Do you believe modern “Tanking” is acceptable?

[Jerzey Devil]

Modern tanking, imo, is not losing on purpose. Players would never go for that. The original meaning of tanking is the team loses games on purpose in one specific season to get the best draft pick creating a race to the bottom.

Modern tanking is trading/selling off valuable assets in exchange for draft picks and prospects knowing the team will not be trying to compete even for a playoff spot.

For the most part this is not a 1 year plan. It’s a multi year plan to accumulate the best draft picks and prospects possible while selling off older pieces.

So do you approve of or accept this way of building a team or tanking as some people call it?

Click to read more...

 

[AvroArrow]

Tanking is like what Pittsburgh did for Lemieux, sending their starting goalie down, the GM literally yelling at the coaching staff for winning games and intentionally losing.

I have no issue with real rebuilds, they are necessary and it's a cycle that pretty much every team goes through. Unless you're Detroit and keep drafting gems in later rounds.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

Tanking is like what Pittsburgh did for Lemieux, sending their starting goalie down, the GM literally yelling at the coaching staff for winning games and intentionally losing.

I have no issue with real rebuilds, they are necessary and it's a cycle that pretty much every team goes through. Unless you're Detroit and keep drafting gems in later rounds.

Yes!

Every org needs to go through the cycle of tearing it down, moving out salary, and rebuilding. Nothing wrong with that.

What Pittsburgh did (twice) is much more egregious.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's not deliberately losing, it's a valid rebuild strategy.

It's also the only real one possible in a cap world since you can't just go buy up free agents to rebuild.

A team needing a rebuild should trade its valuable assets for picks or young assets. Accumulate these assets, draft well and develop your picks and you'll have a consistent winner. Hawks, Pens, Kings, Bruins, Lightning all went this route in their own way. The problem is too many fans lump rebuilding in with tanking

Real tanking is what Pitt did to get Mario, sending starters to the AHL and directly icing worse lineups than they could

 

[Beau Knows]

What Pittsburgh did (twice) is much more egregious.

Twice?

 

[HisNoodliness]

I see it this way, the GM can deliberately tank and I'm mostly okay with it. If they bring a prospect along a bit more slowly that maybe could help the big club, trade away good players that don't figure into the future and make minimal effort to address holes in the lineup, that's fine by me.

I wouldn't enjoy it if coaches and players started tanking. I understand that realistically players can't give 100% every night and it must be demoralizing to play on a bottom feeder... But as long as everyone on the team is doing their best, then it's fine by me.

 

[PROUD PAPA]

I'm okay with it. I consider it a necessary evil basically.

 

[Zach716]

It's not even a guarantee. Buffalo tanked for McDavid and got Eichel. Whoever this year tanks for Bedard only has a 25.5% chance of even winning the lottery.

Teams just go through cycles naturally. Might as well tear it down rather than spend a decade in mediocrity until being forced to tear it down from scratch.

 

[ijuka]

Yes, I think that tanking should be a viable strategy like any other. The ownership takes a hit in ticket sales and marketing, so it's a significant investment.

 

[bossram]

It's part of the competitive cycle. After a while, a good team declines/stagnates, the GM should sell off parts, accumulate assets, ice a weak team for a good draft pick, and rebuild.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

There has to be one team that finishes 32nd. I think the NFL does this the best.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Generally I'm okay with tanking but I hate what Chicago is doing, heading into an offseason with the sole purpose of making your team much worse isn't okay, just a terrible look for the league.

 

[leafsfan5]

Yes it is, continuously changing the rules to counter it is dumb. It's the cycle teams naturally go through

Bad teams need to get the good players. And this method doesn't even guarantee success, we've seen teams suck for years after bottoming out (Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona). You have to carefully bottom out and have good management in place to ensure a turnaround is possible

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I mean if you want to ice the worst team in the league for what, a 1/4 chance at the 1st overall pick? go for it lol

 

[MuckOG]

Intentionally tanking is a lazy approach to building a hockey team and I love it when it backfires on an organization.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

It’s the best way to contend. The SC is so hard to win that setting yourself up for 10+ years of having a legit kick at the can is the right play imo.

It also means that contenders have access to the good players on bad teams.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

 

[Big Bobby]

Depends how egregious it is. Are you just trading away expiring deals and not really trying to sign big name UFA's, or are you going full Chicago and actively trading away players in their early 20's because they'll hurt your chances of drafting Bedard? If it's the latter IMO it's problematic for the game.

 

[StrangeVision]

I don't care what other teams do, it doesn't affect me other than hopefully helping my team get some points when we play them (or be extra angry if we lose). If a team decides their best course of action is to be bad for a while to get a small advantage in the draft, okay sure whatever it's their team.

 

[King Karl]

I think the system could use some work, though I have absolutely no idea on how best to fix it. The most common flow seems to be:
1) Be bad (tank) -> draft high potential players, sell off aging talent and develop over a couple years
2) Compete with young talent on ELC/cheaper deals -> prime contention window
3) Compete, but core players are now on much heftier contracts -> can still compete, but much more difficult to fill out depth
4) Aging core, mostly on the tail ends of difficult deals to move -> stuck in purgatory
go back to (1) *unless you're Philadelphia or **unless you're Pittsburgh/Boston/Washington and have somehow been a playoff team for more than a decade

Given the constraints of the salary cap, it's difficult to maintain a competitive roster in the long term without stocking up on younger and cheaper talent, which in turn kind of necessitates tanking (unless you're really good/lucky with drafting).

 

[JackSlater]

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, but realistically not every team has the goal of winning the Stanley Cup in each season. It's fine for a team to try to build something for a few seasons down the road. Nothing is worse than seeing a team go all out just trying to scrape into the playoffs.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Tanking is fine.

The system does need work though. Hate the lottery. Just do the draft the same way the NFL does.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Trading UFA to be players for picks and or prospects is a normal thing in sports and I have no problem with it. As long a teams aren't throwing games by losing on purpose there is no problem.

 

[Albatros]

It's a broken system, losing shouldn't be incentivized.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I have no problem with tanking. Even if you do finish last, even if you do win the lottery, even if you do draft a franchise player at #1, it's still not some magic formula that guarantees playoff success. Look at Tampa Bay and Colorado, both teams got their cornerstone players with their top draft picks, but they still had to get other major pieces outside of the top 4 of the draft. If all Colorado had was MacKinnon, Makar, and Johnson, they would not have a cup.