Is the franchise committed to going-for-the-cup now, or is it over the hill?!

[VanIslander]

I remember as a child watching the great New Year's Eve games of the late 1970's between Montreal and the Soviets. I knew the Habs dynasty was over when Bowman and Dryden left, though the team brass denied it. Flash: I was born in Vancouver General Hospital and grew up on the same street as Joe Sakic, a kid whose parents were from Croatia and he didn't speak any English until grade school, I recall him as the shy kid with the weird smile. I am a lifelong Canucks fan but there are two points in the team's history when I was well aware the GM and ownership endorsed a wrong direction: 1) After the 1994 Stanley Cup run the franchise brought in Messier, and I KNEW from the second I heard it, it would mean Linden would be leaving town and I feared dark days ahead; 2) Losing the 2011 Stanley Cup run, the best competitors were Kesler, Luongo and Bieksa. The Sedins were useless for 2.5 of the 4 series but dynamite against the Sharks (I had huge mixed emotions that series!! having been a Sharks fan since Larionov, Makarov and Irbe & co upset Detroit, a team I loathe). Vancouver chose to re-sign the Sedins and let the trio I identified go elsewhere. I knew the team was heading down a long, dark alley they are now well into and there's no light at the end for several years. Flash: Marleau was said to have been offered a San Jose contract in the five-ish mill range, and even teammates said he seemed ready to re-sign and were surprised at the result. The Sharks did not replace Marleau (nor aggressively pursued re-signing him - I expected the GM to double-down and go all-in with extra great signings/trades for the short term!) but instead the franchise thought internal prospects could fill his shoes when the number one center was a slow 38 year old re-signed for $8 million (posterboy for everything is fine - like the Sedins), and Pavelski is 33, Burnsie is 32, Ward and Martin are 36. I fear the team has peaked and will - like Vancouver - be content with being merely competitive with the only forwards under contract after next season being Boedker and Karlsson. So, the team hasn't improved itself in the offseason but instead either has overly optimistic views about the immediate impact of Marleau replacement(s) - with no attention to upgrades to get over the hump we climbed - or else the franchise is content with simply making the playoffs and crossing their fingers. If Pavelski or Couture want to win the Stanley Cup, I suspect they will not sign contract extensions next season but finish off their contracts, go to free agency and join a franchise committed to making a cup run. Like this or trash this, it's what I think and I'm pissed about it.

Click to read more...

 

[stator]

There is much in similarities between the Sharks and the Canucks:

• Both had 1st and 2nd picks in the draft (excluding Patrik Stefan who was a terrible bust).
• Both had consistently made the playoffs since those picks.
• Each has been to the SCF once and lost in that timeframe.
• Both has lost out on high draft picks in the 1st round during this timeframe.
• Both could not trade either of those two top picks, and had some not so flattering press (Sharks probably more so).
• Both had notable episode with their head coaches (Tortorella and McLellan)
• Both tend to patch on the fly strategy, rather than a regular rebuild.
• Both are suffering from it, and need to rebuild (again).

There use to be a big rivalry between the two cites. No wonder.

 

[Juxtaposer]

My body is ready for the duel Pavelski/Couture trades (like the Richards/Carter trades).

(What even is this thread?)

 

[Beethovens 10th]

My body is ready for the duel Pavelski/Couture trades (like the Richards/Carter trades).

(What even is this thread?)

This thread is scary real, like chupacabras or Sasqatch. I say move Pavs, he’s slower than evolution and less real. People still think he’s good so we could get a real player for him. Cooch I’m okay with keeping assuming he takes a pay cut and actually gets close to 30 goals again. We’re not the Nucks cause Thornton is one man and the Sedins are two (technically they’re not even one cause they’re Swedish but I say two cause they need two airplane seats). I think Jumbo is fine as a supporting player, see the lightening when they won in 02’ Basically, I’m drunk and I think we need to get rid of everyone slow, so bye Martin, Pavs, Dillon (he’s not slow cept in the head) and whoever else. Just fix this or fire DeBoer.

