be ufa's for picks and prospects before they lose them for nothing in free agency. That means trading players like Vrbata and Hanhuis for first round picks this year and brining up and playing more youth. If they win more games great! However if they lose more games than we'll have done it by testing our most ready prospects and gaining multiple first round picks to stock the cupboards with players we were soon to lose for nothing. Is that tanking? To me if we're a long shot to make the playoffs doesn't it make sense to trade these guys and have two more picks from the 15-30?

Getting your hopes up already, I see.

[flickyoursedin]

5 minutes ago, Winter Soldier said:

Getting your hopes up already, I see.

Well I don't know Vermette and Sekera both fetched 1rst round picks just last year. Crazier things have happened. I'd say both Vrbata and Hamhuis are better players.

[EdgarM]

16 hours ago, ice orca said:

Of course teams win, pretty sure the owner finally realized that and got rid of the old boys club and went with a different mgmt team. As far as tanking goes i am kind of on the fence about it as a fan. Do you think the fans in Pittsburgh give rats ass about the tank job for Mario and again for Crosby? it got what we don't have..a cup. Same goes with Chicago and L.A. It gave them a better chance.

So by your logic, should pittsburgh not have more cups with Crosby then? I am a bit confused. Or does it only work for one cup. Same with LA. Why are they not winning more cups? Why did they miss the playoffs last year then? You can argue that Edmonton and Chicago went this route yet they are both at the far ends of the spectrum. There are some teams that have sucked and have done so for a long time. Mario was well........Mario, he was a one of a kind player as Gretzky was. They are both exceptions to the rule.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

So by your logic, should pittsburgh not have more cups with Crosby then? I am a bit confused. Or does it only work for one cup. Same with LA. Why are they not winning more cups? Why did they miss the playoffs last year then? You can argue that Edmonton and Chicago went this route yet they are both at the far ends of the spectrum. There are some teams that have sucked and have done so for a long time. Mario was well........Mario, he was a one of a kind player as Gretzky was. They are both exceptions to the rule.

Maybe tanking works best when those exceptional players are in the coming drafts?  McDavid looks to be a generational talent, but we missed out on even a crack at him.  Our best years were based on two guys we got second and third overall.  Getting higher picks does increase chances for better, or exceptional, players.  

How can anyone logically argue against that fact?  Do we tank on purpose should be the only question.  

[Boudrias]

Canucks should have started their rebuild in 2012.

Benning has made some good picks since he came but to think all of them will be NHLer's is wishful think. The Canucks are in serious trouble as a look at the timeline indicates. They have pushed Horvat  into a very tough 2C role as a 2nd year player. Fans should ask themselves what the lineup will be in another 2years. If the Canucks are lucky they will have another 3 or 4 rookies in the lineup. Asking 2-3 year players to anchor a franchise is a tough call.

I guess as the rookies move in it should lower the CAP hit and maybe Benning can sign enough Vrbata's to get by.

The issue is building a CUP contender. Van does not have a #1D and there is not one on the horizon unless drafted. The situation demands what Benning is doing. My hope is that he does not make any deals with the aim of making playoffs. Cycle his prospects through his lineup to give them experience and combine that with Utica development. If that means Van sinks towards the bottom of the NHL I am OK with that. Higher expectations are not realistic for long term success. Move the vets out come March for the best deals available.  

[EdgarM]

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe tanking works best when those exceptional players are in the coming drafts?  McDavid looks to be a generational talent, but we missed out on even a crack at him.  Our best years were based on two guys we got second and third overall.  Getting higher picks does increase chances for better, or exceptional, players.  

How can anyone logically argue against that fact?  Do we tank on purpose should be the only question.  

Yes so getting those top players some how guarantees you a cup? That is my point. How is Ovi doing for Washington's cup chances? How has Sid done since his cup? What about LA last year? Has McJesus won a cup yet? I don't see any guarantees in your strategy. If I look back at our past draft picks I see we actually had chances at picking "generational talent" but didn't. That is way more important than making your team awful on purpose so you may try to pick a winner in the draft. 

Maybe we can go the Oilers route and wait 23 years so we can draft 23 top draft picks to guarantee us a cup. Lets do it! 

[Alflives]

10 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Yes so getting those top players some how guarantees you a cup? That is my point. How is Ovi doing for Washington's cup chances? How has Sid done since his cup? What about LA last year? Has McJesus won a cup yet? I don't see any guarantees in your strategy. If I look back at our past draft picks I see we actually had chances at picking "generational talent" but didn't. That is way more important than making your team awful on purpose so you may try to pick a winner in the draft. 

Maybe we can go the Oilers route and wait 23 years so we can draft 23 top draft picks to guarantee us a cup. Lets do it! 

I don't get your point tanking gets higher picks.  Chances are better those picks become better players.  That's fact.  I'm not saying we should tank.  I'm only pointing out chances go up.  our two best players, who made us a Cup contender, were top picks.  I cheer for us to win, but I would still like a top pick at this draft.

