Are you happy with the direction of the organization?

[BayStreetBully]

Then why has Rielly been up since he was nineteen but not Nylander?

Same reason Marner will be be called up next year. If Rielly or Marner were eligible for the AHL at age 19, Shanny would probably send them there.

 

[666]

The Leafs are nothing like the Hawks because the Hawks didn't tank.

There seems to be this myth around here that the Leafs are emulating Chicago in their tank style of rebuild. But the facts are that they aren't the same at all because Chicago didn't tank.

This is Chicago's history in the critical years.

2000 horrible but picked 9th overall

2001 made the playoffs but lost captain Amonte to UFA because Wirtz is cheap, drafted Babchuk 21, Keith at 54:That’s not tanking it’s just picking really well.

2002 signed Fluery to replace Amonte but Fleury suspended, picked Seabrooke at 14: That’s not tanking.

2003 started well lost Thibault to injury traded Sullivan age 29 and Zamnov who was 33 at the deadline, picked Barker at 3: It looks like they tried to win, lost their goaltender and then decided to dump vets

2004 cancelled

2005 signed Khabibulin and Acouin to win but injuries hit both and Daze retired, picked Toews at 3:That wasn't intentionally losing that was just lucky that the Pens and the Blues didn't pick Toews.

2006 signed Havlat, Smolinski and Handzus, all three got injured Havlet still top scorer, finished 5th last won the lottery and picked Kane at 1: That was definitely not tanking but it sure was lucky.

2007 Wirtz dies, almost made the playoffs and the rest is history.

Summary, Chicago is a dynasty because:
1) They drafted really well even before they started sucking.
2) The had a horrible owner who was cheap but they certainly tried to ice compettive teams.
3) They had very bad luck when it came to injuries so that caused them to suck.
4) They capitalized on other teams bad picks.
5) They won the lottery from 5th to pick Kane.

At no time did the Hawks actually tank. They just sucked, drafted well and won a lottery while always trying to ice a good team. In fact they looked a lot like the Nonis Leafs.

This should end the myth for most of you.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I happened to be flipping channels yesterday and saw a graphic where Chicago's top 5 players consumed more cap than the entire Leafs team that was on the ice and all the other Canadian teams were icing about $55M in cap and the Leafs were around $32M.

Why do you think that is?

because they are injured, you .... 're very lucky that we're on a message board. Holy smokes.

most of their players are on the IR. anyone they'd call up is still going to be making an ELC or something close to it.

 

[SprDaVE]

They didn't tank... That's a great joke.

Did they sell assets in the years they sucked near or around the deadline? Did they acquire multiple picks and future assets for their veterans? If the answer is yes, that's probably as close as tanking as you can get. I don't even have to look to know they sold multiples assets for future assets in the goal of changing their core and *gasp* not make an attempt at the playoffs because they sucked. Why didn't they trade their top pick for immediate help in order to compete ASAP? I really wonder?????

Your example fails to show that Chicago did not try to make the playoffs in the year they sucked. This is what you would consider tanking I believe, no? They didn't trade their picks. They didn't trade their top young assets for more developed ones. They rebuilt their team with the draft and young players by selling older core players.

Welcome to the NHL. At least 10 of the top 16 teams as we speak right now went through what we went through at some point or another in the last 10 or so years. I don't see why you're getting all bent out of shape for this. The only team that has not really tanked to stay competitive at any point over the last 2 decades have been the Red Wings. That's it.

 

[AINEC*]

OP is the master of what is deemed "sucking" and what is deemed "tanking"

 

[Bardown warrior]

So getting babcock = Tank. Btw the hawks were terrible. What a stupid thread

 

[Joey Hoser]

If that's the way you want to look at it, we can apply all the same logic to the Leafs. The team and the coaching staff are trying to win. Management is making moves with the future in mind instead of the present. No "tanking" necessary. When the Leafs move bodies out leading up to the deadline, it will be for the purpose of stockpiling draft picks and prospects.

"Tanking" is basically slang for this process.

 

[Jack Bauer]

because they are injured, you .... 're very lucky that we're on a message board. Holy smokes.

Post of the year.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Did Rielly have the opportunity to play in the AHL similar to Nylander?

he could have I think.

Honestly - I think if he had been under the Shanahan regime he would have been with the Marlies (quite frankly, would have benefited him - and us financially). and I think had Mark Frazer didn't get hurt - he probably would have been sent down (or back to ... i wanna say Moose Jaw?)

 

[deletethis]

The Hawks cleared house at the deadline several times. Whether you call that "tanking" or not, they traded more veterans at the trade deadline for draft picks than any other NHL team during that 2000-2005 period. Then they bottomed out for the 2006 and 2007 drafts.

 

[Ovate]

You agree that you have to be bad (whether intentionally or not), in order to get high picks, in order to eventually become great.

But if you actually have competent management, trying to be good means you become good. Which means you don't get high picks, which means you don't eventually become great.

