The "Middle of the Pack" Argument

[Remy]

It seems that the fan base is largely divided into a binary "tank" side, and a "winning culture" side. For those that fall into the first category, a very common argument is that we don't want to get mired down as a "middle of the pack" team: not good enough to win it all, but not bad enough to get high draft picks. As a result, the team spins its wheels and goes nowhere, neither improving or getting worse. 

 

The thing is, that logic is deeply flawed. 

 

Let's keep it simple, we know that there are bottom teams, middle teams, and elite teams, so there's no sense in denying that premise. The benefit of being a bottom team would be the high draft picks, and the benefit of being an elite team is that you have a legitimate chance to win it all. Both are nice options, depending on where your team is at. So what's the benefit of being a team smack dab in the centre? It's true, you won't get a top pick and you probably won't win the cup, barring a Cinderella miracle run. 

 

No fan in the league would argue that they don't want their team to fall into the elite category, though, if they were given the option to choose. High draft picks are fun, but the Cup is what it's all about. So ask yourself: which team is closer to being elite, the bottom-feeder, or the team "trapped" in the middle? Let's compare two teams with using the benefit of hindsight, the 2006/2007 Canucks and Oilers. 

 

Oilers - Yeah, ten years ago, they were a bad team. We all know they've been a bad team for a long time, so this isn't a surprise to anyone. However, despite all the high picks, this team has failed to transition to a middle team, let alone an elite team. 

 

Canucks - Undoubtedly a "middle" team at the time. Their playoff record was unimpressive in the previous few years leading up to this season, and it was clearly a big deal for the franchise and fans to win that one playoff round against Dallas. It was progress. Yes, this team was built on some high picks, but the really crucial difference here is that the team successfully managed to transition into a mid-pack team. 

 

The bottom line is this: if you're a team in the middle, you have options that can put you over the top. It might be a surprise draft pick that exceeds expectations, or it might be some free agent signings. It was a mix of both of those elements that brought the Canucks to the Stanley Cup Finals in 2011. Having been a mid-tier team the previous few years, you can see how they built on that playoff win against Dallas by developing their roster, adding some prospects gradually, and some key free agent signings (like Malhotra and Hamhuis). That's how it's done. 

 

Personally, I'd rather have a team that needs some fine tuning or finishing touches, than a team that's trying to build a foundation. I think we are a bottom team right now, but I hope we won't be for long. I look forward to being a middle-of-the-pack team again, it will simply mean we'll be that much closer. 

[TheRussianRocket.]

This argument is flawed. Can't use the Oilers as a precedent for a team wanting to tank.

 

 

...anyways this has been discussed to death here and I'm sure majority of the fans are ready to tank.

 

Thing with us being a "middle of the pack team" is we have nothing to fine tune. Once you realize that, it's obvious we have to rebuild as we have no set foundation for the future. 

[LaBamba]

Why don't we all just agree that there isn't one way to build a team. 

 

Just pick a plan and sick with it. 

[Remy]

7 minutes ago, TheRussianRocket. said:

This argument is flawed. Can't use the Oilers as a precedent for a team wanting to tank.

 

 

...anyways this has been discussed to death here and I'm sure majority of the fans are ready to tank.

 

Thing with us being a "middle of the pack team" is we have nothing to fine tune. Once you realize that, it's obvious we have to rebuild as we have no set foundation for the future. 

I don't think you actually read what I wrote. I did not call us, currently, a middle of the pack team. We're much nearer to the bottom this year, I think that's clear. What I did say, is that I look forward to us being mid-pack again in the near future. Big difference. 

[MJDDawg]

The Canucks became a "middle" team because of top picks like Lui (yes by trade but still a top pick), the twins, Kes ...etc and with  some good luck and good drafting were then surrounded by key pieces such as Juice, Burr and other key vets.

 

But those quality picks formed the backbone and spine of the team for almost 10 years and without them, they wouldn't have even become a "middle" team. 

