Contrasting Views

[Honky Cat]

32 minutes ago, Aircool said:

It's impossible to argue with you, because you don't concede anything and you don't see any of the validity in other people's arguments. Now rugged means, well they aren't physical just they can hold their own. This is the game you are going to play? Really? Constantly walking the line on the definition of the words you use, such that you can never be wrong. You used rugged SPECIFICALLY because we have Virtanen, Horvat, Tryamkin, players like that, and we don't have finesse players like Nylander or Marner. That is why you used it, you didn't use it to say well "Crosby is tough.. or Stamkos is tough..."...... Just keep walking the line then, I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is as disingenuous as you.

 

I think Virtanen may well have a bright future ahead, but presently, Toronto would say no to a 1 for 1 trade for Nylander. That may change in the future, but PRESENTLY that is the case. Nylander is currently the better player.

 

You tried to compare our prospect pool to Toronto's... That's a huge waste of time, clearly we are nowhere near them.

 

I agree that we shouldn't be close to the Leafs, I didn't say we should, I was just refuting someone who was delusional enough to think our prospect core was even worth comparing to theirs. 

 

I do agree that we have drafted well, we just need more high end prospects. It's my contention that it is easier to build a team around a core of drafted high end players, than it is to draft role players and try to acquire the stars to carry them. I think that's obvious, and I just think that Toronto is closer to having that core of high end players, that they STILL need to supplement with the supporting cast. So maybe they don't have a Tryamkin or Hutton yet, but those are a LOT easier to acquire than the Rielly or the Juolevi (we hope)... Any team in the league could accomplish that, except Edmonton from '06-'15... Somehow...

Funny how you have your little' hissy fits' ...I've been on these boards for quite some time,and it's you my friend,that seems to get terribly bent out of shape..

 

I will ask you one more time..... quote me where I said the Leafs 'prospect pool" was as better or worse than ours?..

 

 

 

 

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

None of these teams did a "pre-meditated" tank (like present era Toronto or Buffalo).They just plain flat out sucked....The Penguins were almost sold and relocated,the Hawks were playing to 5,000 peeps in the United Centre,and nobody gave a crap in LA....

 

 

 

 

Pre-meditated or not, clearly tanking works. And the risk of losing the team is one a GOOD owner would be willing to take, for the chance of maybe winning the Cup at some point in the indefinite future. Damn you Aquaman.

[Aircool]

45 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Funny how you have your little' hissy fits' ...I've been on these boards for quite some time,and it's you my friend,that seems to get terribly bent out of shape..

 

I will ask you one more time..... quote me where I said the Leafs 'prospect pool" was as better or worse than ours?..

You see, I never once accused you of saying that. I just said it was ludicrous to compare our prospect pool to theirs as ours is clearly worse. I made the statement that there is no way that our prospect pool is currently better... In one of my replies to you... Does that automatically mean that your opinion is the opposite? Just because I've quoted you? I still find it laughable to compare our prospect pool to the Maple Leafs, I said as much in my last post as well, I've never once yet accused you of saying that ours was better.

 

Unfortunately, the tactics are common amongst the unintelligent people on CDC. Playing the victim and asking people to provide quotes for statements they were never accused of making. You told me not to twist your words, yet I'm supposed to let you twist mine? You've been arguing the stupidest positions in this thread...

 

You've cited the recent the playoff appearances of teams with YOUNG and DEVELOPING, but high level talent, in an attempt to belittle the quality of their players. There is a reason that we get linked to Matt Duchene in rumours, even if they are complete garbage. It's because we would be drooling at the possibility of acquiring him, the media know this, and they try to sell us their nonsense. Just like we'd be drooling if we heard that we were in on MacKinnon, Landeskog, Draisaitl, McDavid, Monahan, Gaudreau, Brodie, Barrie.. The list goes on... These are just from teams that you've belittled.

 

You constantly walk the line on what your intended meaning of arbitrary descriptive words like "rugged", so that they always suit your point, but have no consistency when arguing with you. There is really nothing in terms of argument that you do right. When losing you address me, saying that I am having "hissy fits" for pointing out that you are a lying, flip-flopper with stupid opinions who has to be a contrarian and can never give people credit for making good points, and instead you insist of arguing every point any person ever makes (or ignoring them when they are completely unassailable or have made you look foolish).

