GDT: 2018 Trade Deadline Thread

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Except that's the very definition of tanking - moving a bunch of productive roster players and not replacing their production. You and many others on here want teams to sell their assets and stay as bad as possible until such a time that a bonafide superstar or two are drafted. Any improvements in the meanwhile are to be frowned upon, because they worsen draft position. The added random luck of the lottery interferes with that master plan and that's why you're against it. I hope they keep adjusting the lottery in favor of bubble teams to prevent this long-term rebuilding strategy from becoming the norm. As for the perennial failures who just can't seem to get it together, their problem isn't a lack of high draft picks.

No, tanking is intentionally trying to lose games. As in your actions cannot be construed as having net hockey value. Trying to rebuild and losing games as a consequence is not tanking. You're pursuing net hockey value in picks and prospects, which will draft better players in the future. That's rebuilding. Tanking is the pre-Mario Penguins. Tanking is Buffalo playing games with their goaltending to avoid fielding a decent team.

 

[Red Stanley]

No, tanking is intentionally trying to lose games. As in your actions cannot be construed as having net hockey value. Trying to rebuild and losing games as a consequence is not tanking. You're pursuing net hockey value in picks and prospects, which will draft better players in the future. That's rebuilding.

Trading away production on a mass scale and not replacing it causes you to lose more games. It's the act of management restricting a roster's ability to win, which they'll try to do regardless of the master plan. Your definition is so nebulous that pretty much nobody ever tanks, unless they get rid of their most valuable players for nothing. And even then I'm sure someone on this board will find that to be of positive "net hockey value" in some cases.

 

[Winger98]

I think a tank has to have a focus on just losing for losing's sake. If Holland had dealt two or three or more guys away and didn't care about the return, that would be a tank. But if he dealt Tatar for what he got. If he then dealt Nyquist for a 1st and 3rd, he dealt Glendening for a 2nd, and he dealt Gator for a 1st and a 2nd... . That's not a tank to me. Yeah, we lose a bunch of production we wouldn't be replacing (at least not immediately) but the return would warrant those moves, especially with where the team is in the standings.

I also don't necessarily include financial problems as a tank. If an owner has fallen on hard times for whatever reason, and can't swallow more losses on his hockey team...well, it's a lousy decision to make but it's understandable. Same if a team has a massive payroll while getting lousy results. There is zero reason to blow a ton of money on something you're not getting a return on.

A few years ago, though, when Buffalo was awful and then realized they might have to be more awful so started dealing guys for almost literally nothing...that's a tank. They weren't dealing players because they couldn't afford to keep them, they weren't dealing players because the returns justified it, they were just dealing players to be an even lousier team.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Your definition is so nebulous that pretty much nobody ever tanks

Which has been the argument all along. You don't hate tanking, you hate rebuilding.

 

[Flowah]

Trading away production on a mass scale and not replacing it causes you to lose more games. It's the act of management restricting a roster's ability to win, which they'll try to do regardless of the master plan. Your definition is so nebulous that pretty much nobody ever tanks, unless they get rid of their most valuable players for nothing. And even then I'm sure someone on this board will find that to be of positive "net hockey value" in some cases.

And your definition of tanking is so broad it includes anything resembling a rebuild.

Apparently no rebuilding team can ever trade for picks or prospects otherwise they're tanking. They have to trade for established talent to replace the talent they're trading away.

The fact is that the most intelligent way to rebuild is through the draft. Every GM knows that. And the best way to get good draft picks is to pick higher in the draft. And the best way to get higher draft picks is to trade away decent-good players to contending teams in exchange for their draft picks. To you that's tanking. To me that's just the fastest rebuild path.

To avoid your definition of tanking, no mediocre team could ever improve unless they seriously fleece someone. No one is going to take good players off your hands and send you back great players. You're mediocre because you can't compete because your players aren't good enough. Where are those great players going to come from? Not from trades, again, unless you fleece someone. From the draft? With only the picks you came in with? A single first rounder? A single second rounder? That will take either an extreme stroke of luck or you will be mediocre forever.

 

[Red Stanley]

I think a tank has to have a focus on just losing for losing's sake. If Holland had dealt two or three or more guys away and didn't care about the return, that would be a tank. But if he dealt Tatar for what he got. If he then dealt Nyquist for a 1st and 3rd, he dealt Glendening for a 2nd, and he dealt Gator for a 1st and a 2nd... . That's not a tank to me. Yeah, we lose a bunch of production we wouldn't be replacing (at least not immediately) but the return would warrant those moves, especially with where the team is in the standings.

I also don't necessarily include financial problems as a tank. If an owner has fallen on hard times for whatever reason, and can't swallow more losses on his hockey team...well, it's a lousy decision to make but it's understandable. Same if a team has a massive payroll while getting lousy results. There is zero reason to blow a ton of money on something you're not getting a return on.

A few years ago, though, when Buffalo was awful and then realized they might have to be more awful so started dealing guys for almost literally nothing...that's a tank. They weren't dealing players because they couldn't afford to keep them, they weren't dealing players because the returns justified it, they were just dealing players to be an even lousier team.