 

[OrrNumber4]

There is much in similarities between the Sharks and the Canucks:

• Both had 1st and 2nd picks in the draft (excluding Patrik Stefan who was a terrible bust).
• Both had consistently made the playoffs since those picks.
• Each has been to the SCF once and lost in that timeframe.
• Both has lost out on high draft picks in the 1st round during this timeframe.
• Both could not trade either of those two top picks, and had some not so flattering press (Sharks probably more so).
• Both had notable episode with their head coaches (Tortorella and McLellan)
• Both tend to patch on the fly strategy, rather than a regular rebuild.
• Both are suffering from it, and need to rebuild (again).

There use to be a big rivalry between the two cites. No wonder.

The Sharks's window was longer than Vancouver's simply due to better drafting. Their future is looking better as well.

 

[stator]

The Sharks's window was longer than Vancouver's simply due to better drafting. Their future is looking better as well.

Hardly, but the Sharks have an small edge and didn't fade lately as much as the Canucks. But this can be explained by trading away the 1st round draft pick. Canucks have twice been without a 1st round pick in this century, while the Sharks have experienced it 5 times.

Obviously, DW is far more willing to trade away a 1st round draft pick for staying competitive. It's mute though, as neither team has brought home a cup in this era.

As for the Sharks drafting better, I cannot get by the drafting of Mirco to see any real superiority of Sharks' drafting.

This brings up an interesting question on whether DW is the league's #1 GM in trading away 1st round draft picks. Somebody else can research that.

 

[stator]

My body is ready for the duel Pavelski/Couture trades (like the Richards/Carter trades).

(What even is this thread?)

I don't know, specially after reading your post in this thread.... "My Body is ready...."

Are you saying that watching the Sharks is an out of body experience for you?

 

[Led Zappa]

Hardly, but the Sharks have an small edge and didn't fade lately as much as the Canucks. But this can be explained by trading away the 1st round draft pick. Canucks have twice been without a 1st round pick in this century, while the Sharks have experienced it 5 times.

Obviously, DW is far more willing to trade away a 1st round draft pick for staying competitive. It's mute though, as neither team has brought home a cup in this era.

As for the Sharks drafting better, I cannot get by the drafting of Mirco to see any real superiority of Sharks' drafting.

This brings up an interesting question on whether DW is the league's #1 GM in trading away 1st round draft picks. Somebody else can research that.

No. It's not mute. The Cup is not everything. Lots of teams have sucked for long periods of time and still haven't won it recently.

In the last 12 years 3 teams have won 8 of them. 4 teams won it once. 7 teams in 12 years. If you were to look back at how long the Hawks and Pens sucked you'd see that too. And still there's no guarantee the Sharks would have landed 2 of Crosby/Malkin or Kane/Towes or lucked into the team that was the Kings.

In the last 12 years the Sharks played in 48% of all possible rounds. The Canucks - 27%, the Kings 29%.

Look how long the Oilers had to suck before they got McJesus.

Now, if you wanna suck that long and still have no guarantee of winning a cup there's not much else I can say to persuade you. But DW putting a team together that's been this successful over the years is not equal (mute) to what the Canucks have done simply because we have no cup.

	Rounds Played
Year	Sharks	Result	Canucks	Result	Kings	Result
06	2	Oilers 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
07	2	Wings 4-2	2	Ducks 4-1	OUT	OUT
08	2	Stars 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
09	1	Ducks 4-2	2	Hawks 4-2	OUT	OUT
10	3	Hawks 4-0	2	Hawks 4-2	1	Nucks 4-2
11	3	Nucks 4-1	4	Bruins 4-3	1	Sharks 4-2
12	1	Blues 4-1	1	Kings 4-1	4	CUP
13	2	Sharks 4-0	1	Sharks 4-0	3	Hawks 4-1
14	1	Kings 4-3	OUT	OUT	4	CUP
15	OUT	OUT	1	Flames 4-2	OUT	OUT
16	4	Pens 4-2	OUT	OUT	1	Sharks 4-1
17	1	Oilers 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
Rounds	22		13		14
OUT	1		5		6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Juxtaposer]

See, this is the disconnect between me and LZ every time we argue. He thinks the Cup is not everything. I think it is.

