NHL Promotes, Facilitates, and Encourages Tanking.

[J0e Th0rnton]

Some interesting ideas, yes, but they seem to all come back to:

 

 

 

and glosses over (while admitting)

 

 

 

This is a situation that has happened all of twice in the past 15 years. This is not a "problem" that needs "fixing".

 

What "moves" could Buffalo or Arizona or the Oilers made that would stop them from coming in last this season? Someone has to come in last every year. There is no way around it. No amount of "moves" that "bad teams" make is going to change that. Because it can't change reality. Those three teams were going to be legit terrible regardless and there's not a whole lot any of them could have done to prevent it.

 

Sure, Buffalo traded away some players. Arizona dealt Yandle (finally).

 

"Dealing players for picks" happens all the time in the NHL and not necessarily strictly for "tanking" teams, either. Sabres dealt away five pending UFAs. That's what teams do at the deadline, and - again - not just to "tank."

There are all of three teams with less than 60 points this season, with Tronno making a late run at it. Does anyone really think that the Leafs entered the season expecting to be in the McDavid sweepstakes? Did the Leafs make any blatant "moves" to get worse and into the conversation?

 

There are only two more with fewer than 70 points. This isn't a situation where half the league is trying desperately to lose.

 

This simply isn't a "problem" in need of a "solution."

Meh. When teams get rewarded for sucking consistently like Edmonton by getting and then screwing up the development of great young players, it can get old quick.

 

Someone once mentioned that the 1st and 2nd overall pick should go to someone who finishes somewhere between 5th-10th last. That way there is no incentive to finish dead last, and even, gives added incentive to try to finish closer to the playoffs and make productive moves. Sounds a bit sketchy, but then again, it would force the teams trying to finish dead last to get McDavid/Eichel out of their ways and stop giving truly Crappy GM's a get out of jail free card.

 

Yeah, Arizona is having a bad year. But trading away Yandle? A 27 year old still young and in his prime for several more years  Dman who was leading the team in scoring multiple years? Dubnyk doing a great job despite the team in front of him. Sounds like a goalie you want around most teams. but no, sell him and keep the goalie who has been plain bad?

[radoran]

Meh. When teams get rewarded for sucking consistently like Edmonton by getting and then screwing up the development of great young players, it can get old quick.

 

What is Edmonton's "reward" exactly? Continuing to suck?

 

Edmonton has had top pick after top pick and they still suck. Just one more indication that for the vast majority of years, "tanking" doesn't guarantee anything.

 

But trading away Yandle? A 27 year old still young and in his prime for several more years

 

I've made that argument about Yandle for years. But at least the Coyotes got something for him. A 1st, a 2nd, a solid prospect and a fairly serviceable defenseman.

 

Yandle was likely gone after next season, anyway. Arizona wasn't going to afford him. He's a long-term rental for the Rags and got the Coyotes a nice return.

 

These are exactly the kind of "moves" teams in the cellar make to become more competitive next season rather than "tank".

 

Sounds like a goalie you want around most teams. but no, sell him and keep the goalie who has been plain bad?

 

And that goalie is under contract for the next (at least) four years. At a $5.667M cap hit. Again, what "moves" can Arizona make to "fix" that problem?

 

Dubnyk has been a "savior" for a couple of teams now, and has flamed out dramatically time and again.

 

Dubnyk is also a pending UFA so instead of losing him for nothing, the Coyotes got a third rounder.

 

Again, that's what teams do at the deadline - "tank" or no.

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

I don't think Edmonton tanked, I think they just sucked. 

 

And none of the years they finished dead last was there a "generational" talent, let alone two, up in the draft. Edmonton picked first when the likes of RNH/Yakupov and Hall went first. Halls a pretty good player, but really those 3 would be afterthoughts in this draft. 

[JackStraw]

I have no problem with what Buffalo or Phoenix have done. And for possibly THE dumbest suggestion to "solve" the non-problem of tanking, this was actually posted on another website...

 

All right so I know that a lot of people hate the way teams tank, and want to find a way to stop tanking. So how about this.