 

Trust me when I say, I don't get bent out of shape. Not at all. When I get into arguments with people as argumentative, and yet as bad at arguing, as you... I enjoy tearing your arguments apart, sometimes in mean ways. When you make posts like the one I quoted, you warrant the tone of a reply like this. 

[CanadianRugby]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

None of these teams did a "pre-meditated" tank (like present era Toronto or Buffalo).They just plain flat out sucked....The Penguins were almost sold and relocated,the Hawks were playing to 5,000 peeps in the United Centre,and nobody gave a crap in LA....

 

 

 

 

Are you saying you only win cups if you suck because of pure ineptitude and not purposeful tanking?  And yeah no kidding, fans don't like to watch crappy teams.  Thanks for that insight. 

[Honky Cat]

6 minutes ago, Aircool said:

You see, I never once accused you of saying that. I just said it was ludicrous to compare our prospect pool to theirs as ours is clearly worse. I made the statement that there is no way that our prospect pool is currently better... In one of my replies to you... Does that automatically mean that your opinion is the opposite? Just because I've quoted you? I still find it laughable to compare our prospect pool to the Maple Leafs, I said as much in my last post as well, I've never once yet accused you of saying that ours was better.

 

Unfortunately, the tactics are common amongst the unintelligent people on CDC. Playing the victim and asking people to provide quotes for statements they were never accused of making. You told me not to twist your words, yet I'm supposed to let you twist mine? You've been arguing the stupidest positions in this thread...

 

You've cited the recent the playoff appearances of teams with YOUNG and DEVELOPING, but high level talent, in an attempt to belittle the quality of their players. There is a reason that we get linked to Matt Duchene in rumours, even if they are complete garbage. It's because we would be drooling at the possibility of acquiring him, the media know this, and they try to sell us their nonsense. Just like we'd be drooling if we heard that we were in on MacKinnon, Landeskog, Draisaitl, McDavid, Monahan, Gaudreau, Brodie, Barrie.. The list goes on... These are just from teams that you've belittled.

 

You constantly walk the line on what your intended meaning of arbitrary descriptive words like "rugged", so that they always suit your point, but have no consistency when arguing with you. There is really nothing in terms of argument that you do right. When losing you address me, saying that I am having "hissy fits" for pointing out that you are a lying, flip-flopper with stupid opinions who has to be a contrarian and can never give people credit for making good points, and instead you insist of arguing every point any person ever makes (or ignoring them when they are completely unassailable or have made you look foolish).

 

Trust me when I say, I don't get bent out of shape. Not at all. When I get into arguments with people as argumentative, and yet as bad at arguing, as you... I enjoy tearing your arguments apart, sometimes in mean ways. When you make posts like the one I quoted, you warrant the tone of a reply like this. 

Have you ever seen a movie called 'Play Misty For Me"...It's a bit like "Fatal Attraction"..you remind me of the crazy girlfriend...This is the second time I've replied to you,and the second time have gotten the same hysterical response......Hey,we're only debating hockey here...I have debates with peeps on here who I am completely opposed to,but I do respect them because we all want the best for the nux..right?...Obviously,i must have hit a nerve with you ...I won't bother asking you for the 3rd time to quote me,but its all good

 

[Honky Cat]

22 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Are you saying you only win cups if you suck because of pure ineptitude and not purposeful tanking?  And yeah no kidding, fans don't like to watch crappy teams.  Thanks for that insight. 

You're welcome.....But a pre planned tank is not going to happen in this market...

[Aircool]

2 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

Have you ever seen a movie called 'Play Misty For Me"...It's a bit like "Fatal Attraction"..you remind me of the crazy girlfriend...This is the second time I've replied to you,and the second time have gotten the same hysterical response......Hey,we're only debating hockey here...I have debates with peeps on here who I am completely opposed to,but I do respect them because we all want the best for the nux..right?...Obviously,i must have hit a nerve with you ...I won't bother asking you for the 3rd time to quote me,but its all good

 

Clearly you didn't read my first paragraph then... Quite clearly explained why no such quote has been produced.

