The Official Tank Thread II

[BinCookin]

that is flat out false. rebuilds do not have to take 10+ years if you have competent management

I suggest you take a look at bincookin's history of rebuilds thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2103093&highlight=rebuilds

Thanks for using that post.

I would say the summary is:

The FASTEST ever rebuilds = 4 years. And that's basically when you get a generational talent. (WSH = 4 years; PIT = 5 years)

I also have Boston Rebuilding in 2 years (in an on the fly approach).

I did not do a thorough Red Wings analysis.

Maybe I'll so some more teams this summer.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

It starts with ownership, first and foremost. I have very low expectations of Chris Ilitch. Ken Holland, like Mike Babcock during his tenure here, is not the problem.

Wait, if Mike Babcock wasn't the problem then who was the problem?!

 

[Heaton]

It starts with ownership, first and foremost. I have very low expectations of Chris Ilitch. Ken Holland, like Mike Babcock during his tenure here, is not the problem.

Ownership is still spending to the cap, are you insinuating that Chris Ilitch is the real GM of the team and Ken Holland isn't making decisions?

What facts do you have that Chris Ilitch is an issue? Because we can actually have facts against Ken Holland. Just seems like deflecting to me. Ken Holland, just like the players, gets old and loses their skills. Holland has lost his ability to run a team effectively.

 

[HockeyinHD]

If you want the streak to continue but know that the team has absolutely no chance at winning a cup then that is also wanting the team to lose

If you don't understand that not winning the Cup is the de facto status for 96.7% of the NHL, then you are obviously unaware that 'losing' in the context you have described it is unavoidable in any circumstance.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Not sure if you are familiar with what Laine and Draisaitl are doing this season, but I think if we had those 2 players the vast majority of fans would have a much different outlook for this team.

You're avoiding the question. Would that team be a legit Cup contender? If not, isn't the default reaction to not being a Cup contender to advocate a tank?

 

[silkyjohnson50]

If you don't understand that not winning the Cup is the de facto status for 96.7% of the NHL, then you are obviously unaware that 'losing' in the context you have described it is unavoidable in any circumstance.

Do you actually believe your own thoughts or are you just a pot stirrer?

 

[HockeyinHD]

I think anybody honest with themselves will acknowledge that high picks are far from a guarantee. But personally, I'd sooner take 9 years of no playoffs and one championship, than 10 first round exits,

The Wings won a Cup 9 years ago, though, so I fail to see how you're adhering to even your own heavily weighted declaration given that Detroit's done far better than what you allege you'd have been happy with, yet are still demonstrably unhappy.

Even assuming you've forgotten their Cup, your example is poorly designed because the give or take isn't remotely realistic or repeatable. We know this because the last 25 Cups have been won by 13 teams... meaning that 17 current teams haven't won a Cup in a quarter century, and 23 teams haven't won in a decade.

So, heck yeah, if the trade is 'only' missing the playoffs for 9 years and winning 1 that'd be a great bargain.

In other words, you'd have to BANK ON lightning striking several times - with odds even lower than the rate of success for high picks - for "rebuilding on the fly" to ever pan out.

You will continue to struggle with a competitive reality as long as you equate 'working out' with, and only with, winning a Cup. If you elect to strip yourself of all ability to perceive nuance in success, you will be endlessly frustrated with what results save for those extremely rare, generational at best flashes.

If that's what you want, hey, great. Seems like a drag.

For example, I'd be thrilled to be a Leafs fan right now, and they might not even make the playoffs.

Sure, right now. That's always the amusing part of all of this super-standard-itis. You want to experience all the success, and then fairly soon after the success even just moderates to something above league average the demand is 'why can't we be like that other team that hasn't had success in half a century, now?'

And just imagine if, like most of the NHL, the Leafs top out as a first or second round and out team... a level of success that sends so many here howling into the dark in terror?