 

So lay down the core of the team with a few quality top picks, then surround them with the right pieces.

[drsofthands]

 ~ 1st overall picks and their influence

looking at the eastern conference

 

washington - ovi

tampa - stamkos and hedman

florida - barkov and ekblad

ny- tavares

pittsburgh - crosby and malkin

 

5/8 teams in the eastern conf playoffs have had the #1 overall pick

 

of the 8 teams not in the playoffs none of them have a #1 on their team

[luckylager]

I just hate losing and that's all there is to it.

 

Though it's an easier pill to swallow when you have an entire team that gives their all and suffers a loss, compared to the underwhelming effort put forth by some of our current players, losing still sucks no matter how you slice it. 

 

We're at a point where it's clear we'll be a 500ish team for a few years, but then there will be a new hope, we'll middle, then we'll be elite again. 

 

If I were to compare the Canucks to the calendar year, we're in early December, Christmas draft is coming and hopefully Santa doesn't disappoint, but it sucks out, the spring blooms may show next year but the glory of summer is a long way off. At least we've been through Autumn and have shed a lot of dead weight, but there are still some bad branches that need pruning to make the most out of spring.

[Nuxfanabroad]

A lot of people get bogged down with these cliched distinctions. Middle ground(no-man's-land), vs scorched-earth(tanking).

 

But there are so MANY variables at play. Including the all-encompassing factor, as to whether the playing field is level, to begin with(& no, not sidetracking thread into that realm).

 

As case-studies, consider the Ducks or Lightning. 21st C, both have won Cups, & then they've followed shortly after with abysmal seasons. Both teams have changed ownerships, despite recent championships. Both these teams are in key markets that the league wants to help "grow the game".

 

Even if they just came off a poor season, would you(as an UFA) rather take a chance in one of those kinda' markets, or in a cold, puck-crazed locale(with pos & neg effect) like Edm or Winn?

 

-Weather

-taxes

-go to a US market, which seems favoured(no Cdn Cup since '93)

 

I've also noticed those same US markets can retain their FA's more easily. Depth-players appear to sign more reasonable deals. If you consistently save 10~20% on re-signing(& attracting) vets, it eventually amounts to a huge advantage. Particularly at TDL, when cap-hits are minimized.

 

FTR, I'd put Van's status somewhere between a favoured US 'golden child' & a remote, colder, smaller market(mostly Cdn ones). It's an expensive place, with a bit of a tortured puck-history. Yet Vancouver's natural beauty & intl prestige likely contribute to pretty strong attraction for a number of players. I'd assume this very factor, coupled with improved drafting/developing(adding Utica), will likely make our turnaround shorter than many may expect.

[ilduce39]

I actually expect us to be closer to a middle team next year, assuming better health and some progression from the young guys.
 

Where the "middle of the pack" team becomes a problem is when we're laden with veterans who aren't getting any better - not the case for us right now.  Still have a lot of work to do, but if we happen to flirt with the playoffs next year I'll be happy since it's because the young guys picked up the slack.

[Remy]

26 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Why don't we all just agree that there isn't one way to build a team. 

 

Just pick a plan and sick with it. 

Nothing that I wrote is at odds with that. I think some people are getting bogged down in semantics, particularly with how I mentioned the Oilers. 

 

My point certainly wasn't that high picks are bad. They obviously aren't. But if you can't transition to being a mid-team, it's not like you're going to go from bottom-feeder to contender. 

 

That's really all there is to it. My point was simply that it's not a BAD thing to be a team in the middle. Hopefully we get back there soon. 

[LaBamba]

2 minutes ago, Remy said:

Nothing that I wrote is at odds with that. I think some people are getting bogged down in semantics, particularly with how I mentioned the Oilers. 

 

My point certainly wasn't that high picks are bad. They obviously aren't. But if you can't transition to being a mid-team, it's not like you're going to go from bottom-feeder to contender. 

 

That's really all there is to it. My point was simply that it's not a BAD thing to be a team in the middle. Hopefully we get back there soon. 