The Sharks could easily make some smart trades, draft safe players, and be a good team again. But that’s not what I want. I want the Sharks to win a Stanley Cup. LZ wants the Sharks to be consistently very good and make the second round or so every year. Nothing’s wrong with that but it’s the core of most of our arguments. Teams that want to be consistently good draft Timo Meier. Teams that want to win a Cup draft Matt Barzal. Teams that want to be consistently good are okay drafting second and third liners in the first round. Teams that want to win a Cup take a chance on that player with a small chance of being a star.

In fact, I think that’s the big disconnect between many of us here.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

See, this is the disconnect between me and LZ every time we argue. He thinks the Cup is not everything. I think it is.

The Sharks could easily make some smart trades, draft safe players, and be a good team again. But that’s not what I want. I want the Sharks to win a Stanley Cup. LZ wants the Sharks to be consistently very good and make the second round or so every year. Nothing’s wrong with that but it’s the core of most of our arguments. Teams that want to be consistently good draft Timo Meier. Teams that want to win a Cup draft Matt Barzal. Teams that want to be consistently good are okay drafting second and third liners in the first round. Teams that want to win a Cup take a chance on that player with a small chance of being a star.

In fact, I think that’s the big disconnect between many of us here.

Honestly, I'd be fine with a consistently good team that doesn't go very far except maybe the odd time after they've won that first Cup. Until then, that should be the primary goal being pursued in the smartest way possible. I understand the financial sense it makes to be a consistently good team but until that first one is won, I just don't care about their financial needs.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Honestly, I'd be fine with a consistently good team that doesn't go very far except maybe the odd time after they've won that first Cup. Until then, that should be the primary goal being pursued in the smartest way possible. I understand the financial sense it makes to be a consistently good team but until that first one is won, I just don't care about their financial needs.

Agreed. Once the Sharks win a single Cup, I’ll be fine; I was a die-hard Giants fan until the year after they won the World Series, to the point where I barely even watched the 2012 and 2014 playoffs and I couldn’t care less about the Giants now. I doubt I would ever become that disinterested in the Sharks, but I desperately want them to win just one Stanley Cup.

 

[zombie kopitar]

Agreed. Once the Sharks win a single Cup, I’ll be fine; I was a die-hard Giants fan until the year after they won the World Series, to the point where I barely even watched the 2012 and 2014 playoffs and I couldn’t care less about the Giants now. I doubt I would ever become that disinterested in the Sharks, but I desperately want them to win just one Stanley Cup.

Damnnn hate to break it to you but you missed some ****ing amazing baseball.
I feel like the every single Series got more and more magical.

Anyway yeah the team is on an expected decline. It's a shame because who knows what this team does if full healthy this last April, but oh well.

Hertl and Meier are looking good though, not like build a championship around them good; but loosen the reigns, expand their roles and see what happens good.

I mean it does really sting when the pool right now could be Mantha, Goldobin, Rantanen and Yamamato instead of what they have with those 4 picks; and that is serious concern.
Basically screwing up 4 straight 1st round picks is definitely worth an overhaul of management in some sense, I mean the Jones trade worked out but even that was a huge gamble.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Obviously, DW is far more willing to trade away a 1st round draft pick for staying competitive. It's mute though, as neither team has brought home a cup in this era.

As for the Sharks drafting better, I cannot get by the drafting of Mirco to see any real superiority of Sharks' drafting.

This brings up an interesting question on whether DW is the league's #1 GM in trading away 1st round draft picks. Somebody else can research that.

One player does not a draft history make. Come on now. Bo Horvat is the best player the Canucks have drafted in a decade.

No. It's not mute. The Cup is not everything. Lots of teams have sucked for long periods of time and still haven't won it recently.

In the last 12 years 3 teams have won 8 of them. 4 teams won it once. 7 teams in 12 years. If you were to look back at how long the Hawks and Pens sucked you'd see that too. And still there's no guarantee the Sharks would have landed 2 of Crosby/Malkin or Kane/Towes or lucked into the team that was the Kings.

In the last 12 years the Sharks played in 48% of all possible rounds. The Canucks - 27%, the Kings 29%.

Look how long the Oilers had to suck before they got McJesus.

Now, if you wanna suck that long and still have no guarantee of winning a cup there's not much else I can say to persuade you. But DW putting a team together that's been this successful over the years is not equal (mute) to what the Canucks have done simply because we have no cup.