 

No I haven't seen these movies, probably wouldn't make a difference since I know what's going on here. You're either trying to obfuscate or provide a completely different narrative to a situation in which you've made a giant fool of yourself.

 

Since we're only debating hockey, then why sling insults? I don't particularly care, I'm more than happy to return them... I just don't follow your train of thought. We're all just peeps that you respect that you debate hockey with, but you sling insults... It just doesn't compute. 

 

Depending on how you define "hitting a nerve" you have possibly done so. The way in which you demand the quotes to prove you've said something that no one accused you of saying. The way in which you make up things that I've supposedly said, then demand proof for it. The way in which you conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that put you in a weak position. The way in which you constantly change your definition of words to suit your argument. These are just a few things you do that "hit a nerve"...

 

Really the way I see it is that you use sleazy tactics that when people read your posts in isolation will paint a different picture of the discussion. Some of these tactics paint a negative picture of me as a person. Posts like this aren't "hysterical". Which by definition would mean I'm writing them out of uncontrolled/uncontrollable emotion... I am writing this post because you have been wrong in our argument, and won't allow you to paint any other picture. I am writing this post because you use sleazy tactics, and I don't wish to let you get away with them at my expense. There are many reasons why I write this post... I "could" choose to not write this post, but where's the fun in that?

[Honky Cat]

5 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Clearly you didn't read my first paragraph then... Quite clearly explained why no such quote has been produced.

 

No I haven't seen these movies, probably wouldn't make a difference since I know what's going on here. You're either trying to obfuscate or provide a completely different narrative to a situation in which you've made a giant fool of yourself.

 

Since we're only debating hockey, then why sling insults? I don't particularly care, I'm more than happy to return them... I just don't follow your train of thought. We're all just peeps that you respect that you debate hockey with, but you sling insults... It just doesn't compute. 

 

Depending on how you define "hitting a nerve" you have possibly done so. The way in which you demand the quotes to prove you've said something that no one accused you of saying. The way in which you make up things that I've supposedly said, then demand proof for it. The way in which you conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that put you in a weak position. The way in which you constantly change your definition of words to suit your argument. These are just a few things you do that "hit a nerve"...

 

Really the way I see it is that you use sleazy tactics that when people read your posts in isolation will paint a different picture of the discussion. Some of these tactics paint a negative picture of me as a person. Posts like this aren't "hysterical". Which by definition would mean I'm writing them out of uncontrolled/uncontrollable emotion... I am writing this post because you have been wrong in our argument, and won't allow you to paint any other picture. I am writing this post because you use sleazy tactics, and I don't wish to let you get away with them at my expense. There are many reasons why I write this post... I "could" choose to not write this post, but where's the fun in that?

and there's more...

[Phat Fingers]

6 hours ago, Aircool said:

It's impossible to argue with you, because you don't concede anything and you don't see any of the validity in other people's arguments. Now rugged means, well they aren't physical just they can hold their own. This is the game you are going to play? Really? Constantly walking the line on the definition of the words you use, such that you can never be wrong. You used rugged SPECIFICALLY because we have Virtanen, Horvat, Tryamkin, players like that, and we don't have finesse players like Nylander or Marner. That is why you used it, you didn't use it to say well "Crosby is tough.. or Stamkos is tough..."...... Just keep walking the line then, I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is as disingenuous as you.

 

I think Virtanen may well have a bright future ahead, but presently, Toronto would say no to a 1 for 1 trade for Nylander. That may change in the future, but PRESENTLY that is the case. Nylander is currently the better player.

 

You tried to compare our prospect pool to Toronto's... That's a huge waste of time, clearly we are nowhere near them.

 

I agree that we shouldn't be close to the Leafs, I didn't say we should, I was just refuting someone who was delusional enough to think our prospect core was even worth comparing to theirs. 

