Hypothetical question for the pro-tank crowd

[Oddbob]

Pick #3 is awesome in this draft. I would be absolutely psyched.


Not by points percentage.

Who are we passing ahead of us? Philly maybe?

I don't agree with this. You don't need to trade away all your top players and intentionally try to be the worst like Chicago. But in the same vein, you also dont' need to sign a bunch of stopgap players before you have the requisite core talent for those stopgap players to matter.

None of the players added turn us into contender. They simply give us an actual NHL player to play instead of AHL scrubs.

 

[jkutswings]

None of the players added turn us into contender. They simply give us an actual NHL player to play instead of AHL scrubs.

And let the kids learn and grow without getting their heads kicked in every game.

We saw sophomore slumps from Seider and Raymond WITH some veterans to insulate them. Imagine how worthless some fans would think these kids are if they had been sinking completely on their own this year.

Would Rasmussen have shown those flashes?
Would Berggren be as encouraging?
For that matter, would Hronek have had any improvement over last year, or would he be labeled a bum to be shipped out for a bag of pucks?

The ripples on the pond don't stay in one place.

 

[odin1981]

It's a reality that is conveniently ignored by the "be scared of the mushy middle" crowd. They seem to think there is some catapult function to tanking for 10 years, being completely devoid of talent, drafting two future superstars and then, voila, you're a top-10 team.



View attachment 647350

I don't think it is as binary as you are making it. Being in the middle for say 2-4 years isn't a kiss of death provided because it is transition period. Like say when the Wings were on the last few years of the playoff streak Z and Datsyuk where on their last legs but too good to fall into the bottom 10. Likewise, for example after the maple leafs got Matthew's and Marner it wasn't bad for them when they where a bubble team for like 2-3 years because they were transitioning up to a "top ten" team in the league.

Where it becomes problematic is when like Minnesota or say like Winnipeg where for over a decade + you are in the middle 11-20 team's because you are never good enough to contend nor suck enough to fill up on talent for a run or cup window per say.

 

[SoupNazi]

I believe we had 10 forwards and 5 defenseman under contract prior to free agency. We literally had to do something in free agency to fill out a roster. I also know we had a healthy amount of cap space.

I think it's kind of ironic that most of the people who think we did "too much" in free agency think Copp and Chiarot suck, lol.

If anything, those two should be helping us tank.

 

[jaster]

I don't think it is as binary as you are making it. Being in the middle for say 2-4 years isn't a kiss of death provided because it is transition period. Like say when the Wings were on the last few years of the playoff streak Z and Datsyuk where on their last legs but too good to fall into the bottom 10. Likewise, for example after the maple leafs got Matthew's and Marner it wasn't bad for them when they where a bubble team for like 2-3 years because they were transitioning up to a "top ten" team in the league.

Where it becomes problematic is when like Minnesota or say like Winnipeg where for over a decade + you are in the middle 11-20 team's because you are never good enough to contend nor suck enough to fill up on talent for a run or cup window per say.

Well yeah, I agree, being in the middle for 10 years is worse than being in the middle for 5 years. My point was just that, while some people try to argue that Yzerman's current strategy risks Detroit being stuck in the middle for a long time, tanking for 10 years to get two superstars and otherwise being devoid of talent can just as easily result in the exact same thing.

 

[Frk It]

My point was just that, while some people try to argue that Yzerman's current strategy risks Detroit being stuck in the middle for a long time, tanking for 10 years to get two superstars and otherwise being devoid of talent can just as easily result in the exact same thing.

Some good life advice:

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Well yeah, I agree, being in the middle for 10 years is worse than being in the middle for 5 years. My point was just that, while some people try to argue that Yzerman's current strategy risks Detroit being stuck in the middle for a long time, tanking for 10 years to get two superstars and otherwise being devoid of talent can just as easily result in the exact same thing.

I guess my question is... why would they be devoid of talent? Dosent that assume every other draft pick or acquisition made during that period was a bust?

This debate seems to just be chasing its tail more than anything.

 

[norrisnick]

I guess my question is... why would they be devoid of talent? Dosent that assume every other draft pick or acquisition made during that period was a bust?

This debate seems to just be chasing its tail more than anything.

Because you can't have much of anything on your roster to be as bad or worse than the Hawks. You just gonna stash your lottery picks in juniors or Europe until you get all the pieces you want?

 

[jaster]

I guess my question is... why would they be devoid of talent? Dosent that assume every other draft pick or acquisition made during that period was a bust?

This debate seems to just be chasing its tail more than anything.

It has to be that way if you are tanking as hard as you can. It's the premise of the whole idea. If you let talent onto the roster, you're liable to be out-tanked by a team earlier on in their rebuild and miss out on one of your two superstars you'll be drafting. Attempting to be the worst team in the NHL for 10 straight years leaves little margin for error. You can't afford to make mistakes like let a good player play there. And you can't let good young talent play either, because they could be ruined by a losing culture. It has to all come together in one off-season; no young players ruined, no time in the mushy middle, and immediate contender status.

