For the "Lets Tank" Crowd

[The Lock]

If any of them played any type of competitive sports they would NEVER say that.

I played competitive sports throughout my life & so are my kids now.  

Never did I play on a team that didn't try to win every game no matter who your opponent was whether it was hockey, soccer or more of an individual sport in martial arts. Same goes with my kids from atom hockey to junior hockey now, never did I see his team intentionally lose ever. 

Competitive players especially the elite (Pro NHL Players) never in their lives played to lose. They never would be where they are today if they EVER felt that in their blood. Just not in a Pro's DNA. That goes for the Coaches, GM's, Presidents and the rest of the Staff that got to this level as well.  

I can actually attest to this. In soccer, I was on the worst team in the league one year. We lost pretty much every game but we still competed each game.

Funny enough, a tournament came and we ended up with a couple of players from another team that didn't have enough players to play in that tournament..... we won the tournament against the same teams we kept losing to.

[MJDDawg]

If any of them played any type of competitive sports they would NEVER say that.

I played competitive sports throughout my life & so are my kids now.  

Never did I play on a team that didn't try to win every game no matter who your opponent was whether it was hockey, soccer or more of an individual sport in martial arts. Same goes with my kids from atom hockey to junior hockey now, never did I see his team intentionally lose ever. 

Competitive players especially the elite (Pro NHL Players) never in their lives played to lose. They never would be where they are today if they EVER felt that in their blood. Just not in a Pro's DNA. That goes for the Coaches, GM's, Presidents and the rest of the Staff that got to this level as well.  

We'll have to disagree on this part as they have to look at the long term benefits to the team. If moving aging players on expiring deals means they have the opportunity to improve their team more down the road, then they'll do it. Happens all the time in professional sports.

[hearditall]

We'll have to disagree on this part as they have to look at the long term benefits to the team. If moving aging players on expiring deals means they have the opportunity to improve their team more down the road, then they'll do it. Happens all the time in professional sports.

I'm all in for moving a vet or 2 for now because I've stated many times we have enough of them to do so. It's still crucial to keep a positive winning competitive attitude while doing so. Just like JB has aslo mentioned. 

But to just unload everyone for draft picks who may or may not pan out is ridiculous. Especially when we're losing for years & years & maybe many many more years by doing that. 

Calculated moves not erratic 50/50 chance moves.

[The Lock]

We'll have to disagree on this part as they have to look at the long term benefits to the team. If moving aging players on expiring deals means they have the opportunity to improve their team more down the road, then they'll do it. Happens all the time in professional sports.

If a whole team knows they're tanking, then it's more likely to get leaked out that they're tanking and there would be more evidence that a team's actually tanking purposely.

Considering how little evidence of this there is in NHL's history, your scenario is highly unlikely.

[gocanucks1916]

The problem is you generally never see a Crosby or a Stamkos traded unless if under an extreme circumstance. Could you imagine Chicago getting McDavid? Could you imagine Anaheim getting Eichel? Both teams would then have a loaded team PLUS a future superstar to add to the mix. It would literally create another Colorado of the late 90's. It would be the equivilant of having a lineup where you overpaid superstars because you have more money, only in this case you have a combination of superstars and a top 5 draft pick.

Sure, such a team would have cap problems in the future, but their future superstar has 3 years under an entry level contract....

I see your point, but it's not like that would happen often. Chicago would have a 1/30 chance to get the top pick - just like everybody else. And when it does eventually happen that a cup contender lands a generational talent...is it such a bad thing for good teams to occasionally stay good?

It's different from the pre-cap days when rich teams had free agent superstars. With random draft order, you couldn't systematically get high draft picks the way you could systematically throw money at stars back in the old days. So in the long-run we'd still have the parity that the NHL brass craves so much.

I just don't think lousy teams should be coddled. If you're an NHL GM and your team sucks, improve your scouting. Improve your development program. Hire better coaches, nutritionists, and sports scientists. Don't rely on the NHL to rig the game in your favour...

[The Lock]

I just don't think lousy teams they should be coddled. If you're an NHL GM and your team sucks, improve your scouting. Improve your development program. Hire better coaches, nutritionists, and sports scientists. Don't rely on the NHL to rig the game in your favour...

They've changed the lottery anyway so that tanking is a less viable option. I personally think the way they've done it is far better than just randomizing it all as it keeps the teams more competitive overall. It's not coddling teams.