 

I do agree that we have drafted well, we just need more high end prospects. It's my contention that it is easier to build a team around a core of drafted high end players, than it is to draft role players and try to acquire the stars to carry them. I think that's obvious, and I just think that Toronto is closer to having that core of high end players, that they STILL need to supplement with the supporting cast. So maybe they don't have a Tryamkin or Hutton yet, but those are a LOT easier to acquire than the Rielly or the Juolevi (we hope)... Any team in the league could accomplish that, except Edmonton from '06-'15... Somehow...

I just took the time to review Toronto's prospect pool, other than Mathews and Gauthier, they are tiny up front.  Like Johnny Hockey tiny.  The Zaitzev signing helps their defensive depth, but the top defensive prospects are also undersized. 

 

The analytics crowd must love this pool, Pronman does, and there are good players, but many, many question marks about how they will do in the NHL. Who is going to make room for these guys when they get into the big leagues?  

 

You are not going to see Nylander, Marner, Lespic, Connor, Kapannen etc on the roster at the same time. Individually, they all have NHL potential, but on the same team?  

 

They may may have one of the most skilled prospect pools, but it's a soft as butter, very unbalanced.

 

Stats geeks love this, old school types, like myself, need some more meat and potatoes. As much as some folks believe that we could use a Nylander type player in our pool, Toronto needs a lot of Virtannen in theirs. 

 

     I look at Toronto, and then I look at Winnipeg, what a difference.  In my most amateur oppinion, I would take Winnipegs pool over Toronto's any day, with or without Laine and Mathews included.  The Jets pool is well balanced, and that allows guys like Ehlers to flourish. 

 

    Take the whole Nylander/Ehlers/Virtannen draft situation. Ehlers has had the best success so far.  He plays in a organization that has players that compliment his abilities.

 

    He also was the best pick of the three based on Analytics. How did Toronto not draft him over Nylander?  Ehlers was my first choice, then Jake and never Nylander. Soft perimeter players won't work in the west.  Unless we have guys like Jake there to make room for them. 

 

     Guys like Nylander, Shinkaruk, Baer etc, that all have talent but lack size, are perhaps the easiest players to find outside of the top 5 in the first round. Guys like Jake, based more on their physical abilities, are much harder to come by.   

 

    Toronto needs to start drafting some Jake Virtannen's at both forward or defence.  Their pool is better, and yes if the race to rebuild started today, they will likely get there sooner, but Toronto has a 10 year head start, and they are just ahead by a nose. 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

15 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Pittsburgh.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 8 years

Chicago.. 3 Stanley Cups in last 7 years

Los Angeles.. 2 Stanley Cups in last 5 years

 

OMG, it's almost like... if you tank and have good management.. you can win the cup.  If you tank and have crappy management, you end up like Edmonton. 

 

If tanking doesn't work.  Why have 7 out of the last 8 champions been tanking teams?  This is the question that Anti-Tank Nation can't seem to answer.  It's a head scratcher alright. 

I have to ask. 

 

Consider the hawks rebuild from 2000-2009, what have the hawks done differently (in terms of tanking) from what the canucks have done in the last 3 years?

[kylecanuck]

How many first overall picks have their name on the cup since 1988 I think I heard someone ask......

 

 

1988 - Mike Modano

2003 - Marc Andre Fleury

2005 - Sidney Crosby

2007 - Patrik Kane

 

 

 

That isn't a lot of names on that list through 28 years, there are certainly some HOF in that period that didn't win cups to boot. Two of the players are on the same team and won all their cups together. 

 

 

I know first over all is going to give you arguably the best player iut of the gate. It in no way guarantees you a cup though. 

 

 

[CanadianRugby]

14 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

You're welcome.....But a pre planned tank is not going to happen in this market...

No tank. No cup.  But no worries.  Because most of the fanbase seems more interested in making the playoffs than building a champion.  Oh, the joys of getting smashed in the 1st round we can all look forward to. 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

No tank. No cup.  But no worries.  Because most of the fanbase seems more interested in making the playoffs than building a champion.  Oh, the joys of getting smashed in the 1st round we can all look forward to. 

Yup.  The last three seasons had some excellent talent at the top of the drafts.  We missed out on all three. 

[CanadianRugby]

4 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I have to ask. 

 

Consider the hawks rebuild from 2000-2009, what have the hawks done differently (in terms of tanking) from what the canucks have done in the last 3 years?