This is [allegedly] the way.

 

[odin1981]

Well yeah, I agree, being in the middle for 10 years is worse than being in the middle for 5 years. My point was just that, while some people try to argue that Yzerman's current strategy risks Detroit being stuck in the middle for a long time, tanking for 10 years to get two superstars and otherwise being devoid of talent can just as easily result in the exact same thing.

It's cool I understand. The biggest worry for me is that we will get stuck in the holding pattern of the middle ten teams of the league for awhile. But that is like 5+ years out. It isn't happening yet we are still in the bottom 10. And our remaining schedule should put us comfortably in the 6-10 range by season's end.

 

[jaster]

It's cool I understand. The biggest worry for me is that we will get stuck in the holding pattern of the middle ten teams of the league for awhile. But that is like 5+ years out. It isn't happening yet we are still in the bottom 10. And our remaining schedule should put us comfortably in the 6-10 range by season's end.

Yeah, the long-term range of outcomes is still pretty wide.

And I agree, while I want to see this team win, if I'm being honest it looks like they'll likely fall a couple more spots by season's end and easily get another top-10 pick in a good draft.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

It has to be that way if you are tanking as hard as you can. It's the premise of the whole idea. If you let talent onto the roster, you're liable to be out-tanked by a team earlier on in their rebuild and miss out on one of your two superstars you'll be drafting. Attempting to be the worst team in the NHL for 10 straight years leaves little margin for error. You can't afford to make mistakes like let a good player play there. And you can't let good young talent play either, because they could be ruined by a losing culture. It has to all come together in one off-season; no young players ruined, no time in the mushy middle, and immediate contender status.

This is [allegedly] the way.

Ohhh

Sorry

Didnt realize the premise was you had to be bad for 10 straight years under this scenario..

 

[TheOtherOne]

Excuse me for not figuring out how to fact check this, but are there actually teams in real life that have been stuck in the 15-20 range for a significant amount of time?

Honestly this seems like a completely made up, irrational fear. Bad teams are either perpetually bad for organizational reasons unrelated to their "strategy regarding tanking", or they bounce around the standings and eventually make playoffs and either fail or succeed.

Which teams, historically speaking, are examples of this idea that they just can't break out of that 15-20 range, because they sign a couple decent vets and refuse to intentionally ice a dumpster fire year after year?

And if your example is in limbo for 3-5 years I'd say that hardly counts.

Edit: or another way to ask this: Of all the non playoff teams in 2014/15, which of them would be winning Cups with McDavid right now, if only they had tried a little harder to suck that season?

 

[Frk It]

Excuse me for not figuring out how to fact check this, but are there actually teams in real life that have been stuck in the 15-20 range for a significant amount of time?

At a quick look, Dallas has kind of been hovering around that area for the last 5 years or so.

 

[StargateSG1]

Excuse me for not figuring out how to fact check this, but are there actually teams in real life that have been stuck in the 15-20 range for a significant amount of time?

Honestly this seems like a completely made up, irrational fear. Bad teams are either perpetually bad for organizational reasons unrelated to their "strategy regarding tanking", or they bounce around the standings and eventually make playoffs and either fail or succeed.

Which teams, historically speaking, are examples of this idea that they just can't break out of that 15-20 range, because they sign a couple decent vets and refuse to intentionally ice a dumpster fire year after year?

And if your example is in limbo for 3-5 years I'd say that hardly counts.

Edit: or another way to ask this: Of all the non playoff teams in 2014/15, which of them would be winning Cups with McDavid right now, if only they had tried a little harder to suck that season?

Maple Leafs in 2000s, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Dallas now. Without even "thinking hard".
Pretty much all bubble teams that don't make playoffs all that often.

 

[norrisnick]

At a quick look, Dallas has kind of been hovering around that area for the last 5 years or so.

And they're leading the West this season. Go figure...

Helps they landed a franchise D, franchise F, and franchise G in the 2017 draft.

 

[Frk It]

And they're leading the West this season. Go figure...

Helps they landed a franchise D, franchise F, and franchise G in the 2017 draft.

Lol, I looked at the last 5 years without looking at this year. Actually Winnipeg was another team consistently around that range and both of them are doing well this year.

Guess that's parity?

 

[Oddbob]

Excuse me for not figuring out how to fact check this, but are there actually teams in real life that have been stuck in the 15-20 range for a significant amount of time?

Honestly this seems like a completely made up, irrational fear. Bad teams are either perpetually bad for organizational reasons unrelated to their "strategy regarding tanking", or they bounce around the standings and eventually make playoffs and either fail or succeed.

Which teams, historically speaking, are examples of this idea that they just can't break out of that 15-20 range, because they sign a couple decent vets and refuse to intentionally ice a dumpster fire year after year?