So, the two options to eventually become great are to either hire incompetent management who will be bad even when they try to be good, or hire competent management but not make them try to be good immediately.

Somehow, purposely hiring incompetent management to mess up the team seems like the less justifiable option.

 

[BayStreetBully]

because they are injured, you .... 're very lucky that we're on a message board. Holy smokes.

most of their players are on the IR. anyone they'd call up is still going to be making an ELC or something close to it.

Come on now, Daisy. Have some integrity!

 

[NiL8r87]

Drafted #3 twice and #1 overall, didn't tank.

OK.

 

[BayStreetBully]

he could have I think.

Honestly - I think if he had been under the Shanahan regime he would have been with the Marlies (quite frankly, would have benefited him - and us financially). and I think had Mark Frazer didn't get hurt - he probably would have been sent down (or back to ... i wanna say Moose Jaw?)

Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize Rielly could've gone to the AHL. Still means nothing with Nylander though, as you take every player on a case by case basis.

 

[thewave]

There seems to be this myth around here that the Leafs are emulating Chicago in their tank style of rebuild. But the facts are that they aren't the same at all because Chicago didn't tank.

This is Chicago's history in the critical years.

2000 horrible but picked 9th overall

2001 made the playoffs but lost captain Amonte to UFA because Wirtz is cheap, drafted Babchuk 21, Keith at 54:That’s not tanking it’s just picking really well.

2002 signed Fluery to replace Amonte but Fleury suspended, picked Seabrooke at 14: That’s not tanking.

2003 started well lost Thibault to injury traded Sullivan age 29 and Zamnov who was 33 at the deadline, picked Barker at 3: It looks like they tried to win, lost their goaltender and then decided to dump vets

2004 cancelled

2005 signed Khabibulin and Acouin to win but injuries hit both and Daze retired, picked Toews at 3:That wasn't intentionally losing that was just lucky that the Pens and the Blues didn't pick Toews.

2006 signed Havlat, Smolinski and Handzus, all three got injured Havlet still top scorer, finished 5th last won the lottery and picked Kane at 1: That was definitely not tanking but it sure was lucky.

2007 Wirtz dies, almost made the playoffs and the rest is history.

Summary, Chicago is a dynasty because:
1) They drafted really well even before they started sucking.
2) The had a horrible owner who was cheap but they certainly tried to ice compettive teams.
3) They had very bad luck when it came to injuries so that caused them to suck.
4) They capitalized on other teams bad picks.
5) They won the lottery from 5th to pick Kane.

At no time did the Hawks actually tank. They just sucked, drafted well and won a lottery while always trying to ice a good team. In fact they looked a lot like the Nonis Leafs.

This should end the myth for most of you.

Haha, you mean they didn't proclaim tank?

We have a joker here.

 

[ToneBone03]

Team success is, 99% of the time, cyclical. When you're good, you add players and trade draft picks. When you're bad, you sell off your vets and acquire draft picks. That's how it works. The worst teams get first dibs on the most talented youngsters. The bad teams eventually become goods teams, and vice versa. This, of course, does not apply to the Edmonton Oilers.

Suddenly, rebuilding teams are tanking, or intentionally losing.

I highly doubt Babcock tells the boys "Alright, go out there and be terrible". Stop.

 

[BayStreetBully]

There seems to be this myth around here that the Leafs are emulating Chicago in their tank style of rebuild. But the facts are that they aren't the same at all because Chicago didn't tank.

This is Chicago's history in the critical years.

2000 horrible but picked 9th overall

2001 made the playoffs but lost captain Amonte to UFA because Wirtz is cheap, drafted Babchuk 21, Keith at 54:That’s not tanking it’s just picking really well.

2002 signed Fluery to replace Amonte but Fleury suspended, picked Seabrooke at 14: That’s not tanking.

2003 started well lost Thibault to injury traded Sullivan age 29 and Zamnov who was 33 at the deadline, picked Barker at 3: It looks like they tried to win, lost their goaltender and then decided to dump vets

2004 cancelled

2005 signed Khabibulin and Acouin to win but injuries hit both and Daze retired, picked Toews at 3:That wasn't intentionally losing that was just lucky that the Pens and the Blues didn't pick Toews.

2006 signed Havlat, Smolinski and Handzus, all three got injured Havlet still top scorer, finished 5th last won the lottery and picked Kane at 1: That was definitely not tanking but it sure was lucky.

2007 Wirtz dies, almost made the playoffs and the rest is history.

Summary, Chicago is a dynasty because:
1) They drafted really well even before they started sucking.
2) The had a horrible owner who was cheap but they certainly tried to ice compettive teams.
3) They had very bad luck when it came to injuries so that caused them to suck.
4) They capitalized on other teams bad picks.
5) They won the lottery from 5th to pick Kane.

At no time did the Hawks actually tank. They just sucked, drafted well and won a lottery while always trying to ice a good team. In fact they looked a lot like the Nonis Leafs.

