An Argument for the Tanking Crowd

[Sean Monahan]

^^^ you forgot the "repeat" part

[Shift-4]

45 minutes ago, Canucks Prophet said:

 

If you can properly explain your anti-tanking approach for this team, I am curious. Because the OP made a very strong case for tanking at least one season.

I explained it with Calgary's trade of Glencross last year.
Just because you trade old pending UFA's it doesn't mean you are magically going to finish bottom 5 in the league.

[Winter Soldier]

5 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

^^^ you forgot the "repeat" part

"Relive the days where we feared losing the team for good because this city cannot handle a decade of failure."

[bobbyg43]

21 hours ago, Winter Soldier said:

"Relive the days where we feared losing the team for good because this city cannot handle a decade of failure."

I still buy Grizzley memorbelia, an follow the team  same with ole supersonic team.

With parity an mediocre management in todays cap world no team should be celler dwellars or perpetual losers,even a dog has its day.

One compelling argument is the rationalization as to, how one could entertain the notion, to get in on one of the top three or 4 picks this year.The Sedins are a injury away from being gone an perhaps only two or three years left in their game one needs to have at least one great prospect to bank the future on to keep hope alive.I just love my middleling team 

If any one of the Sedins went down with an injury this team would be hooped totally thats a real scarey thought . We are the best 19 loss team in the league in a playoff spot at the moment after 30 games 

[spook007]

19 hours ago, Provost said:

Here is a quote from a recent thread that gives good evidence of the futility of trying to tank your way to success.  Keep in mind, it is even harder now with the new lottery rules.\

I see the folks are starting to crawl out from under their rocks again insisting our only way for success is to tank.  Here are a few comments and facts.

1.  Players don't like to lose... players certainly won't come and play for a team that is "trying" to lose unless you dramatically overpay.

2.  You don't just have to lose, you have to also get lucky in the lottery AND lose quite a few years in order to pick up a single elite level player rather than the many lottery picks that turn out "just good" or "ok"

3.  In the cap era, players get offered similar money form different teams.  They prefer to go to winning teams and will take discounts to do so.  To convince them to go to a losing team you have to overpay dramatically.  Having a bunch of bloated contracts more than counteracts the positive effect of having a couple good young players.

4.  You have to somehow manage to lose really badly, luck out with a generational player, and then get really good really quickly... otherwise you start losing or overpaying your young guys as their cheap 3 year ELC's expire.

5.  History shows that most teams that have been at the bottom of the league in recent history stay there no matter how many top picks they get.  It is a revolving door of suck.

Here is some hard data for the "lets tank our way to success" crowd.  These numbers don't even account for top picks that were already playing on these teams from before their current futility streaks, nor does it count draft picks that were traded away or down for additional assets to help them get over the hump.

1. New York Islanders haven't won a playoff series in 21 years despite having 12 top 5 picks in that period
2. Florida haven't won a playoff series in 18 years despite having 7 top 5 picks in that period
3. Jets/Thrashers haven't won a playoff series in 15 years (since inception) despite having 8 top 5 picks in that period
4. Columbus haven't won a playoff series in 14 years (since inception) despite having 5 top 5 picks in that period
5. Edmonton haven't won a playoff series in 9 seasons despite having 5 top 5 picks in that period

Bottom 5 teams in terms of success in recent history and all have had plenty of times at bat in the lottery and it didn't help them win a single playoff series... never mind actually going deep and getting a sniff at a Cup.

I didn't include Toronto because even though they haven't won a playoff series in 10 years, they also had a habit of trading away all their 1st round picks so they sucked pretty much all around.

So... there is your guaranteed path to success folks.  Do your best to lose and stock the cupboards via high draft picks and in reality be a loser for a very long time with no end of losing in sight.

The same fans who are insisting on a complete teardown are freaking out when we lose a couple games... I can hardly imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if we were in the midst of a 21 year playoff futility drought.

Well said. +1

[Winter Soldier]

1 hour ago, bobbyg43 said:

I still buy Grizley memorbelia, an follow the team  same with ole supersonic team.

With parity an mediocre management in todays cap world no team should be celler dwellars or peroetual losers,even a dog has its day.

One compelling argument is the rationalization as to, how one could entertain the notion, to get in on one of the top three picks this year.The Sedins are a injury away from being gone an perhaps only two or three years left in their game one needs to have at least one great prospect to bank the future on to keep hope alive.

If any one of the Sedins went down with an injury this team would be hooped totally thats a real scarey thought .

Because getting a player that can grow into a line one player is impossible outside of the top three.

[HKSR]

So as I mentioned before, 6 of 18 players selected in the Top 3 from the 2005 to 2010 period have gone on to win a Cup. 

In other words, on average, 1 of the 3 selected in the Top 3 go on to win a Cup.  Those odds are pretty insane if you think about it.  Who wouldn't take a 1 in 3 chance of winning the lottery if given the opportunity?

Anyways, I digress.  I wouldn't laugh at Edmonton just yet.  Their first #1 overall pick (Taylor Hall) was selected in 2010.  In my mind, their window is JUST opening.  Let's look at this for a sec.

If McDavid continued to score at the pace he was early in the season, he'd be in the Top 10 in scoring.  Hall is already in the Top 10 as of last night.  Edmonton would have two Top 10 scorers in the NHL.

Then we look at what McDavid's impact may have been over the past 17 games or so that he has missed.  I'd reckon to say he would have been a game changer in maybe 3 or 4 games.  That's not totally unreasonable being that is 4 out of 17 games for a phenom player.

What would 4 wins mean for Edmonton rather than 4 losses at this point?

Edmonton would be in the Top 10 in the league.

Honestly, I've stopped laughing at Edmonton, because I think they're poised to do some major damage now.  When McDavid returns, we'll probably see what Edmonton is really capable of.

[flickyoursedin]

It's only a matter of time before those Oilers take off. They may be bellow us in the standings right now but I am envious of all that young talent they have.