There are 10-15 teams that I'd say are making good decisions, regardless of their position on the cycle of success. And when you're approaching half the league, I don't think that expectation is unfair to have for the franchise you root for...especially when said franchise had previously set the bar for both success and decision making for a very long time.

Seems like you're moving the bar here. Now it's just 'good decisions', when I thought the One True Standard was winning Cups?

 

[HockeyinHD]

Do you actually believe your own thoughts or are you just a pot stirrer?

If you have a substantive, thoughtful question to ask about what I'm saying, do.

 

[Shaman464]

Without a rebuild through high draft picks, how does this team rebuild? They don't really have assets to build through trades. They don't have the cap space to sign enough impact players to build through free agency, and Holland's track record of drafting centers and defensemen with late picks has been suspect for the last 15+ drafts. What's the path forward without building through the draft?

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Without a rebuild through high draft picks, how does this team rebuild? They don't really have assets to build through trades. They don't have the cap space to sign enough impact players to build through free agency, and Holland's track record of drafting centers and defensemen with late picks has been suspect for the last 15+ drafts. What's the path forward without building through the draft?

They have no substantive, thoughtful answer(s) to that question.

 

[Frk It]

You're avoiding the question. Would that team be a legit Cup contender? If not, isn't the default reaction to not being a Cup contender to advocate a tank?

They are (Laine) or will be (Draisaitl) elite players, which is what this team lacks, and would need to start trending towards becoming a contender again.

Thought that was obvious.

 

[chances14]

Maybe I'll so some more teams this summer.

That would be awesome.

with the tank and rebuilding talk so prevalent around here now and for the foreseeable future, I think it would be great if we could get as many examples of rebuilds as possible

 

[Marky9er]

They have no substantive, thoughtful answer(s) to that question.

What about a top secret 8 year hockey camp for elite 12 year old talents?

 

[HockeyinHD]

Without a rebuild through high draft picks, how does this team rebuild?

If you're defining 'rebuild' as 'become one of the top 5 teams in a given year to win the Cup', then there isn't really a definable path to accomplishing it.

What's the path forward without building through the draft?

Why can't a team build through the draft without drafting top 3 or top 5?

 

[HockeyinHD]

They are (Laine) or will be (Draisaitl) elite players, which is what this team lacks, and would need to start trending towards becoming a contender again.

Thought that was obvious.

So the answer to the question was...?

 

[Frk It]

So the answer to the question was...?

Would not make us a cup contender in it of itself. We need defenseman and neither play that position. But as I said, would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Why can't a team build through the draft without drafting top 3 or top 5?

To build a team that can compete, you need elite players.

To get elite players, you can:

1) Draft them
2) Trade for them
3) Sign them as Free Agents

with

1) Being by far the most common way
2) Being possible, but our management has shown no ability to do so
3) Being even less possible in today's game and especially with Detroit losing the competitive advantage (of being able to compete for a Cup) that they once had.

So with 1) being the most sensible way to acquire elite talent, we then look at how that's done in the draft. And by golly, the higher you draft the more likely you are at acquiring the wanted assets.

So hey here's an idea: instead of sticking your thumb up your butt and hoping you draft elite talent later in the draft and try to "win" all the time, how about you use statistical, objective data - or realistically even common sense - and say to yourself, "I understand why this route could be the desired path."

And now you'll probably rebuttle this with some example of Edmonton or Colorado, etc. Well here's the scoop: acquiring elite pieces is just one step of building a team that can compete. It's goes far beyond that. You still have to build the right team (players and staff) around those pieces. But until you actually have the elite pieces, you're completely helpless.

And screw anybody that questions someone's fandom because they want to lose to win. That's doesn't make them less of a fan. In our case it makes them a reasonable, thinking person.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

If you're defining 'rebuild' as 'become one of the top 5 teams in a given year to win the Cup', then there isn't really a definable path to accomplishing it.