Specifically for the Wings, the only clear tanking moves would be dealing Zetterberg, playing Coreau instead of Howard and benching Larkin for no reason. Yes, our bar is set that low. Other teams fail due to mismanagement. The lottery doesn't necessarily affect them one way or the other. What they need is better management/scouting/development. I just don't want to see teams tearing it down and actively avoiding improvement for long periods of time just for the sake of landing elite draft talent. It makes sense on a selfish individual team level, but it's toxic for the league overall, especially if it becomes the norm for rebuilding.

 

[Red Stanley]

And your definition of tanking is so broad it includes anything resembling a rebuild.

Apparently no rebuilding team can ever trade for picks or prospects otherwise they're tanking. They have to trade for established talent to replace the talent they're trading away.

The fact is that the most intelligent way to rebuild is through the draft. Every GM knows that. And the best way to get good draft picks is to pick higher in the draft. And the best way to get higher draft picks is to trade away decent-good players to contending teams in exchange for their draft picks. To you that's tanking. To me that's just the fastest rebuild path.

To avoid your definition of tanking, no mediocre team could ever improve unless they seriously fleece someone. No one is going to take good players off your hands and send you back great players. You're mediocre because you can't compete because your players aren't good enough. Where are those great players going to come from? Not from trades, again, unless you fleece someone. From the draft? With only the picks you came in with? A single first rounder? A single second rounder? That will take either an extreme stroke of luck or you will be mediocre forever.

You missed the part that said "on a massive scale". We were talking about trading most if not all productive players, not just a few here and there.

 

[Red Stanley]

Which has been the argument all along. You don't hate tanking, you hate rebuilding.

You base yours on the idea on net hockey value.

"You're pursuing net hockey value in picks and prospects, which will draft better players in the future."
​

Ok, so if those picks bust, are you then tanking retroactively?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

You base yours on the idea on net hockey value.

"You're pursuing net hockey value in picks and prospects, which will draft better players in the future."
​

Ok, so if those picks bust, are you then tanking retroactively?

No. Trying and failing is not the same as not trying at all.

 

[Ezekial]

Tanking is what a third of the NBA is doing, actively putting a terrible team out to win as few games as possible. Some of these teams are playing guys that don't even belong in d-league.

Over used term in this league.

 

[TheMule93]

Tanking is what a third of the NBA is doing, actively putting a terrible team out to win as few games as possible. Some of these teams are playing guys that don't even belong in d-league.

Over used term in this league.

While true, tanking is also much more viable in the NBA. Single players have much larger impacts, so a team tanking and getting their equivalent of McDavid would help them much more than an NHL team getting one superstar.

 

[Ezekial]

While true, tanking is also much more viable in the NBA. Single players have much larger impacts, so a team tanking and getting their equivalent of McDavid would help them much more than an NHL team getting one superstar.

Definitely, only 2 rounds too and outside of a few exceptions generally very top heavy drafts. Golden State kinda skewed that chart though.

 

[Red Stanley]

No. Trying and failing is not the same as not trying at all.

Seems rather odd to use something that's so hard to measure or define as the definition of another thing you claim is very straight-forward and simple. We've been talking for a while and I'm still unclear as to which teams you think are rebuilding. It almost sounds like it's all of the ones who traded players for futures, yet none, cause they didn't trade enough players.

I gave you my definition of a tank - trading away most if not all of your productive roster and not replacing their production. If teams do this knowing their kids aren't capable of stepping in as serviceable replacements, they're tanking for the purpose of being bad for a long time until the draft bails them out. That, in my opinion, is toxic.

Now here's my definition of a rebuild - the transitional replacement of one core with the next. Method and time frame are relevant only for measuring success and failure.

It's logically and logistically impossible for me or anyone to be against rebuilds. I do, however, prefer smoother, more gradual rebuild methods (the ones some people condescendingly refer to as "standard organizational procedures" for teams outside the playoffs) to radical, tear-down tanks of doom. I never said they're altogether illogical and ineffective. In fact, they're so logical and effective for the individual team nowadays that a draft lottery exits to discourage them. Them becoming the norm would not be good for the league and the game in general.

 

[Red Stanley]

Tanking is what a third of the NBA is doing, actively putting a terrible team out to win as few games as possible. Some of these teams are playing guys that don't even belong in d-league.

Over used term in this league.

They're rare for sure. What's not rare is the "tank nao or else" fan outcries all over social media. I don't know if that's becoming the general sentiment or it's just the loud minorty, but how long till NHL managers start to think it's not only OK, but desirable to tank? That's what I'm afraid of.

 

[jkutswings]

They're rare for sure. What's not rare is the "tank nao or else" fan outcries all over social media. I don't know if that's becoming the general sentiment or it's just the loud minorty, but how long till NHL managers start to think it's not only OK, but desirable to tank? That's what I'm afraid of.

Whether it's "right or wrong", do you expect most casual fans to have the patience, amongst an ever-increasing buffet of entertainment options, to hang in there for 5-10 years during a gradual attempt at rebuilding?