	Rounds Played
Year	Sharks	Result	Canucks	Result	Kings	Result
06	2	Oilers 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
07	2	Wings 4-2	2	Ducks 4-1	OUT	OUT
08	2	Stars 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
09	1	Ducks 4-2	2	Hawks 4-2	OUT	OUT
10	3	Hawks 4-0	2	Hawks 4-2	1	Nucks 4-2
11	3	Nucks 4-1	4	Bruins 4-3	1	Sharks 4-2
12	1	Blues 4-1	1	Kings 4-1	4	CUP
13	2	Sharks 4-0	1	Sharks 4-0	3	Hawks 4-1
14	1	Kings 4-3	OUT	OUT	4	CUP
15	OUT	OUT	1	Flames 4-2	OUT	OUT
16	4	Pens 4-2	OUT	OUT	1	Sharks 4-1
17	1	Oilers 4-2	OUT	OUT	OUT	OUT
Rounds	22		13		14
OUT	1		5		6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That is a fantastic exercize in justifying mediocrity. Very interesting perspective that I just do not care about.

Look, I can admit that in some abstract fashion, it would absolutely suck to be an Oilers fan between 2007-2016. That was a lot of terrible hockey those fans had to swallow; it easy to say now, when the Oilers are reaping the rewards, that you'd be willing to go through that same pain. But darn it, I still think I'd take that trade.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

@Led Zappa you mention the small amount of teams that have won the Cup over the past few years as a reason that tanking isn't smart

But you neglect to mention that ALL OF THOSE CUP WINNERS, SINCE 2009, HAVE TANKED. (With the exception of Boston, a massive fluke) They all drafted in the top-5 in back to back years.

"Being bad for years doesn't guarantee any Cups. Look at the teams that tanked and they still suck." This is the most f***ing annoying argument against tanking. Being bad for years does not guarantee Cups, but NOT BEING BAD FOR YEARS GUARANTEES NO CUPS.

"Applying for a job doesn't guarantee the job. Look at all the people that applied and didn't get it." This is the same argument. Yes, applying for a job doesn't guarantee you get it, but not applying guarantees you won't get it. Are yo just not going to apply for a job? Ever? Never get a job and behomeless because there are people that apply and still get rejected? "Now, if you wanna send in that many applications and still have no guarantee of getting a job there's not much else I can say to persuade you." This is basically what you said about Cups/tanking.

YOU HAVE NO REALISTIC CHANCE AT A CUP WITHOUT TANKING. What part of this is so f***ing hard to understand?

Yes, there are some very rare exceptions in both cases. You could get a Tim Thomas who was an injured 35 year old backup last year to suddenly put up the greatest playoff goaltending performance of all time. You could, oh, I don't know...win the lottery! Are you going to not apply for a job, because you've seen people apply and get rejected, and you also saw one guy win the lottery many years ago?

And yes, the Cup is all that matters. I would absolutely rather have been an Oilers fan over the past 10 years and have McDavid and Draisaitl now.

That's not to neglect, of course, the fact that the Oilers had god awful management and f***ed up EVERY OTHER TOP-5 PICK besides those two. They picked Hall, who was probably inferior to Seguin, but then they traded him for Adam f***ing Larson, a dime a dozen #4D; dozens of whom are usually available in free agency or for a 2nd round pick.

They got really unlucky in 2011 and 2012. Getting two 1st overall picks, making the consensus choice, and those two 1st overall picks becoming the two undisputed worst first overall picks of the century: Yakupov and RNH. However, I still think a good coach and development team could have got much more out of them than the Oilers did. They both showed serious promise in their rookie season; I don't think it's a coincidence that they are both worse at hockey now than they were as teenagers.

They picked Darnell "human tire fire" Nurse in 2013 with the 7th overall. The next 7 players selected were Rasmus Ristolainen, Bo Horvat, Valeri Nichushkin, Samuel Morin, Max Domi, Josh Morrissey, and Alexander Wennberg. They could literally have passed on Nurse, chosen the name of one of the next 7 selections out of a hat, and they would have had a 100% chance of getting somebody better than Nurse.

In 2014 and 2015 they made the right picks. That's all they needed. They drafted 3rd and then 1st and they didn't mess up. They went slightly off the board with Draisaitl and it was a fantastic selection. They made the obvious pick of McDavid in 2015.