 

At the end of the year the bottom 5 or bottom 7 would play a tournement for the number one overall pick. It would be kind of like the memorial cup except for more teams. Also your positioning would determine your draft pick. This would make the 5 or 10 worse teams atleast try really hard during this tournement and they would do what ever they could to win the tourney or atleast finish as high as they can. This will atleast give the worst teams something to look forward to and try to play their best. ThouGh I think 10 teams might be to much imo it should be 7 worst teams. What do you think good idea to stop tanking or not.

 

That's right, a playoff for teams that suck. I'll bet sponsors would just be throwing money at NBC.

[radoran]

@radoran

 

I don't think Edmonton tanked, I think they just sucked. 

 

And none of the years they finished dead last was there a "generational" talent, let alone two, up in the draft. Edmonton picked first when the likes of RNH/Yakupov and Hall went first. Halls a pretty good player, but really those 3 would be afterthoughts in this draft.

By definition, there isn't generational talent in every draft. Let alone two.

And that's the point.

"Fixing" a "problem" that comes along once a decade isn't necessary. When is the next genrational talent, much less two, headed into the draft?

They've already made it that the worst team doesn't get first pick 4 out of five times.

[Polaris922]

There is no tanking problem. When teams suck they suck. Sucky teams always trade valuable commodities to get young valuable commodities. They try turning a player who won't realize their potential or they'll lose anyway into a prospect they can build around. Last place deserves that extra couple percentage point chance to do that.

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

 

There's a difference between sucking, and trading your two NHL goalies and apparently any player who tries to win, away, especially for a guy who's out all year. 

 

I don't see an ongoing problem or anything. But I hope the Sabres don't get Mcdavid just because they're trying so hard to.

[radoran]

@Polaris922

 

There's a difference between sucking, and trading your two NHL goalies and apparently any player who tries to win, away, especially for a guy who's out all year. 

 

I don't see an ongoing problem or anything. But I hope the Sabres don't get Mcdavid just because they're trying so hard to.

I think you misspelled "five pending UFAs" in your little screed

Isn't that what teams do? Trade any asset they can't or won't come to terms with for assets in the future? Isn't that what Philadelphia just did??

And all of that happened more or less at the deadline - after the Sabres were firmly leading the sweeps at the time. And I believe they were looking at Hackett as their goalie of the future (for better or worse) ever since they got him for Pominville.

Time will tell how the Kane deal works for them. But they didn't "lose" much by him not playing.

It

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

Buffalo has spent the last two seasons depleting itself of anyone and everyone that would take them above the cellar floor. I get your Buffalo connection rad.... But that's tanking. I'm not sure they would have done it if Yakupov was the #1 pick this year. I know they started last year, but I think their goal was McEichel.

[Polaris922]

I bet they would've. They had nothing going in the present. Their recent moves to become competitive have failed miserably. Why not flush the toilet and bring in some new water?

[B21]

Why not flush the toilet and bring in some new water?

 

I'm stealing that analogy.  Pure brilliance. 

[radoran]

@radoran

 

Buffalo has spent the last two seasons depleting itself of anyone and everyone that would take them above the cellar floor. I get your Buffalo connection rad.... But that's tanking. I'm not sure they would have done it if Yakupov was the #1 pick this year. I know they started last year, but I think their goal was McEichel.

 

1) teams trade away pending UFAs all the time. That includes the five pending UFAs they dealt at the deadline this season. And also includes Ryan Miller, Steve Ott, Thomas Vanek and Jaroslav Halak - players who were not going to be re-signed or were not going to re-sign.

 

2) teams "rebuild" all the time - and not just when there is "generational talent" available in the draft.

 

3) who did Buffalo "lose" that would have made them an actual "competitive" force in the NHL? Stafford? Neuvirth? Stewart? Mitchell? (Riley) Boychuk?  McNabb? Parker? (Brendan) Lemieux? Enroth? Armia? Adam? Pominville? Leopold? Regher? Sekera? Brennan? Roy? Kassian? Gaustad? Gragnani?