They drafted 3 times in the top 3.  Hitting on 2 of those picks.  Toews and Kane. 

 

Chicago:

2000:  2 1st round picks.  Had 15 draft picks that year.

2001:  2 1st round picks.  7 picks in first 4 rounds.

2002:  Kept all their picks

2003:  3 picks in first 2 rounds.

2004:  3rd overall pick.  4 2nd round picks!!  8 picks in first 4 founds

2005:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2006:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2007:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2008:  Canuck style draft, no 2nd rounder

2009:  Kept all their picks

 

Total of 12 1st round picks and 16 2nd round picks.

 

So.. what have they done differently? 

 

Chicago stockpiled picks especially 2nd rounders and drafted in the top 3 multiple times.  Vancouver has been trading their 2nd round picks away instead of stockpiling picks and haven't drafted in the top 3 since they drafted the Sedins. 

[Aircool]

9 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

I just took the time to review Toronto's prospect pool, other than Mathews and Gauthier, they are tiny up front.  Like Johnny Hockey tiny.  The Zaitzev signing helps their defensive depth, but the top defensive prospects are also undersized. 

 

The analytics crowd must love this pool, Pronman does, and there are good players, but many, many question marks about how they will do in the NHL. Who is going to make room for these guys when they get into the big leagues?  

 

You are not going to see Nylander, Marner, Lespic, Connor, Kapannen etc on the roster at the same time. Individually, they all have NHL potential, but on the same team?  

 

They may may have one of the most skilled prospect pools, but it's a soft as butter, very unbalanced.

 

Stats geeks love this, old school types, like myself, need some more meat and potatoes. As much as some folks believe that we could use a Nylander type player in our pool, Toronto needs a lot of Virtannen in theirs. 

 

     I look at Toronto, and then I look at Winnipeg, what a difference.  In my most amateur oppinion, I would take Winnipegs pool over Toronto's any day, with or without Laine and Mathews included.  The Jets pool is well balanced, and that allows guys like Ehlers to flourish. 

 

    Take the whole Nylander/Ehlers/Virtannen draft situation. Ehlers has had the best success so far.  He plays in a organization that has players that compliment his abilities.

 

    He also was the best pick of the three based on Analytics. How did Toronto not draft him over Nylander?  Ehlers was my first choice, then Jake and never Nylander. Soft perimeter players won't work in the west.  Unless we have guys like Jake there to make room for them. 

 

     Guys like Nylander, Shinkaruk, Baer etc, that all have talent but lack size, are perhaps the easiest players to find outside of the top 5 in the first round. Guys like Jake, based more on their physical abilities, are much harder to come by.   

 

    Toronto needs to start drafting some Jake Virtannen's at both forward or defence.  Their pool is better, and yes if the race to rebuild started today, they will likely get there sooner, but Toronto has a 10 year head start, and they are just ahead by a nose. 

I understand your issues with size, but I guess you didn't see Nylander put up the points he did at the end of last season?

 

Now he could take a HUGE step back.... but name me the last Canucks prospect to come up and do that. It would have to be a GIGANTIC step. I agree that Toronto needs some more physical players in it's prospect pool, to complement their smaller forwards. I think you are really looking at some players that aren't really in Toronto's long term future. The names that matter TODAY are Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Rielly. We'll see who else steps to the forefront.

 

Toronto has been rebuilding as long as we have. Well no, we haven't been rebuilding... We've just been sucking into high draft positions. Let me rephrase that statement. Toronto has been rebuilding as long as we have been sucking into high draft positions. I don't know where you get this 10 year head start. Was Phil Kessel a rebuilding acquisition? They haven't made long term decisions at all in the last ten years until about 1-2 offseasons ago. They aren't ahead by a nose, they are ahead by 1 franchise player (Matthews), I guess since that's such a small difference, we can just go acquire one of those really cheap. 

 

I can't understand why people try to paint our prospect picture to be significantly better than it is. Our prospects step into the NHL and flounder, other teams prospects step into the NHL and have positive impact. I still like our prospects, and think they have potential, but please.... We could propose Horvat + Virtanen + Hutton for Matthews, they'd probably say no.

