[PGT] Anaheim Ducks at Vancouver Canucks | Mar. 26, 2019

[spook007]

23 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

They're important games to the players, 1% chance to the fans may mean nothing, but to the players it means everything. These guys aren't here to try and take the summer off. 

 

As someone who played competitive sports to a high level, the tank talk always rubs me the wrong way. None of these players play to lose. None. 

This.

It means everything as their jobs are on the line... If they can't do it, somebody else will. I find it baffling that this is so hard to understand.

Management can sit their best players, risking alienating them if they really want to tank, but unless a player has his head stuck up his @ss, he'd do anything to ensure he has a job the following season. Playing like crap or downing the tools surely won't help his job application...

[alt kilgore]

18 minutes ago, spook007 said:

This.

It means everything as their jobs are on the line... If they can't do it, somebody else will. I find it baffling that this is so hard to understand.

Management can sit their best players, risking alienating them if they really want to tank, but unless a player has his head stuck up his @ss, he'd do anything to ensure he has a job the following season. Playing like crap or downing the tools surely won't help his job application...

Yes. When people talk about the team tanking, they should preface it with an "organizational tank".  That is the only tank possible. In fact it IS possible for a team to tank, as an organization. But it comes with risk.  An owner can give the go ahead to a GM to trade away every decent veteran player, including your best goalie, for picks or promising prospects. Left with a team of Schallers, Granlunds, Spooners half mixed with wide eyed prospects, and a backup goalie playing as #1.   Then take advantage of the multiple high picks from the trades and from finishing at the bottom to stock the cupboards. That would take huge gazingas to go that scorched earth.  But it is possible

 

I can't see any GM doing that in this age. Because the risk is the reputation of the organization. Also, it would create a dismal losing atmosphere for the young players, who's growth may be stunted by not playing with higher talent or not being rewarded with results for good play.  So you ruin the teams reputation, atmosphere, cause tensions in the room probably, and hope that a couple of years of high picks, maybe multiple 1st rounders, because of the vets you traded, that eventually no one will remember how you got there. Then with such a plethora of high picks, which would hopefully develop as predicted, high talent vets from other teams would want to come back to Vancouver to be a part of the ascent. That would be the plan. 

 

But looking at Edmonton, which didn't get there purposely, but is in a similar situation, that is clearly no guarantee to develop a team properly.  But then their's was a slow death over 10 years of getting one or two high picks a season. The scorched earth would garner more at one time, which, as they'd develop all together, might, with added vets, be a more winning strategy. 

 

I'm not suggesting that. Just thought it would interesting to define exactly what a real tank would involve and the price we would pay.  It does make one ponder just how much better it is to retain the reputation, and retain (or try to) the winning culture by filling spots on half the team with other teams superfluous players. The rebuild on the fly.  Thing is that could work too.  (dam I hope so now) If everything works out. Which involves a lot of luck too. We need new signings/trades for support/bridge players to work out like Leivo, Rousell, Schenn have for the most part. And then also luck out in the draft, because you'd most likely not be getting a top three ,or have many extra picks.

 

Either way luck is involved.  But I do wonder where this team would be now if Benning had come in, with Aquillini's blessing, come in and gone scorched earth, maybe even to the point of seeing if trading the twins was possible, pressuring Edler to waive even if it pd him off, trade Tanev, and trade Burrows, Bieksa, Hansen, Hamhuis, earlier than they were.  Made a lot of people mad.  But stocked up on picks back then. Who would we have had now already mid-20's, complimenting Bo. Maybe we wouldn't have Pettersson, but perhaps we'd have Laine or Mathews, or even McDavid instead.   We don't know. But I do wonder at times how that approach would have worked out.

 

[Canorth]

On 3/27/2019 at 11:44 AM, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

F*$#  that kid is a great skater!

[hammertime]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:16 AM, Bertuzzi44ever said:

You realize tanknation is a term coined off of leafsnation the year they drafted Matthews right?

 

canucks fans saying tank nation is mega cringe because that’s not even our saying Canuck nation.