I wish we had no salary cap. I miss the days where GMs were given unlimited funds to go nuts. 

 

Vancouver would greatly benefit from from no cap and hopefully it would bankrupt these money leaching teams down south. A nice healthy 21 team league with no cap. 

[CeeBee51]

Every team is a middle of the pack team somewhere in their cycle...... either on the way up, the way down or seemingly forever floundering  mid pack..... the law of nature 

[Nuxfanabroad]

8 minutes ago, Remy said:

Nothing that I wrote is at odds with that. I think some people are getting bogged down in semantics, particularly with how I mentioned the Oilers. 

 

My point certainly wasn't that high picks are bad. They obviously aren't. But if you can't transition to being a mid-team, it's not like you're going to go from bottom-feeder to contender. 

 

That's really all there is to it. My point was simply that it's not a BAD thing to be a team in the middle. Hopefully we get back there soon. 

Again..look at TBay. How did they get Stammer/Hedman types? Incredibly poor seasons. Then they book-end such campaigns with 2 recent trips to the final-4.

 

IF this very franchise were suddenly dropped into a remote Cdn locale(like Edm), they'd likely lose a lot of depth-talent, & have trouble attracting worthy replacements.

[coolboarder]

Roster changes swiftly every year, there is no way to predict the roster personnel 2 years from now.  Remember, Anaheim had a poor years then a middle in pack teams and suddenly won the cup in 2007?   The same for their run in 2015, they had a mediocre year in 2013 and suddenly became a great team after acquisition for Kesler in a trade?  After a simple trade, it could be a sudden upward swing just like Canucks big trade in 1991 deadlines?   It got the Canucks finishing first in Smythe the next season.   So the point of all things is that roster cannot be predicted even a season or two.   Sometimes being a middle in the pack can sudden becomes a contenders even after a transaction.   Not once Anaheim hit a rock bottom to become a contender.  

 

The Canucks have been a middle in the pack with a couple of great seasons.   While I agree that they are trending downward swing but that does not mean that they have a hit rock bottom.  With a great free agent signing and a top-tiering drafting could put them upward swing a couple of years from now, back to middle in the pack for a few more years before becoming a powerhouse team as long as their draftee pans out or a nice surprise or two for example, Hutton as an example.  

 

You don't need to hit a rock bottom to become a cup favorite.  This is not guarantee, you need more than just a top 5 pick, you need a few mid-round picks to stock your roster back to respectability with a great free agent signings.   One top pick out of 23 man roster is one big ask for a player to carry the team.   You need more help elsewhere, a great supporting cast.

[Remy]

3 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Again..look at TBay. How did they get Stammer/Hedman types? Incredibly poor seasons. Then they book-end such campaigns with 2 recent trips to the final-4.

 

IF this very franchise were suddenly dropped into a remote Cdn locale(like Edm), they'd likely lose a lot of depth-talent, & have trouble attracting worthy replacements.

Well, if you want to exclude the Edmonton example as an outlier, the same could certainly be said of Tampa. By the way, to book-end means "on either side of", which doesn't fit with what you're saying. They had Cup Final appearances in 2004, and not again until 2015, not exactly the compact "book-end" you made it out to be. They did have two trips to the Conference Finals prior to last year, but both of those came after drafting Stamkos and Hedman, between '10 - '14. They turned things around pretty quickly, I'll grant you that, but it's not like they went "good season - 2 bad seasons - good season". Prior to 2010, they had several lacklustre outings. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

5 minutes ago, Remy said:

Well, if you want to exclude the Edmonton example as an outlier, the same could certainly be said of Tampa. By the way, to book-end means "on either side of", which doesn't fit with what you're saying. They had Cup Final appearances in 2004, and not again until 2015, not exactly the compact "book-end" you made it out to be. They did have two trips to the Conference Finals prior to last year, but both of those came after drafting Stamkos and Hedman, between '10 - '14. They turned things around pretty quickly, I'll grant you that, but it's not like they went "good season - 2 bad seasons - good season". Prior to 2010, they had several lacklustre outings. 