Just one more point, I doubt it's as easy as hiring the 'right" people. Finding the right people for your organization is almost like drafting. lol

[gocanucks1916]

They've changed the lottery anyway so that tanking is a less viable option. I personally think the way they've done it is far better than just randomizing it all as it keeps the teams more competitive overall. It's not coddling teams.

Just one more point, I doubt it's as easy as hiring the 'right" people. Finding the right people for your organization is almost like drafting. lol

I am pretty happy about the changes they've made to the format. The question of completely randomizing is more of a philosophical one at this point.

You're definitely right that it's hard to build a great support team (coaches, scouts, training staff etc). But that's what makes it interesting!

[MJDDawg]

I'm all in for moving a vet or 2 for now because I've stated many times we have enough of them to do so. It's still crucial to keep a positive winning competitive attitude while doing so. Just like JB has aslo mentioned. 

But to just unload everyone for draft picks who may or may not pan out is ridiculous. Especially when we're losing for years & years & maybe many many more years by doing that. 

Calculated moves not erratic 50/50 chance moves.

Of course unloading everyone for draft picks is foolish. But I don't think there's a post in this thread suggesting that's what we do is there? Problem is everyone seems to have a different opinion about what tanking is.

Good asset management doesn't equal tanking and as far as I can tell, most so-called "tankers" are proponents of good asset management rather than of "unloading everyone" as you put it. Long time fans of this team have seen management for this team simply waste assets for no real return too many times over the years.

 

[Me_]

1984 Edmonton Oilers

Top pick - Paul Coffey (#6)

1985 Edmonton Oilers

Top pick - Paul Coffey (#6)

1987 Edmonton Oilers

Top pick - Paul Coffey (#6)

1994 New York Rangers

Top pick - Eddie Olzcyk (#3)

• Olzcyk was a decent player, but in the '93-'94 regular season he played just 37 games and had 8 points. In the 1994 playoffs, he only played one game. Hard to say that a top 3 pick benefited them with this cup.

1996 Colorado Avalanche

Top Picks:

• Owen Nolan (#1)
  • A great player...who was traded mid-season before the playoffs.
• Curtis Leschyshyn (#3)
  • Not a terrible career, but only 3 points in 17 playoff games in 1996.
• Craig Wolanin (#3)
  • Who? Exactly. Only played 7 playoff games in 1996, managing just one point.

2001 Colorado Avalanche

Top Pick - Peter Forsberg (#6)

• Even then, he wasn't drafted by the Avalanche.

2008 Detroit Red Wings

Top Pick - Brad Stuart (#3)

• A solid player in his own right, but not exactly a game-changer.

 

Next time, do a bit more research before making outlandish claims.

Good point. Also, sometimes having an absolutely loaded roster creates a logjam in minute distribution. For sure great talent is absolutely needed to win the Cup, but so are definite roll players.

Good work. +1

[Warhippy]

If a whole team knows they're tanking, then it's more likely to get leaked out that they're tanking and there would be more evidence that a team's actually tanking purposely.

Considering how little evidence of this there is in NHL's history, your scenario is highly unlikely.

The Penguins and Devils during the Lemieux Draft year and the Sabres and Yotes last year say hi

 

While not openly stating they are tanking, they did everything they could from a management position to further their chances of securing that pick

[The Lock]

The Penguins and Devils during the Lemieux Draft year and the Sabres and Yotes last year say hi

 

While not openly stating they are tanking, they did everything they could from a management position to further their chances of securing that pick

Okay. What are these moves that management did to be able to tank?

[Canorth]

Okay. What are these moves that management did to be able to tank?

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/penguins-questions/2009/12/17/Did-the-Pens-tank-the-83-84-season-to-get-Lemieux/stories/200912170417

[The Lock]

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/penguins-questions/2009/12/17/Did-the-Pens-tank-the-83-84-season-to-get-Lemieux/stories/200912170417

While the moves mentioned in that article do provide an argument for tanking, it's still speculation. I'm not saying they didn't, but it's just one of those grey areas really. It's more circumstantially evident than anything.

But even that article backs up what I said earlier and what I was responding to. The players themselves wouldn't be tanking as stated in the first paragraph of that article. The management maybe, but not the players.

[Canorth]

While the moves mentioned in that article do provide an argument for tanking, it's still speculation. I'm not saying they didn't, but it's just one of those grey areas really. It's more circumstantially evident than anything.

But even that article backs up what I said earlier and what I was responding to. The players themselves wouldn't be tanking as stated in the first paragraph of that article. The management maybe, but not the players.