[CanadianRugby]

9 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

I just took the time to review Toronto's prospect pool, other than Mathews and Gauthier, they are tiny up front.  Like Johnny Hockey tiny.  The Zaitzev signing helps their defensive depth, but the top defensive prospects are also undersized. 

 

 

    Toronto needs to start drafting some Jake Virtannen's at both forward or defence.  Their pool is better, and yes if the race to rebuild started today, they will likely get there sooner, but Toronto has a 10 year head start, and they are just ahead by a nose. 

The only modern day dynasty was built around small/average players: Kane, Toews and Keith. 

 

I like Virtannen and his hitting, but he was a waste of a draft pick at 6th overall.  You're right that Toronto has a big head start but it didn't need to be that way.  We could have blown it up 2 years ago and been ahead of them.  They only embraced the suck last year, we haven't done it yet.

 

Matthews is the only future superstar on either team.  They're ahead by Matthews not by a nose. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

18 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

They drafted 3 times in the top 3.  Hitting on 2 of those picks.  Toews and Kane. 

 

Chicago:

2000:  2 1st round picks.  Had 15 draft picks that year.

2001:  2 1st round picks.  7 picks in first 4 rounds.

2002:  Kept all their picks

2003:  3 picks in first 2 rounds.

2004:  3rd overall pick.  4 2nd round picks!!  8 picks in first 4 founds

2005:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2006:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2007:  3 picks in first 2 rounds

2008:  Canuck style draft, no 2nd rounder

2009:  Kept all their picks

 

Total of 12 1st round picks and 16 2nd round picks.

 

So.. what have they done differently? 

 

Chicago stockpiled picks especially 2nd rounders and drafted in the top 3 multiple times.  Vancouver has been trading their 2nd round picks away instead of stockpiling picks and haven't drafted in the top 3 since they drafted the Sedins. 

What did you mention that is involved in tanking?  Stockpiling picks has zero to do with tanking.

 

Case in point.....Tampa Bay has had totaled 15 picks in the first two rounds over the last 5 years.  Last year they had 4 picks in the first 2 rounds,  Did Tampa tank last year?  No they didn't.

 

Your first post implied that these team won the cups because they tanked, but tanking is a very broad term.  It like saying the a team wins because they score goals.  Scoring goals isn’t a process, it represents the end result of a plan. The question I’m asking is how?  If you’re going to use hawks as your example of tanking, you should understand the a+b (plan) as to how they got there. 

 

What is the process involved to tank, what is the process the hawks took to achieve tank status. Is the process the hawks took, that much different than what the canucks have done as of late. 

 

I’ll start you off with yearly standings

 

Hawks

2000-01 – 22nd placed finish

2001-02 – 9th placed finish

2002-03 - 17th placed finish

2003-04 - 29th placed finish

2004-05 – lock out year

2005-06 - 28th placed finish

2006-07 - 26th placed finish (tied with 25th)

2007-08 – 20th placed finish

2008-09 – 6th placed finish

 

Canucks

2013-14 - 25th placed finish

2014-15 - 8th placed finish

2015-16 - 28th placed finish

 

How many years did the hawks tank?  If you’re going by season standings the had 3 years where they were in the bottom 6 teams in the league.

 

In 2004 hawk finished second last in the league and ended up drafting Cam Barker

In 2006 hawk finished as the 28th placed team and ended up drafting Johnathan Toews

In 2007 hawk finished as the 26th placed (tied with 25th) and ended up drafting Patrick Kane

 

Seeing any similarities?

 

In 2014 canucks finished as the 25th placed team (2007)

In 2016 ha canucks finished as 28th placed team (2006)

 

If tanking is based off standings placement canucks have basically matched the hawks.  Is it canucks fault that they haven't had the luck that hawks had when it comes to the draft lottery?   No that's due to outside circumstances that have nothing to do with how much planning you make. 

 

And that’s just based on standings, that’s just the start, I challenge you to do more digging in what that hawks season moves were between those years and see if they aren’t much different. Did they sign any experienced UFA goalie.  Make any trades for 24 year old players involving picks and prospects?  Acquire any offensive talent to help there goal scoring?  Acquire any veteran experience?