 

Because those are the names of the players dealt over the past two years. All of them returned assets to the team that are still valuable while those players, obviously, were not. Darcy Reigier left the team in an absolutely horrible position - how would you have addressed it?

 

The only real argument I could see being made is about Tyler Myers - an argument I've made myself on more than one occasion. But, again, teams deal guys "who need a change of scenery" all the time.

 

Moreover, going back to the article I responded to about telling teams to make moves to get them out of the cellar - those are exactly the kinds of moves a team needs to make to get out of the cellar. You replace the dead wood of Derek Roy or Drew Stafford today with assets that can improve you in the future. What is the alternative for a team in this position???

 

And, given the vast number of Flyers fans - yourself included - begging the team to lose to get into a better draft position, might I suggest that your "anti-Buffalo connection" might just be colouring your opinion here?

 

Finally, do you think any of the gimmicks proposed - "most points by a non-playoff team after the deadline", etc. - would significantly change anything beyond practically guaranteeing that "small market" and "non-competitive" teams stay in that position???

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

rad - I'm not knocking the Sabres...I'm just saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... I think they've got a ton of good prospects and picks. It certainly looks like they are going to add McDavid or Eichel....having one of them AND Reinhart down the middle (and Grigorenko) for the next decade + is going to be awesome  for them. They already have some great D prospects. At least they had a plan and stuck with it.

 

You've heard me say over the last 8 years I'd rather walk to a championship than run back to mediocrity. For 8 years the Flyers have been running.. Homer never had a plan, it was always react to whatever happened.  Now it appears with Hextall they're finally walking

 

But the Sabres are tanking. That's all I'm saying...it isn't just bad luck or injuries or whatever...this is the plan.

 

 If the Pens can do it why can't anyone else?

[radoran]

But the Sabres are tanking. That's all I'm saying...it isn't just bad luck or injuries or whatever...this is the plan.

 

Really depends how you want to define it.

 

Again, you can't say that keeping any of the guys (except maybe Myers) would have mattered at all to where they are. Might it have made them 28th? Possibly. Does anyone go into the season trying to figure out to how get up to 28th?

 

No.

 

One team's "tank" is another's "rebuild". In the context of this thread, what should the Sabres have done differently to position themselves to be a contender or what should the NHL do to "stop" this "tanking"?

 

I think Buffalo's move is entirely reasonable in a "rebuild" context. And I don't see anything that the NHL needs to "fix" about the situation.

 

At this point, the Sabres could easily - EASILY - find themselves picking third. How's that for a multi-year "tank job"?

[flyercanuck]

@radoran

 

Hey, i wanted the Flyers to suck for Stamkos or Doughty back in the Briere signing. To me, if you aren't contending, you may as well suck. And that's what the Sabres are doing. Very well.

[radoran]

@radoran

 

Hey, i wanted the Flyers to suck for Stamkos or Doughty back in the Briere signing. To me, if you aren't contending, you may as well suck. And that's what the Sabres are doing. Very well.

 

That's pretty much all I'm saying about the issue - the idea that there are some "moves" that places like Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton or Arizona could make that would make them "competitive" overnight is ridiculous.

 

And there's absolutely no reason to blow up the entire draft system because of it.

 

Tweaking it down to a 1 in 5 shot for the worst team to get #1 overall is, for me, good enough.

 

I think Buffalo will be in a similar position to Calgary if not next year than in two years. And all the spackle and plaster of Reghers, Otts, etc. wasn't going to put them in a better position than the path they chose.

[Polaris922]

"We didn't actually try to throw games. But, you know, we went in there with the understanding ... we weren't going to be upset if we lost."

[jammer2]

@AJgoal  That was a well written article you posted, never heard of that guy before, but something tells me that Sean guy might become a decent hockey writer.

[WordsOfWisdom]

 

One team's "tank" is another's "rebuild". In the context of this thread, what should the Sabres have done differently to position themselves to be a contender or what should the NHL do to "stop" this "tanking"?

 

 

Aha! I was waiting for the right moment to jump in! 