[Toews]

5 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Yes so getting those top players some how guarantees you a cup? That is my point. How is Ovi doing for Washington's cup chances? How has Sid done since his cup? What about LA last year? Has McJesus won a cup yet? I don't see any guarantees in your strategy. If I look back at our past draft picks I see we actually had chances at picking "generational talent" but didn't. That is way more important than making your team awful on purpose so you may try to pick a winner in the draft. 

Maybe we can go the Oilers route and wait 23 years so we can draft 23 top draft picks to guarantee us a cup. Lets do it! 

Oh god, you are actually making me defend Alf. 1 team wins a Cup every year, there are no guarantees in pro sports. I don't see where Alf talks about Cups anyway. What he stated is pretty much a fact. If you want those exceptional players to really put your team over the top, most of them will be found close to the top of the draft. Sure there are few that slip through the cracks but it literally takes a miracle for a team to land one of those players. Are you really confident that your team can identify Claude Giroux among the dozens of Zach Dalpes?

 

[EdgarM]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I don't get your point tanking gets higher picks.  Chances are better those picks become better players.  That's fact.  I'm not saying we should tank.  I'm only pointing out chances go up.  our two best players, who made us a Cup contender, were top picks.  I cheer for us to win, but I would still like a top pick at this draft.

I am saying 1 or 2 players on a 23 man roster does not make a championship team. Maybe A piece of the puzzle yes, but not the entire team. As we have seen lately, a team can drastically change with a few players out of the line up. I am not talking about your top players either. A break in the chain at either end makes it weak. 

If you don't have 4 good lines, 3 defensive pairs and a good goalie, your team is going to suffer. Look at Edmonton. Do they have a good goalie or Dmen? What about LA's defensive core last year? There is much more to a team then a top draft pick.

[flickyoursedin]

In the 2006 and 2007 draft the Blackhawks picked at 3rd overall and 1rst overall getting Jonathan Toews and then Patrick Kane. The Canucks in 2006 and 2007 picked 14 and then 25 getting Michael Grabner and Patrick White. I'd wager to say those two players for the Blackhawks are two of the outmost important players on their dynasty run of 3 cups in the last 6 years where both Kane and Toews finished with top 3 in playoff points in each of those 3 years. You have to have the stars but you have to have a gm that is competent enough to build around the stars that you do have. Chicago has done well in the drafts and trades to build a very complete team but there is no doubt in my mind that if Patrick Kane got hurt in any of there 3 Stanely Cup years that the Blackhawks don't win the Stanely Cup that year.

[Crabcakes]

The thing with hockey drafting is the players are only 17.  That's really young and makes drafting a bit of a crap shoot imo.  A lot of kids peak early and never achieve and a lot are late bloomers as well.  Having said that, of course your odds are better the higher up the draft you pick. But because of the age players are drafted, there is no such thing as a sure thing and there are always players who turn out to be stars picked later in the draft.  This is why Benning drafts for character among other things.

[appleboy]

I believe in the idea that players need to be developed in an environment where loosing is not excepted. Where making the NHL is based on you earning it. Where the minutes you receive are also based on your play.  However, as a team like the Canucks go through a transition from an older core and we see a lot of youth you will naturally see a drop in the standings. A team can be pushing for the playoffs and encouraging a winning environment but still might draft in the top ten on occasion. We should not freak out if this team misses the playoffs for a couple of years.

 

Missing the playoffs is not tanking and could be beneficial.

[Alflives]

6 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I am saying 1 or 2 players on a 23 man roster does not make a championship team. Maybe A piece of the puzzle yes, but not the entire team. As we have seen lately, a team can drastically change with a few players out of the line up. I am not talking about your top players either. A break in the chain at either end makes it weak. 

If you don't have 4 good lines, 3 defensive pairs and a good goalie, your team is going to suffer. Look at Edmonton. Do they have a good goalie or Dmen? What about LA's defensive core last year? There is much more to a team then a top draft pick.

I agree, one or two guys don't make a team, bet those two elite players do make good teams Cup teams.  We need a number one centre - to replace Henrik - and an elite number one defence man - whom we've never had.  Chances of getting such impactful players go up the higher the draft position.  However we get the top picks is not relevant.  Getting the top picks is.

[5 decades and no cup]

On 11/10/2015, 10:43:12, jejejester said:

 

yes the draft is changing. The whole point seems to have gone over your guys head. As an organization we have needed teams that have top 5 picks on them to get within a win of the cup. 

our two best teams were lead by top 3 picks.  

 

Linden, Daniel and Henrik. 

 

tanking doesn't always work, but we are an example of how top picks do set you up for future success 

Tanking won't work in Vancouver.  Just look at this forum after a few losses...and these are the most adament fans!

Hockey is a business and in Vancouver; if the team tanks, the fans stop going to games.  Bad for business.

There is no guarantee of a SC by tanking.  The owners will not risk tanking and losing the fanbase for a future that may or may not happen.