 

I doubt you will put the effort into that type of research as it’s much easier just to throw out an encompassing statement without having any understanding on it.  If tanking is the key, and hawks have a proven success model. How did they do it?

[RWMc1]

Chicago did not intentinally tank!!! The previous owner ran the franchise into the ground.

 

From Wikipedia.

 

"Almost immediately after becoming the new owner, Wirtz began altering some longstanding policies implemented by his father, which many fans saw as anachronistic. According to a source within the Hawks organization, Wirtz "believes in spending money to make money," in marked contrast to his father's frugal management style.^[4]

Wirtz stated in a brief interview that he would keep Dale Tallon as Blackhawks general manager and Denis Savard as head coach. He also affirmed at the time that Bob Pulford would remain as the team's senior vice president, but later reassigned him to Blackhawks liaison on NHL affairs.^[4][5] (Savard would be fired as head coach just four games into the 2008-09 season and replaced by Joel Quenneville.^[6])

On October 22, 2007, Wirtz announced that the team was in negotiations with Comcast SportsNet Chicago (of which he is part-owner) to begin televising home games. This was another break from Bill Wirtz's management of the Blackhawks, where games were previously unavailable on television unless they were nationally televised which only happened in the playoffs. That season, they began to show a select amount of home games, with Wirtz citing pre-existing agreements Comcast had with other programming as a reason why not all of the remaining 2007-08 home schedule could be shown. Wirtz also hired John McDonough, formerly with the Chicago Cubs to become the new President of the team.^[7] Many believed that McDonough's presence, along with the young talent on the Blackhawks team, would improve the team's marketing ability and reverse a long drought in popularity. This was evident in the fact that the Blackhawks were tops in the NHL for attendance in 2008-09 ^[8] while making it to the Western Conference Finals.

Former star players Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita, who were not on good terms with Bill Wirtz, have returned to the team in the role of "ambassadors," ^[9] another sign that Wirtz has been able to undo the damage to the franchise many attributed to his father."

[CanadianRugby]

13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What did you mention that is involved in tanking?  Stockpiling picks has zero to do with tanking.

 

I challenge you to do more digging in what that hawks season moves were between those years and see if they aren’t much different. Make any trades for 24 year old players involving picks and prospects? 

Chicago 2004-7

29th

28th

26th

Vancouver last 3 years

25th

8th

28th

 

That in itself is difference enough for a chance at top 3 picks.  They averaged finishing 28th overall those 3 years, our last 3 years we averaged 20th overall.  What a shock, they happened to draft Kane and Toews in those years.  Funny how that works, you don't get to draft McDavid when you finish 8th overall. 

 

Stockpiling picks may have zero to do with actually tanking, but it has everything to do with building a team that can win a cup one day. 

 

Did they make any trades for 24 year old players involving picks?  Probably.  We're talking about a 10 year period.  However, they had a 2nd round pick (or multiple) every one of those years except for one.  They had 12 1st and 16 2nd round picks in that period so obviously they weren't trading any picks unless they had extras.  Compare that with Vancouver who has had a grand total of ONE 2nd round pick in the last 3 years. 

[RWMc1]

11 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Chicago 2004-7

29th

28th

26th

Vancouver last 3 years

25th

8th

28th

 

That in itself is difference enough for a chance at top 3 picks.  They averaged finishing 28th overall those 3 years, our last 3 years we averaged 20th overall.  What a shock, they happened to draft Kane and Toews in those years.  Funny how that works, you don't get to draft McDavid when you finish 8th overall. 

 

Stockpiling picks may have zero to do with actually tanking, but it has everything to do with building a team that can win a cup one day. 

 

Did they make any trades for 24 year old players involving picks?  Probably.  We're talking about a 10 year period.  However, they had a 2nd round pick (or multiple) every one of those years except for one.  They had 12 1st and 16 2nd round picks in that period so obviously they weren't trading any picks unless they had extras.  Compare that with Vancouver who has had a grand total of ONE 2nd round pick in the last 3 years. 

Yeah that is far more important than the 6 1st rounders we've had in the last four drafts.