Why can't a team build through the draft without drafting top 3 or top 5?

sure some teams can and have done so since the cap

detroit has failed to do so and I am excluding top 5 picks since we havent had one, but we sure as heck of had over a hundred others since 2001 out of thousands of potential draft age players and not once have we scouted, drafted or developed an elite level player since the cap(or even further, 2001) which would suggest we are NOT capable to drafting elite level players anywhere in the draft excluding the 1st round draft positions we havent been afforded the luxury to pick at (top 14)

the ONLY LOGICAL conclusion is this... maybe detroit would have better luck drafting higher than pick 15(only in the first round) as they have failed repeatedly from the positions we have been picking

 

[WingedWheel1987]

What's there to argue anymore?

The Wings system has clearly failed. It no longer works in today's NHL which requires your draft picks to contribute almost immediately, so that you can maximize the value of their entry level contracts.

Today's NHL requires aggressive team management. Not, "Let's keep every prospect because we over value them up until the point where we end up waiving them when they turn 24 and still haven't played 100 NHL games."

The Wings have clearly failed to build a quality roster with all of their 15-20th picks.

Even by Ken Holland's incredibly low standards for success, the Wings have failed to meet their goals.

 

[Syckle78]

If you're defining 'rebuild' as 'become one of the top 5 teams in a given year to win the Cup', then there isn't really a definable path to accomplishing it.



Why can't a team build through the draft without drafting top 3 or top 5?

I don't know ask Holland. He's clearly proven he can't do it without top picks. And since he's not going anywhere I don't see an alternative path. I guess I'll be like the 5th person to ask you your plan to rebulld this team. I won't actually be expecting a real answer and will get some deflection about finances and Holland just doing whaf he's told. Yawn...

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Why can't a team build through the draft without drafting top 3 or top 5?

A team could do it. They have to have a lot of cap space, the best scouts in the business, and an active GM who wants to build.

Also, no franchise killing contracts.

 

[Dotter]

Ownership is still spending to the cap, are you insinuating that Chris Ilitch is the real GM of the team and Ken Holland isn't making decisions?

What facts do you have that Chris Ilitch is an issue? Because we can actually have facts against Ken Holland. Just seems like deflecting to me. Ken Holland, just like the players, gets old and loses their skills. Holland has lost his ability to run a team effectively.

Common sense would tell me the Ilitch's wanted the streak to continue, especially going into the new state of the art billion dollar arena. That's just common sense.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Common sense would tell me the Ilitch's wanted the streak to continue, especially going into the new state of the art billion dollar arena. That's just common sense.

Long term profit of deeper playoff success with a sustainably better team would create a better and greater profit margin than a team that only plays 2-3 playoff games a year. What you're suggesting is short term profit over long term profit. Cutting payroll to the cap floor for several season while the team rebuilds then building a long term contender is a more profitable model than spending to the cap and getting bounced in the first year every year, or in the case of this year, missing the playoffs.

 

[jkutswings]

You're avoiding the question. Would that team be a legit Cup contender? If not, isn't the default reaction to not being a Cup contender to advocate a tank?

Both the path taken and the destination are factors here.

Team X, Team Y, and Team Z each have 2-3 good to great pieces, but none are among the top 5-6 realistic championship contenders.

Team X has those pieces in their early 20's, still on entry level contacts, and is in great cap shape, but has really no other secondary talent to speak of.

Team Y has those pieces in their prime, with a little secondary talent, but is up against the cap, although nearly all their deals are moveable/manageable.

Team Z has those pieces in the twilight of their careers, and plenty of secondary pieces, but their cap is a disaster of bad contracts.

Now it's not likely that a given team will exclusively fall into one of those categories, but I'm just making the point that being in between a contender and a bottom feeder can require different logical responses, depending on the entire roster and financials.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

And all of the ones you mentioned took that long because of bad management. They all had to fire a GM because of the problems they caused.

You really need to acknowledge that point, so is that the same thing needed to be done in Detroit? Do we need to fire Ken Holland to finish the rebuild?

I think so. Not to finish, but to actually start an honest to goodness rebuild.