It's one example, 30 years ago, still room for speculation for sure. Regardless, like you said, if true the players would have nothing to gain. It would be a top-down process through and through. 

[hearditall]

Of course unloading everyone for draft picks is foolish. But I don't think there's a post in this thread suggesting that's what we do is there? Problem is everyone seems to have a different opinion about what tanking is.

Good asset management doesn't equal tanking and as far as I can tell, most so-called "tankers" are proponents of good asset management rather than of "unloading everyone" as you put it. Long time fans of this team have seen management for this team simply waste assets for no real return too many times over the years.

 

That's because we were always buyers at the trade deadline. This year I suspect we'll be more sellers but we're not trading Sedins, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins, Hamhuis, Prust, Vrbata, etc. Maybe Hamhuis, Higgins, Vrbata? 

[-AJ-]

They have made a lot of progress with the lottery changes, but if the draft order were totally randomized, you'd have a completely level playing field. In the long-run, the only way to gain a competitive advantage would be good scouting and development programs. Isn't that what we'd all prefer? Sure, once in a while a cup contender would luck out and get a top-5 pick, but isn't that better than watching teams lose on purpose? 

Pre-salary cap I thought the draft system made some sense because the rich teams had such a massive advantage in the free agency market. The draft was a way for poor teams to get good players too. That's not really as big a problem anymore.

One of the reasons that I think this wouldn't work is due to financial issues. Gary Bettman and the rest of the NHL makes money by having successful teams and many of them. With a randomized draft, we'd see much longer periods of drought for teams, which would inevitably lead to more teams folding. The league would either shrink or just be half-filled with teams folding and re-joining the league, just to fold again a few years later. Half of the league would likely be stuck in a pit of never ending failure.

A team that can't be successful (for whatever reason) will start to struggle to make money. If a team can't make money, they'll fold. I have a strong suspicion that neither Bettman and his executive team, nor the owners of the teams would want that. A randomized draft a neat philosophy, but because of the financial implications of it, the chances of it ever happening are slim to none.

[C.Schneider]

Guys... stop living in a bubble.  

NHL is a freakin huge corporation.  Before it is a sport, it is a business.  Of course they are going to manage and tweak to protect their investment.  

Stop with the "L@wL WeAr A tIn HatZ pLoX RoFFLLL"... you only make yourself look stupid and naive.

[Alflives]

No, he might be right, but unless you can find actual proof of a franchise "planning" to tank you can't quantify a statement like that.  

yup.  Not geoing to any team openly admitting to tanking, except for the Mario draft in '84.

[Dr. Crossbar]

The "tanking" debate is similar to justifying success by redefining ROI.

[J.I.A.H.N]

As I have been accused of being an avid pro "tank" fan. I have really just wanted good asset management. Yes I would love to get a top 5, but only if we really deserve to get it.

What I would rather do is win the Stanley Cup, but I have had a big problem, with those that think that the team the last 2 years has honestly had a chance to win it with the personal it had. To me and many others, the talent was plainly just not there.

Now, I do understand that it is a long way from the bottom to the top, and in most cases deliberately moving players out to drop in the standings, does not make sense, but to move out aging players, is not the same thing and it is not for the same reason.

Take Hamhuis and Vrbata for instance, Both had decent years last year, in fact I think Vrbata had a career year, but both are coming to the end of their careers ( this is not to say they are retiring or won't find a job, just that they will start to drop in their abilities over the next few years.)

Now I advocated moving them at last years deadline, but everyone was hell bent in calling me a tanker for suggesting this. Last year, they would have brought 1st round picks at the deadline, but that would have been considered "tanking" by the vocal majority.

Fast forward to this year, and both are having tough years IMO and it would be questionable, that at their current play level, they would have good asset return....(maybe 2nd and 3rds)

This is not to mention the loss of Matthais and Richardson, with no return. Surely Matthais's 20 goals gets you something, and Richardson had value to a competing team. Yes, we ended up 10th OA, but really, there really wasn't much between 17th and 10th OA talent levels.....we just play in a weak division and Lack got hot at the end of the season.

Wrapping it all in a ball and spitting it out, my point is there are different reasons for moving older players out, and dropping in the standings, is only a bi-product.

Now, if your coach starts sitting out your best players for the purpose of loosing, that is tanking....there is a difference

I am for asset management and balance......this means moving older players out and trading a young forward to a young Dman, if that is what your teams greatest need is...............