Did Murray try to put together a 30th place team?

[Zman5778]

Interesting so far.

I wonder if the results would be any different if there weren't such an anti tanking culture in certain media and from other fanbases.

I'm pretty sure that most fanbases, put in our shoes, would do the EXACT SAME THING.

Notice that all the "flack" that our rebuild/tank is getting is from a very vocal minority on the main boards. It's more or less a small handful of maybe 10 posters that populate those threads.

I don't think there's an "anti-tanking" culture....and if there is, we have the Philadelphia 76ers to thank for it, who have more or less come out and said that they're tanking.

As I said before -- the question you asked doesn't have a yes/no response, and the responses, IMO, are certainly not guided by any anti-tank culture.

 

[Beerz]

I'm pretty sure that most fanbases, put in our shoes, would do the EXACT SAME THING.

Notice that all the "flack" that our rebuild/tank is getting is from a very vocal minority on the main boards. It's more or less a small handful of maybe 10 posters that populate those threads.

I don't think there's an "anti-tanking" culture....and if there is, we have the Philadelphia 76ers to thank for it, who have more or less come out and said that they're tanking.

As I said before -- the question you asked doesn't have a yes/no response, and the responses, IMO, are certainly not guided by any anti-tank culture.

What the Sixers are doing is flat out strange .. I don't know if I'd call it a "tank" .. Their front office is basically made up of nerds trying to construct a team based on analytics ... read an interesting article not too long ago about it. They're trying to get all these different players with a certain height and a certain wing span even if they can't shoot because they believe they can be taught to shoot or something like that.


It's like a college science experiment at MIT

 

[threeVo]

He knew the Sabres didnt have the offensive firepower to finish anything but last. He signed 3 veterans with leadership qualities and 0 offensive ability. Common sense man

 

[YoungGrapes]

He knew the Sabres didnt have the offensive firepower to finish anything but last. He signed 3 veterans with leadership qualities and 0 offensive ability. Common sense man

Everything is going according to plan for GMTM, saw the tweets from is radio interview where he pipes up about "mismanagement of ice time and players not playing where they should" (paraphrased). He is absolutely right because half of this team should be in the minors the other half belong on nothing more than a solid second line (Stewart-Girgs-Ennis on a cup contender are a decent second line if not a third line lets be serious) we expect them to play top 3 minutes and light up the power play.

GMTM probably sits home with a cigar and brandy in front of the fire place chuckling at the fact he is not only going to get a top pick in the draft because of his horridly assembled team, but also now he can go to the owner and toss the blame at Nolan buy him out and bring in his own guy.

I would sincerely laugh my balls off if they fired Nolan at the end of the season and then lost the lottery pick and end up in tank mode again next season.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

This year there is no such thing as "losing" the lottery if you finish last. Once you add McEichel the main rebuild is over. If we can just stay the course and finish 30th then we can try and improve the roster for a playoff push in 15-16 at the draft and this summer. McEichel is the last major piece we lack. It'll be far easier finding one more top 6 winger, offensive dman and true #1 goalie then it would be finding a legit superstar center prospect . This is the most important end of season stretch in franchise history. Murray's legacy/job are totally linked to where we pick. Anything outside of McEichel in June is a joke and absolute FAILURE.

 

[cybresabre]

I would sincerely laugh my balls off if they fired Nolan at the end of the season and then lost the lottery pick and end up in tank mode again next season.

I hope you've reproduced already, because the odds are not in the lottery pick's favor. Might want to start shopping for a set of prosthetic grapes now.

 

[wunderpanda]

Of course not. The question wasn't ..did Murray build a team for a High Draft pick. It was did he build a team for 30th place finish.

I don't believe he did.. I believe he made moves that best suited the rebuild regardless of draft position or who was eligible to be drafted this year. The moves that make sense for the rebuild are going to result in you taking on players that aren't very good because any worthwhile players for one aren't going to settle for 1 yr deals and most likely wouldn't be interested in signing with a team that has just entered a tear down.


Edit: There wasn't a lot he could do that would make this team not be competing for 30th place.

Thank you for the clarification. I just didn't see much of a difference between building a team to lose & not improving a 30th place team.

I do agree he would have made the same moves regardless of the pick.

 

[tehinternet]

I think he did build a team to "successfully rebuild from".

Anyone can just get rid of your quality players to try and tank. He additionally did the following wise things:

• Added plausible deniability (bringing in/back Moulson/Gionta/Georges) to say that they are improvements and veteran leadership to help the young guys. It's so smart because Georges/Gionta are on the tale ends of their career and they are good mentors, however they're not going to make a huge splash in terms of production on this team.
• But, if the team completed the rebuild and was now a contender Moulson/Gionta/Georges would still be good parts on a Stanley Cup team.
• Making trades as necessary to ensure the tank. E.g. Enroth, you were playing too good. Bye.
• Trading Myers. He was a solid D-man and we're getting to close to 29th place. It was a perfect opportunity to start the rebuild while decreasing our current offensive production by having Kane who cannot play at this time.

All great small thing to slowly improve the team in the future while sucking at the current moment, but when grilled by the NHL execs you can say you are making improvements.

BUT, every year someone has to finish 30th, so why not be that team?

 

[cramdizzl]

This team could have started assembling a roster after drafting Reinhart and having the #1 prospect pool, but waited to begin because of McEichel. Yes, they planned to be here.

 

[haseoke39]

I'm not sure I agree that it's an impossible question to answer, as some have claimed. Every decision can serve more than one purpose, not all decisions have to serve any one purpose, and a given purpose may not require many dramatic decisions be made to achieve it. The question is simpler: was finishing 30th a purpose he set out for himself?