In 2016 they picked Puljujarvi, who has not made the NHL as a regular player yet. They could have picked Matthew Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, or Mikhail Sergachev for example. The book is still out on all of them, but I think the 3 players listed are held much higher than Puljujarvi.

Had the Oilers been even slightly competent, they could have turned things around much sooner. But guess what? All that incompetence has rewarded them with >1% chance to win the Stanley Cup, something WE DON'T HAVE AND WON'T HAVE UNTIL WE TANK.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Damnnn hate to break it to you but you missed some ****ing amazing baseball.
I feel like the every single Series got more and more magical.

Anyway yeah the team is on an expected decline. It's a shame because who knows what this team does if full healthy this last April, but oh well.

Hertl and Meier are looking good though, not like build a championship around them good; but loosen the reigns, expand their roles and see what happens good.

I mean it does really sting when the pool right now could be Mantha, Goldobin, Rantanen and Yamamato instead of what they have with those 4 picks; and that is serious concern.
Basically screwing up 4 straight 1st round picks is definitely worth an overhaul of management in some sense, I mean the Jones trade worked out but even that was a huge gamble.

I said “almost none”. I still watched some of the best games, but it was more for entertainment than because I loved the Giants.

 

[Led Zappa]

I did not know that the only good GM's in the league were the ones that tanked and won the Cup. My arguments aren't that "tanking" (And I put that in quotations because the two most successful tanks were not planned. They were brought to be due to terrible ownership's and organizations as a whole.) isn't the most successful path to a Cup, but it's not the only one. And GM's that have the record the Sharks have since the Thornton trade are not mediocre or average. If the only GM's that are very good are the ones that have won a Cup, well that's a standard too high for me.

Just out of curiousity, @JoeThorntonsRooster @Juxtaposer , what year would you have begun the tank with Jumbo, Marleau and Boyle or Burns on the team?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

This year. I would have gone for it every single year up until this one.

 

[hohosaregood]

This year. I would have gone for it every single year up until this one.

There's still time for that and like I say, I don't believe in this team to score goals.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I did not know that the only good GM's in the league were the ones that tanked and won the Cup. My arguments aren't that "tanking" (And I put that in quotations because the two most successful tanks were not planned. They were brought to be due to terrible ownership's and organizations as a whole.) isn't the most successful path to a Cup, but it's not the only one. And GM's that have the record the Sharks have since the Thornton trade are not mediocre or average. If the only GM's that are very good are the ones that have won a Cup, well that's a standard too high for me.

Just out of curiousity, @JoeThorntonsRooster @Juxtaposer , what year would you have begun the tank with Jumbo, Marleau and Boyle or Burns on the team?

After 2014. It was the perfect time. After that huge reverse sweep debacle, DW had the perfect excuse to say "we need to move on from our core after this failure and hand the team over from Thornton/Marleau/Boyle to Couture/Pavelski/Burns/Vlasic". Trade the former three for futures. Stack the D with the Irwins, Stuarts, Muellers, and Hannans. Do the John Scott/Mike Brown thing. Let Burish and Havlat play out the year. Bump Tierney, Karlsson, Kennedy, Sheppard, etc. up the lineup. Niemi is bad. Nothing we did would make us as bad as the 2015 Sabres but I think we could have been a bottom-3 team that year. If we were the 9th worst team with Thornton/Marleau/Boyle, we could have gotten into real McDavid/Eichel range without them.

2015 was a stacked draft with McDavid at the top and Eichel as a consolation prize. 2016 had Matthews at the top. Three shots at a franchise center over the next two seasons is as good a try as possible. Obviously the odds were against success but they needed to try.

The Leafs beat 4:1 odds for the opportunity to draft Matthews. If they don't get Matthews, even if they get Laine, their tank is a failure. Every single tank needs luck, as well as a smart GM to do the best with what they can control.

Tell me a post-2005 lockout path to the Cup that isn't tanking. There are three archetypes that successfully won Cups post-lockout without tanking:

1. The 2006 Ducks, who got their franchise center in the stacked 2003 draft; our GM had two shots at that same centerman. Additionally, they signed a Hall of Fame defenseman for free. This is not a repeatable method because the 2003 draft was a singular event and HOF defensemen don't reach free agency anymore.