And if your example is in limbo for 3-5 years I'd say that hardly counts.

Edit: or another way to ask this: Of all the non playoff teams in 2014/15, which of them would be winning Cups with McDavid right now, if only they had tried a little harder to suck that season?

I think maybe Minnesota fits that bill, as they haven't been really good or really bad for a long stretch, but they are about the only one close to that definition. Overall it has always been an HF made up thing to prop up that pure tanking is the only and true way to do things.

 

[norrisnick]

I think maybe Minnesota fits that bill, as they haven't been really good or really bad for a long stretch, but they are about the only one close to that definition. Overall it has always been an HF made up thing to prop up that pure tanking is the only and true way to do things.

And even Minny it's been cycles of making big moves, getting burned And then being a bit gunshy.

A bit too conservative apart from the Parise/Suter disaster.

Similar to Nashville.

Almost unwilling to take the purposeful step forward.

 

[DanielMarois]

And let the kids learn and grow without getting their heads kicked in every game.

We saw sophomore slumps from Seider and Raymond WITH some veterans to insulate them. Imagine how worthless some fans would think these kids are if they had been sinking completely on their own this year.

Would Rasmussen have shown those flashes?
Would Berggren be as encouraging?
For that matter, would Hronek have had any improvement over last year, or would he be labeled a bum to be shipped out for a bag of pucks?

The ripples on the pond don't stay in one place.

This can't be proven one way or the other, in fact Seider sunk while playing with the big free agent dman acquisition

 

[Retire91]

Its simple logic when you are not a legit playoff team you should maximize your odds at the best pick. There is no point in making minor adjustments for the short term. You wouldn't buy new tires for a car you are going to scrap in 6 months.

There is absolutely no point in trying to be more mediocre when the only reward is a worse draft pick.

When you have legit top talent then start building around the core.

Philisophically speaking the anti tank crowd needs to here this a few times. Tanking is not "trying to lose." Tanking is avoiding making yourself ineffectually better in the short term which only reduces our ability to obtain talent for long term contention. Minor adds without legit top talent is the cycle of maintaining mediocrity back to the Holland get in and anything can happen days.

I think you can word the tank vs antitank crowd a little differently. Those that want to "actually" contend some day. And those that are okay with being perpetually mediocre.

I am starting to wonder if they should increase the draft age so top 10 picks are a little more solid. That would be more effective with a lottery where outside of the top like 3 its anyone's guess and terrible teams just miss out.

At any rate our window to tank is already over. We did pretty well actually should have traded Bertuzzi though.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Cool thanks for the answers.

Minny has been a top 10 team for most of the past decade.

Dallas looks like they fit a bit better, but they were #2 in 15-16 and they're #3 right now.

That pretty much counts as success. I know everyone's gonna "but but the Cup". But the Cup is hard as shit to win, and a strategy can only optimize your chances, it can't guarantee anything. And I'd say based on this, Minny and Dal both optimized their chances.

Would they be better off today, if they had intentionally tanked in '12-'17? Maybe. I doubt it.

 

[norrisnick]

Its simple logic when you are not a legit playoff team you should maximize your odds at the best pick. There is no point in making minor adjustments for the short term. You wouldn't buy new tires for a car you are going to scrap in 6 months.

There is absolutely no point in trying to be more mediocre when the only reward is a worse draft pick.

When you have legit top talent then start building around the core.

Philisophically speaking the anti tank crowd needs to here this a few times. Tanking is not "trying to lose." Tanking is avoiding making yourself ineffectually better in the short term which only reduces our ability to obtain talent for long term contention. Minor adds without legit top talent is the cycle of maintaining mediocrity back to the Holland get in and anything can happen days.

I think you can word the tank vs antitank crowd a little differently. Those that want to "actually" contend some day. And those that are okay with being perpetually mediocre.

I am starting to wonder if they should increase the draft age so top 10 picks are a little more solid. That would be more effective with a lottery where outside of the top like 3 its anyone's guess and terrible teams just miss out.

At any rate our window to tank is already over. We did pretty well actually should have traded Bertuzzi though.

One could argue that they are with Seider and Edvinsson.

 

[Henkka]

Cool thanks for the answers.

Minny has been a top 10 team for most of the past decade.

Dallas looks like they fit a bit better, but they were #2 in 15-16 and they're #3 right now.

That pretty much counts as success. I know everyone's gonna "but but the Cup". But the Cup is hard as shit to win, and a strategy can only optimize your chances, it can't guarantee anything. And I'd say based on this, Minny and Dal both optimized their chances.

Dallas was also at 2020 SC finals. So it has been one peak season here and there.

 

[ZDH]

Obviously in that moment when Gary rugs us with his lottery balls as he does I would be upset. But would still be happy mainly bc this draft is real gud.