TV shows are significantly shorter than a sports game. Movies are on par or shorter, and are continuing to get shorter on average. Attention spans aren't getting longer, and attendance/ratings aren't on the rise. Key demographics want things more and more instantaneously, so I wouldn't expect the "tank nao" crowd to diminish in the future (speaking of sports in general, not just the Wings).

 

[kliq]

I'm saying parity doesn't really exist.
Sure, teams stick around the NHL playoff hunt for longer than they used - but that's more a function of the NHL's 3-point games, and the number of coaches hawking "low-event" hockey than the salary cap.

If you want a better idea of where these teams really are, check out their ROW stats. (Even better, regulation stats - but I can't easily find those)


Here's the other thing.
People point to 2002 as the reason why the salary cap was needed. Because Detroit traded for Hasek, signed Hull and signed Robitaille.
Hasek - 36
Hull - 37
Robitaille - 35

Ilitch's money allowed him to keep his players - that's huge.
It also allowed us to trade for other teams' expensive old players (Chelios - 39 in 01-02)

To a large degree, Holland was using his salary cap to spend on old guys, well past their prime.

Sure, either way, the point I was making is that the last 8 year for me personally have been boring because I'm sick of seeing the same teams win. When you are a fan of one of these teams its one thing, when you are not its unwatchable IMO.

Parity was brought up by jkutswings.

 

[Red Stanley]

Whether it's "right or wrong", do you expect most casual fans to have the patience, amongst an ever-increasing buffet of entertainment options, to hang in there for 5-10 years during a gradual attempt at rebuilding?

TV shows are significantly shorter than a sports game. Movies are on par or shorter, and are continuing to get shorter on average. Attention spans aren't getting longer, and attendance/ratings aren't on the rise. Key demographics want things more and more instantaneously, so I wouldn't expect the "tank nao" crowd to diminish in the future (speaking of sports in general, not just the Wings).

All of that makes sense. It could also be that the explosion of social media has given voice to what has always been there. I think those people are mostly not casuals, though. The casual fan is not emotionally invested enough to get mad. I'm a casual NFL fan and I couldn't give two shits whether or not the Patriots deflated their footballs.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Whether it's "right or wrong", do you expect most casual fans to have the patience, amongst an ever-increasing buffet of entertainment options, to hang in there for 5-10 years during a gradual attempt at rebuilding?

TV shows are significantly shorter than a sports game. Movies are on par or shorter, and are continuing to get shorter on average. Attention spans aren't getting longer, and attendance/ratings aren't on the rise. Key demographics want things more and more instantaneously, so I wouldn't expect the "tank nao" crowd to diminish in the future (speaking of sports in general, not just the Wings).

Yeah casual fans who don't understand hockey will always cry out for a tank because they think all you need is a top pick or two and you'll be an instant contender. They don't understand that 5-10 years is normal rebuilding time whether you call it "gradual" or if it includes tanking years. Most contenders have a core of players somewhere between 23-30 years. If you draft Crosby+Malkin back-to-back the timeline can accelerate but that's once in in a lifetime. Chicago and Toronto quickly improved after top picks, but owe significant parts of their success to picks made much, much earlier (Keith, Seabrook, Kadri, Rielly).
If we rebuild in 5-10 years counting from ~13 (2012 was last time we traded away a 1st) we've done alright but any measure.

 

[jkutswings]

Yeah casual fans who don't understand hockey will always cry out for a tank because they think all you need is a top pick or two and you'll be an instant contender. They don't understand that 5-10 years is normal rebuilding time whether you call it "gradual" or if it includes tanking years. Most contenders have a core of players somewhere between 23-30 years. If you draft Crosby+Malkin back-to-back the timeline can accelerate but that's once in in a lifetime. Chicago and Toronto quickly improved after top picks, but owe significant parts of their success to picks made much, much earlier (Keith, Seabrook, Kadri, Rielly).
If we rebuild in 5-10 years counting from ~13 (2012 was last time we traded away a 1st) we've done alright but any measure.

My point was that, even if 5-10 years is average...if the trend among a significant portion of people that make up NHL revenue is to expect results sooner, then a given franchise will either be on the good side of the bell curve, or will begin to lose revenue.

Among those more aggressive managers, some will succeed, and many will fail. And I would guess that many owners are still going to be conservative enough to fight the trend. But sports are changing, whether teams like it or not, and those who adapt will be best mitigated against any fallout from those changes.

For a specific example, if I was making a list of GM candidates for Detroit (if Holland doesn't get another deal), I'd be extremely interested in the contract status of Ray Shero in New Jersey, and whether I could pry him away. He had the core in Pittsburgh, then built a supporting cast. Then he quickly turned a doormat of a Devils team into a decent hockey club. Yes, the 1st overall fell into his lap, but I think he made the right call with going Hischier over Patrick, and he's made a laundry list of shrewd trades, especially getting Hall from Edmonton, and the moves just now at the deadline. He's been aggressive, yet calculated, and it's worked.

 

[TheMule93]

Tom tarter finally scored for Vegas