 

[cramdizzl]

We've got a thread of people saying it would be an unmitigated disaster if we don't pick 1 or 2, and a thread of people claiming that they're not trying to finish last. The contrast and disconnect within the same fanbase is pretty funny.

 

[haseoke39]

We've got a thread of people saying it would be an unmitigated disaster if we don't pick 1 or 2, and a thread of people claiming that they're not trying to finish last. The contrast and disconnect within the same fanbase is pretty funny.

What's interesting is that I think a lot of those are the same people. We have to finish last, but it has to be accidental.

 

[Jim Bob]

Well, the team is in 30th place for the second season in a row....

 

[cramdizzl]

What's interesting is that I think a lot of those are the same people. We have to finish last, but it has to be accidental.

Haha you're right, tanking must be really tough to live with for some people.

 

[TehDoak]

To be honest, its near impossible for any GM to build a team to finish in a specific place. So many unknowns going year to year.

I don't think it was a secret that this was a throw away year. Murray even said that he realized that this wasn't going to be a good team and his expectation was for improvement in 2015-2016.

But, in his exact words "I didn't expect us to be in 30th place at this point in the season"

I think the thought process was "If we finished 30th, it's not the worse thing in the world" rather than "OMG finish last guys!"

he could have done ALOT more to finish dead last. Despite the conspiracy theories, most of the damage to tear down this team was done well before Murray took the helm. Murray could have really driven this thing off the rails if he wanted to. Why not pick up an asset to take on Pavelec from Winnipeg? Then we wouldn't have had to sign Moulson to get to the cap floor. Could have kept Conacher. Or we could have traded Myers for futures early in the year. There were plenty of suitors and we didn't have to go Bogosian back. Could have gotten more kids.

If you really want to argue, keeping Pysyk in the AHL when he's a clear upgrade over Benoit/Mezaros/Strachan and keeping Nolan despite going 0 for January are the only two moves that make me go "hrmmm", and even then there's reasonable explanations to be had without even a suggestions of any anti-competitiveness.

 

[Paxon]

We've got a thread of people saying it would be an unmitigated disaster if we don't pick 1 or 2, and a thread of people claiming that they're not trying to finish last. The contrast and disconnect within the same fanbase is pretty funny.

It's not a disconnect. There's a difference between Murray bringing a knowingly bringing a bad team that will be in the mix for last to the table and Murray specifically bringing the 30th place team to the table. There's a difference between what people think Murray did vs. what they want done. There's a difference between an outlook in the offseason where someone could say not finishing last is OK because it would represent some kind of improvement versus not being OK with it at this point because the team is hopelessly bad and we're 100 feet from the finish line. The bottom line is it's not a question that will accurately delineate what people believe, it's a question loaded with connotations that will be answered by how people wish to set the conversation. It's a very political question.

What's interesting is that I think a lot of those are the same people. We have to finish last, but it has to be accidental.

Where would you get that those people think it "has to be accidental"?

 

[Beerz]

We've got a thread of people saying it would be an unmitigated disaster if we don't pick 1 or 2, and a thread of people claiming that they're not trying to finish last. The contrast and disconnect within the same fanbase is pretty funny.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. I for one am a leading cheerleader of we must finish last or the season is a failure...But that's just that..a cheerleader. By no means did I think it was a given we finished last or that Tim Murray constructed this roster to finish last.

 

[haseoke39]

Where would you get that those people think it "has to be accidental"?

Definition of "not on purpose."

 

[vcv]

Yes and no.

It's a byproduct of a full fledged rebuild. Selling off any UFA assets, acquiring assets that help long term.

It's not the primary plan, but the timing worked out perfectly.

 

[haseoke39]

Yes and no.

It's a byproduct of a full fledged rebuild. Selling off any UFA assets, acquiring assets that help long term.

It's not the primary plan, but the timing worked out perfectly.

This is an example of what I'm talking about in my post above when I said I think it's a simpler question than people are making it. Every decision can serve more than one purpose.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Murray is simply continuing down the path of a rebuild. No GM can set his team up in September and "call it" as a 30th place team. There's absolutely no way Murray could have specifically planned that. OTOH, Murray didn't try to mortgage the promising future of this team by making "fix it now" type trades that would provide some marginal improvement in the standings, at the expense of a young player that would help the team more and for a longer time frame down the road.

What some people like Cranium want to call "tanking" with some added negative connotation of trying to be bad on purpose just for purposes of the 2015 draft, is actually a solid team building path that won't screw up the best thing that the organization has going for it right now. Once you make the decision to rebuild, you don't worry about whether you finish 14th or 8th, you worry about building a prospect pool and going from there. There's no "pride" or whatever to stress over. Just admit you're going to have some rough years, and promise better days for your fans. It's not something the organization wants, it's the necessary evil toward what they do want.

 

[vcv]

This is an example of what I'm talking about in my post above when I said I think it's a simpler question than people are making it. Every decision can serve more than one purpose.

That nails it. It makes it easy for Murray to be his usual blunt self without coming out and saying "We want 30th place". Very easy.

 

[Sabretooth]

Definition of "not on purpose."

The word you're looking for is "incidental", not "accidental".

 

[haseoke39]

The word you're looking for is "incidental", not "accidental".

They overlap broadly.

 

[Paxon]

Definition of "not on purpose."

"Accidental" wasn't the sticking point, it was "has". Are you saying people think they must finish last and it is not on purpose? Because that's different than how I read it. I read it as "people think they must finish last and it needs to be not on purpose".