We are all tanks!

Believe in tank!

The heart of a tank!

Tank is what we live for!

Our team our tank!

This is what we tank for!

Canada's game Vancouver sucks!

Embrace the tank!

[spook007]

13 hours ago, kilgore said:

Yes. When people talk about the team tanking, they should preface it with an "organizational tank".  That is the only tank possible. In fact it IS possible for a team to tank, as an organization. But it comes with risk.  An owner can give the go ahead to a GM to trade away every decent veteran player, including your best goalie, for picks or promising prospects. Left with a team of Schallers, Granlunds, Spooners half mixed with wide eyed prospects, and a backup goalie playing as #1.   Then take advantage of the multiple high picks from the trades and from finishing at the bottom to stock the cupboards. That would take huge gazingas to go that scorched earth.  But it is possible

 

I can't see any GM doing that in this age. Because the risk is the reputation of the organization. Also, it would create a dismal losing atmosphere for the young players, who's growth may be stunted by not playing with higher talent or not being rewarded with results for good play.  So you ruin the teams reputation, atmosphere, cause tensions in the room probably, and hope that a couple of years of high picks, maybe multiple 1st rounders, because of the vets you traded, that eventually no one will remember how you got there. Then with such a plethora of high picks, which would hopefully develop as predicted, high talent vets from other teams would want to come back to Vancouver to be a part of the ascent. That would be the plan. 

 

But looking at Edmonton, which didn't get there purposely, but is in a similar situation, that is clearly no guarantee to develop a team properly.  But then their's was a slow death over 10 years of getting one or two high picks a season. The scorched earth would garner more at one time, which, as they'd develop all together, might, with added vets, be a more winning strategy. 

 

I'm not suggesting that. Just thought it would interesting to define exactly what a real tank would involve and the price we would pay.  It does make one ponder just how much better it is to retain the reputation, and retain (or try to) the winning culture by filling spots on half the team with other teams superfluous players. The rebuild on the fly.  Thing is that could work too.  (dam I hope so now) If everything works out. Which involves a lot of luck too. We need new signings/trades for support/bridge players to work out like Leivo, Rousell, Schenn have for the most part. And then also luck out in the draft, because you'd most likely not be getting a top three ,or have many extra picks.

 

Either way luck is involved.  But I do wonder where this team would be now if Benning had come in, with Aquillini's blessing, come in and gone scorched earth, maybe even to the point of seeing if trading the twins was possible, pressuring Edler to waive even if it pd him off, trade Tanev, and trade Burrows, Bieksa, Hansen, Hamhuis, earlier than they were.  Made a lot of people mad.  But stocked up on picks back then. Who would we have had now already mid-20's, complimenting Bo. Maybe we wouldn't have Pettersson, but perhaps we'd have Laine or Mathews, or even McDavid instead.   We don't know. But I do wonder at times how that approach would have worked out.

 

Cheers Kilgore. 

Well thought out response. Yes it is true that you can do an organisational tank as you say, and then aftetwards supplement the teams with veterans to support them. 

I think there is slightly more to it as well, as the economical aspect has to be included. It would most likely cost an organisation like Canucks a huge sum of money, to have empty stands. Part of this will be paid by lower salaries to players but thats only parts...

I think looking at teams that intentionally tanked, for the majority, it did not bring the required success. 

 

The one thing you need, is bucket loads of pure luck... you need to draft extremely well, you need to get your top picks in ‘good’ years, and you need your veteran, FA’s etc. to gel well and turn out to be as good as you could possibly hope for... 

 

I think we all sometimes wonder, what could have been, had the organisation stipped it down to the bare bones, but when we look at, where we are now, and what we have going forward, I’m pleased, and it hasn’t taken us forever to get to a stage, where we can see the future of our team. Some of the hockey this season has probably been the best since 2012-2013 ( and some has been about as bad as it gets). 

Now all we need, ate for them to continue their improvements, and we could become a force to be reconded with.... but still ways to go and nothing is certain. Just ask Oiler and Sabres fans.