This should end the myth for most of you.

You know, if you wanted to, you could easily make a narrative for the Leafs too.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Post of the year.

honestly - I don't swear - not really and I reallllly try hard not to chew people out. but questioning why we were dressing 32m in salary - without stopping to take the three seconds to draw the conclusion that

A: a good portion of the team is injured.

B: it's not even like they could do it deliberately. it's called the CAP floor.

C: that image he was talking about was that ,Seabrook, Keith, Towes + Kane make more than our lineup. DUH. that's their CORE and it's fricken Seabrook, Ketih Towes and Kane. Of COURSE they are going to make more than 3/4 of our line up.

 

[ACC1224]

he could have I think.

Honestly - I think if he had been under the Shanahan regime he would have been with the Marlies (quite frankly, would have benefited him - and us financially). and I think had Mark Frazer didn't get hurt - he probably would have been sent down (or back to ... i wanna say Moose Jaw?)

Why would his situation have been any different than Marners?

 

[Jack Bauer]

Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize Rielly could've gone to the AHL. Still means nothing with Nylander though, as you take every player on a case by case basis.

Rielly spent his 18yr old season back in the WHL after being drafted and ended his year with...the Marlies playing 14 games.

The next season our options with him were NHL or WHL. He played 73 NHL games that year (13-14)

By 14-15 when Shanny took over Rielly had a full NHL season under his belt. Sending him down at that point would have been sending the wrong message to the player who gave no reason to show having to go backwards a step in his development.

That's the only downfall to drafting from the CHL when you're picking high. You generally have a tough call to make in that 19yr old season.

If Shanny was in charge of the 2013 training camp I believe Rielly would have been sent back to the WHL.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize Rielly could've gone to the AHL. Still means nothing with Nylander though, as you take every player on a case by case basis.

honestly, I can't remember. and the whole age thing messes me up. I think he could have. but more likely he would have been sent down to moose jaw. I remember at the time, that I was advocating that he should go back because I didn't see the reason why he had to be up here. (and I thought that it would be a waste of a year on his ELC).

and then people keep saying that he missed a year of development because of his knee? or something? I just think he would have severely benefited being in Junior (OR the AHL if that was an option) - captaining team Canada and NOT being on the gong show that was this team the last two years.

again - MY personal fear is that Morgan is gonna be all taylor hall, and be like "all we know is losing, etc etc etc." (I just remember how despondant he looked last season). I know it's different because Babcock is here, and this is a good push in his development (learn against the top lines etc) - but it's always gonna bug me.

 

[Pookie]

I'm going to say no, they tanked or at least rebuilt through the draft.

A clear indication is the number of times you step to the podium.

NHL gives out 7 picks to each team every year.

Post lockout, and through the Toews and Kane drafts (3 drafts in total), the Hawks were given 21 picks by the NHL. They went to the podium 28 times.

And that's in addition to the 8 extra picks they had pre-lock out in 2004.

A total of 16 extra draft picks over a 4 year span, including the 1st overall, 3rd overall (twice) and 7th overall.

I'd say that's a clear stocking of the cupboards exercise.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Why would his situation have been any different than Marners?

i'm sorry... I really don't know what you are asking me here.

 

[ACC1224]

honestly, I can't remember. and the whole age thing messes me up. I think he could have. but more likely he would have been sent down to moose jaw. I remember at the time, that I was advocating that he should go back because I didn't see the reason why he had to be up here. (and I thought that it would be a waste of a year on his ELC).

and then people keep saying that he missed a year of development because of his knee? or something? I just think he would have severely benefited being in Junior (OR the AHL if that was an option) - captaining team Canada and NOT being on the gong show that was this team the last two years.

again - MY personal fear is that Morgan is gonna be all taylor hall, and be like "all we know is losing, etc etc etc." (I just remember how despondant he looked last season). I know it's different because Babcock is here, and this is a good push in his development (learn against the top lines etc) - but it's always gonna bug me.

Losing the his mentor couldn't have been easy on the young fella either.

 

[Jack Bauer]

honestly - I don't swear - not really and I reallllly try hard not to chew people out. but questioning why we were dressing 32m in salary - without stopping to take the three seconds to draw the conclusion that

A: a good portion of the team is injured.

B: it's not even like they could do it deliberately. it's called the CAP floor.

C: that image he was talking about was that ,Seabrook, Keith, Towes + Kane make more than our lineup. DUH. that's their CORE and it's fricken Seabrook, Ketih Towes and Kane. Of COURSE they are going to make more than 3/4 of our line up.

So true. I knew those posts would start once they showed that graphic on Saturday.

What's funny is that for years we were told that the owners wouldn't stomach that kind of payroll. Now that circumstance has them dressing a roster making $35 mil people in the very small minority see an issue with it.

That small minority is only strengthening the large majority at this point with every additional thought added to this thread.