 

I'll answer your question with a question: The term "rebuild" has been used in professional sports for how many years?

 

Answer: It's a recent concept. Roughly 25-30 years old. It's a marketing buzzword. The term "rebuild" came into existence when the current draft system and free agency system came into existence. This whole strategy of going through 5-year periods of time where you team cannot win (but still manages to sell tickets anyway) is the result of a system that the league has put in place, and the result of absolutely brilliant marketing by the 30 teams and the league. They have succeeded in conditioning their customers to accept non-performance for extended periods of time, and they have created a system that rewards the last place teams with the best young players to achieve continuous churn in the standings, thereby making a last place finish a legitimate strategy to future success.

 

This would prevent tanking:

 

17: 7.1%

18: 7.1%

19: 7.1%

20: 7.1%

21: 7.1%

22: 7.1%

23: 7.1%

24: 7.1%

25: 7.1%

26: 7.1%

27: 7.1%

28: 7.1%

29: 7.1%

30: 7.1%

 

This would prevent tanking:

 

17: 15%

18: 14%

19: 13%

20: 12%

21: 11%

22: 10%

23: 8%

24: 6%

25: 4%

26: 2%

27: 2%

28: 1%

29: 1%

30: 1%

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Unless you're the Leafs...then a rebuild is 5 decades. (sorry, I live here too)

[radoran]

This would prevent tanking:

17: 15%

18: 14%

19: 13%

20: 12%

21: 11%

22: 10%

23: 8%

24: 6%

25: 4%

26: 2%

27: 2%

28: 1%

29: 1%

30: 1%

 

Again, any situation which puts the lowest teams at such a disadvantage is creating a system that keeps the bottom 5-10 teams in the bottom perpetually.

 

You still have yet to show how any of this is a "problem" in need of a "fix."

[JR Ewing]

Jeez... As if the worst teams aren't punished enough for being run poorly, now they're supposed to get bent over on draft day, too.

[Polaris922]

Aha! I was waiting for the right moment to jump in!

I'll answer your question with a question: The term "rebuild" has been used in professional sports for how many years?

Answer: It's a recent concept. Roughly 25-30 years old. It's a marketing buzzword. The term "rebuild" came into existence when the current draft system and free agency system came into existence. This whole strategy of going through 5-year periods of time where you team cannot win (but still manages to sell tickets anyway) is the result of a system that the league has put in place, and the result of absolutely brilliant marketing by the 30 teams and the league. They have succeeded in conditioning their customers to accept non-performance for extended periods of time, and they have created a system that rewards the last place teams with the best young players to achieve continuous churn in the standings, thereby making a last place finish a legitimate strategy to future success.

This would prevent tanking:

17: 7.1%

18: 7.1%

19: 7.1%

20: 7.1%

21: 7.1%

22: 7.1%

23: 7.1%

24: 7.1%

25: 7.1%

26: 7.1%

27: 7.1%

28: 7.1%

29: 7.1%

30: 7.1%

This would prevent tanking:

17: 15%

18: 14%

19: 13%

20: 12%

21: 11%

22: 10%

23: 8%

24: 6%

25: 4%

26: 2%

27: 2%

28: 1%

29: 1%

30: 1%

None of your "solutions" address the bottom team that's legitimately a bottom team. They ALL screw the struggling teams in favor of the ones who are already competitive. That's suicide for the league. You might as well just make it so the bottom four teams at the end of the year get dissolved because that's going to be the ultimate impact.

[WordsOfWisdom]

None of your "solutions" address the bottom team that's legitimately a bottom team. They ALL screw the struggling teams in favor of the ones who are already competitive. That's suicide for the league. You might as well just make it so the bottom four teams at the end of the year get dissolved because that's going to be the ultimate impact.

 

Okay, how about this:  A draft round robin.

 

Not to be confused with this guy... who is an actual robin. 

[Polaris922]

Okay, how about this: A draft round robin.

Not to be confused with this guy... who is an actual robin.

So you want them to play for the right to draft first? Lol. Again favors the stronger teams that don't need the talent quite as desperately.