Yeah, I was aware it's been a bit of a mixed-bag, book-end was a lazy term to choose. I think that market was also under financial-duress, then it seemed the league brought in one of their crony-types, & fortunes turned(in rather short order).

 

In general, it's really lame to me how key vets will always prefer such a 'sunbelt' market, over places like Edm. Cdn revenue(w/ passionate fanbases) have long been this league's lifeblood, yet many Cdn franchises seem to be glorified farm-systems.

[Phil_314]

Middle of the pack is fine, as long as your core guys are not past their peak you can build around them (see 2011).

Once they are (e.g. Iginla/ Kiprusoff/ Bouwmeester-era Flames) it's best to sell high.  It's like buying stocks: buy low, develop them to produce value, and then sell high before they drop.  It's not an exact scientific process in that it's hard to get the timing precise but it needs to be done to avoid bowing out into mediocrity ungracefully, and sometimes that involves the proverbial fire-sale or tank.  Then again, teams like Phillyhave done revamping decently with their aggressive moves, so either selling vets or being in the middle has its benefits.

[ButcherG]

I believe that tearing down and building a solid well balanced core is key to building a dynasty.

 

Edmonton is the worst possible example of failure, when you look at their other issues. Location being the biggest issue. We all remember Janet, and Pronger's wife, et al. Spending one day in Edmonton, will really make you CHILL out and want to hang out for your entire career.. The sweetness of life is in Cali, or Florida where their is ample opportunity for beautiful women. Even Van has experienced these issues with Luongo and his wife.

 

Furthermore, the game has changed, and with a salary cap its tough to keep players in one city. I don't expect McDavid to play his career in Edmonchuk. Whenever anyone brings up the Edmonton example to not tank, It just weakens their argument.

 

Can look at LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh et al who have won, and the reasons why.

 

Thankfully Van has a good location. The travel is not the best, and that hurts the team. It could be one of the reasons it has never succeeded and won a cup.

 

But the biggest reason, has been its poor drafting. And its inability to be patient and build through the draft. As soon as the Canucks have been able to compete, it would try and it never had enough pieces to push them over the top. 82, 94 and 11 all had the same issues. One shot per generation, and not enough talent to win, or even repeat an attempt.

 

 

 

 

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

a middle of the pack team. Drum roll a team who refused to rebuild drum rolll.

 

The Ottawa Senators. now ask yourself how many years are they away from being a legit contender. Ask yourself what that team can to do become elite?

 

another middle of the pack team. Drum roll

the Sanjose Sharks. Is that team elite? can they get it done?

 

another middle of the pack team Minnesota Wild? How many times have we seen them go into the finals? or even the Western Conference finals? 

 

Benning has made lots of mistakes, he can redeem and still fix this team, if they figure out and move two key guys .

a) Edler or Tanev

b. Hansen 

c) Dorsett for fun who needs him LOL okay that probably won't happen

but option a and b must happen, it will give them a chance at redeeming prospects and picks for the future. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

a middle of the pack team. Drum roll a team who refused to rebuild drum rolll.

 

The Ottawa Senators. now ask yourself how many years are they away from being a legit contender. Ask yourself what that team can to do become elite?

 

another middle of the pack team. Drum roll

the Sanjose Sharks. Is that team elite? can they get it done?

 

another middle of the pack team Minnesota Wild? How many times have we seen them go into the finals? or even the Western Conference finals? 

 

Benning has made lots of mistakes, he can redeem and still fix this team, if they figure out and move two key guys .

a) Edler or Tanev

b. Hansen 

c) Dorsett for fun who needs him LOL okay that probably won't happen

but option a and b must happen, it will give them a chance at redeeming prospects and picks for the future. 

Desi you ARE INSANELY correct.  That's you and Don Cherry who I've agreed with today.  I think the syphilococus has finally reached my brain.