2. The 2011 Bruins, who rode a previously unheralded goaltender to a Cup; Tim Thomas was also a singular event.

3. The 2008 Detroit Red Wings, who won on the back of three Hall of Famers who were drafted in the late rounds of 1990's drafts. Drafting nowadays is completely different than drafting in the 1990's. Maybe you luck into one Datsyuk if you're extremely, extremely, extremely lucky. But you don't get a Datsyuk, a Zetterberg, and a Lidstrom all in the late rounds (Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Datsyuk in the 6th round, Zetterberg in the 7th round). If you think that was a repeatable path to the Cup, I don't know what to tell you.

Not a single one of these methods is repeatable, unless you think you know who the next Tim Thomas is.

The 2006 Canes' leading playoff scorer was a 21 year old Eric Staal, whom they drafted 2nd overall. The 2009 Penguins had Crosby and Malkin, whom they tanked for. The 2010 Hawks had Toews and Kane, whom they tanked for. The 2012 Kings had Doughty, whom they tanked for (the Kings actually had three consecutive top-5 pick, they just blew two of them). 2013, Hawks. 2014, Kings. 2015 Hawks. 2016 and 2017, Pens.

There is no repeatable method of winning the Cup since the 2005 lockout except for tanking.

 

[Led Zappa]

This year. I would have gone for it every single year up until this one.

This I agree with, but I won't demand it. The thing with trading for picks now is that they are so valuable. Getting a top 15 is virtually impossible So, we gather all these picks and what is it gonna get us? A few more chances at getting lucky with a later rounder. OK. It's not nothing.

After 2014. It was the perfect time. After that huge reverse sweep debacle, DW had the perfect excuse to say "we need to move on from our core after this failure and hand the team over from Thornton/Marleau/Boyle to Couture/Pavelski/Burns/Vlasic". Trade the former three for futures. Stack the D with the Irwins, Stuarts, Muellers, and Hannans. Do the John Scott/Mike Brown thing. Let Burish and Havlat play out the year. Bump Tierney, Karlsson, Kennedy, Sheppard, etc. up the lineup. Niemi is bad. Nothing we did would make us as bad as the 2015 Sabres but I think we could have been a bottom-3 team that year. If we were the 9th worst team with Thornton/Marleau/Boyle, we could have gotten into real McDavid/Eichel range without them.

2015 was a stacked draft with McDavid at the top and Eichel as a consolation prize. 2016 had Matthews at the top. Three shots at a franchise center over the next two seasons is as good a try as possible. Obviously the odds were against success but they needed to try.

The Leafs beat 4:1 odds for the opportunity to draft Matthews. If they don't get Matthews, even if they get Laine, their tank is a failure. Every single tank needs luck, as well as a smart GM to do the best with what they can control.

Tell me a post-2005 lockout path to the Cup that isn't tanking. There are three archetypes that successfully won Cups post-lockout without tanking:

1. The 2006 Ducks, who got their franchise center in the stacked 2003 draft; our GM had two shots at that same centerman. Additionally, they signed a Hall of Fame defenseman for free. This is not a repeatable method because the 2003 draft was a singular event and HOF defensemen don't reach free agency anymore.

2. The 2011 Bruins, who rode a previously unheralded goaltender to a Cup; Tim Thomas was also a singular event.

3. The 2008 Detroit Red Wings, who won on the back of three Hall of Famers who were drafted in the late rounds of 1990's drafts. Drafting nowadays is completely different than drafting in the 1990's. Maybe you luck into one Datsyuk if you're extremely, extremely, extremely lucky. But you don't get a Datsyuk, a Zetterberg, and a Lidstrom all in the late rounds (Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Datsyuk in the 6th round, Zetterberg in the 7th round). If you think that was a repeatable path to the Cup, I don't know what to tell you.

Not a single one of these methods is repeatable, unless you think you know who the next Tim Thomas is.

The 2006 Canes' leading playoff scorer was a 21 year old Eric Staal, whom they drafted 2nd overall. The 2009 Penguins had Crosby and Malkin, whom they tanked for. The 2010 Hawks had Toews and Kane, whom they tanked for. The 2012 Kings had Doughty, whom they tanked for (the Kings actually had three consecutive top-5 pick, they just blew two of them). 2013, Hawks. 2014, Kings. 2015 Hawks. 2016 and 2017, Pens.

There is no repeatable method of winning the Cup since the 2005 lockout except for tanking.

A pattern is a pattern until it isn't. Tanking is not a guaranteed strategy either. The data is still too little to outright the claim that tanking is the only way to win the Cup. It is the BEST way to greatly increase your odds I'll admit. I've actually made this point several times over the years and complained that it is a problem with the current NHL. Increasing the odds of lower seeded teams is a great move in the right direction.

I wouldn't trade starting the rebuild after our 1rst round exit for going to the Stanley Cup Finals. No f***ing way. Going to the Stanley Cup Final games are one of my greatest Sharks experiences ever even though we lost the series. As hard as it is to make the Finals there was a sense of relief that we finally made it. Win or Lose.

We'll see what happens. You aren't likely to hear me complain either way unless we spend the next 3 years in true mediocrity vs truly rebuilding.

 

[Juxtaposer]

A pattern is a pattern until it isn't.

That's such a dumb platitude. How many Cups in a row have to be won by teams that tanked for you to admit that it's the only thing that repeatably works? The last 6 Cups have been won by teams that tanked. Other than the abberations I mentioned, 9 of the last 12 Cup-winners have been teams that tanked. When 19 of the last 22 Cup-winners have been teams that tanked, then will you admit that a pattern is a pattern?

Let's take a look at the most promising young teams out there: Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Columbus. All teams with multiple top-5 picks, with the exception of Winnipeg, who is maybe the best drafting team in the 1st round and got their franchise center at 7th overall. When the Penguins, Hawks, Bolts, and Ducks stop being the major threats, my money is on those teams winning the Cup.

Tanking is not a guaranteed strategy either.

And I've gone out of my way time and time again to say that. Stop pretending like I'm saying that tanking guarantees a Cup.

The data is still too little to outright the claim that tanking is the only way to win the Cup.

What does "the data is still too little to outright the claim" mean? Is there a typo in there? Because that sentence doesn't mean anything.

It is the BEST way to greatly increase your odds I'll admit. I've actually made this point several times over the years and complained that it is a problem with the current NHL. Increasing the odds of lower seeded teams is a great move in the right direction.

Again: find me another repeatable method of winning a Cup. Find me another archetype that it's possible to plan out.

Tanking obviously is no guarantee of winning a Cup. But like you say, the only thing a GM can do is give his team the best odds of winning a Cup. Shit happens in the playoffs, as we Sharks fans know better than anyone else. DW gave the Sharks a great chance to win the Cup in 2009-2011, 2013-2014, and 2016. That the Sharks didn't win isn't his fault, not really; the fault for those losses lies with the players, the coaches, injuries, and dumb luck.

I wouldn't trade starting the rebuild after our 1rst round exit for going to the Stanley Cup Finals. No ****ing way. Going to the Stanley Cup Final games are one of my greatest Sharks experiences ever even though we lost the series. As hard as it is to make the Finals there was a sense of relief that we finally made it. Win or Lose.

We'll see what happens. You aren't likely to hear me complain either way unless we spend the next 3 years in true mediocrity vs truly rebuilding.

The Finals run was unforgettable. The excitement, the feeling of maybe this is it, I'll always treasure those experiences. That Thornton and Marleau got to a Cup Final together, even if they didn't win, is extremely special to me.

But I'm a fan. I'm not the GM. The GM's job is to be objective. And the objectively smart thing to do would have been to tank after 2014. Look, I've given Doug Wilson heaps of credit for how he handled the 2015 off-season (excluding Meier). He flexed his GMing muscles and showed why he is one of the best GMs a contending team can have. But that was a hail mary, one last shot at a Cup before reality hit; the biggest reason we made it was that Joe Thornton had a Hart-caliber season, which no one was predicting. And reality is that he didn't plan for the future and he is not equipped to rebuild properly.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Honestly, we should have just kept going for it every year including the lost season in 2014-2015. We had a solid enough core to probably contend. Our depth was trash though.