Let's discuss tanking.

[Soundgarden]

There isn't going to be a need to tank. The team is going to be very bad the first few years regardless unless you get some lightning in a bottle with a coach/system and have a whole bunch of average players have career years at once.

This. Tanking means losing on purpose, this team will be filled with guys who may be on their last chance to stay in the league or young guys who aren't used to the grind of the league. This team won't lose on purpose, but I doubt we'll be in the playoffs the first few years. Best case scenario is they make it in three, IMO.

We do need to accumulate as many draft picks as we can though. There are plenty of good/great players who drop to the 2nd round for whatever reason and if we have good scouting we could still pick up NHL quality players in the later rounds.

 

[Murf]

I agree that there is no point to tanking. The way that the league set up the expansion should result in either:

An on-ice disaster, meaning that tanking is irrelevant.

Or my prediction, the team will be middle of the pack, and will be a part of the ebb and flow of the league. They will bounce around from 6th to 12th place, close enough to the playoffs to try hard.

Salary Cap hockey has made it tough for any team to stay too high or fall too low for a long period of time.

 

[TheBusDriver]

Thinking that this team will be pushing for a playoff spot in its first couple years is very optimistic I think. I would bet they finish bottom 5 both years, but its better to pick 1st than 5th. Tanking is a good idea and a practically a necessary one in todays cap league.

 

[Super Cake]

Lets be honest here, will it really be a surprise if the Vegas team is competitive next season?

Look how much parity is in todays league right now.

 

[VanIslander]

Lets be honest here, will it really be a surprise if the Vegas team is competitive next season?

Indeed. They might finish ahead of Arizona, Vancouver and Calgary in their own division.

Heck the Western conference divisional race has these all teams within ONE point of a playoff spot: Calgary, Vancouver, Dallas, and Winnipeg.

Play .500 hockey, win more than half of the home games (most teams do, even in bad years), and have one or two 4-game winning streaks and voila: the playoffs!

 

[Silver91]

Thinking that this team will be pushing for a playoff spot in its first couple years is very optimistic I think. I would bet they finish bottom 5 both years, but its better to pick 1st than 5th. Tanking is a good idea and a practically a necessary one in todays cap league.

I think that just tanking for a higher pick is a bad idea, especially given it doesn't guarantee anything (the Leafs were very lucky to stick at 1), and Vegas won't have any real prospect base anyway, which means that they'd still having a crap team with 1 or 2 youngsters rotting.

The best bet is to sell cap space to teams in the expansion draft. With a flat cap, teams like Chicago, San Jose, Pittsburgh, Washington, LA, St, Louis, New York, Boston, etc are going to be in tight to re-sign players who need to be re-signed and would probably pay to be rid of contracts like Kruger, Boedker/Dhillon, Eller, Greene/Brown, Klein, Belesky, etc... Also, teams who don't want you to take player X, Y or Z will pay up at least a mid-round pick to avoid it. i.e. Minnesota may give up a 2nd or 3rd to take Zucker over a guy like Brodin or Scandella, rather than trying to trade them for packages of less valuable players who are draft exempt.

Take those picks you get for taking on poor contracts, use McCrimmon to build up a strong farm over the first couple years. Even with some poor contracts, you can sign a couple FAs to deals and be decently competitive if Foley is willing to spend, which, all indications are that, yes, he is. When those contracts are out, you start to bring in the kids and hopefully everything works in their favour to start being a real good team in year 3-5.

I don't think they necessarily have to tank to build up a farm. It's more making smart use of all their assets, which having $73M in cap space going into the draft is a massive advantage. You pick up 5, 6, 7 extra picks in the first 3 rounds of the next 2 drafts, and it gives you a lot of options to add some talented youth.

 

[Headshot77]

I don't necessarily think you guys should tank, but the #1 priority for all of your picks should be age. Get the youngest, cheapest guys on ELCs that can produce at the NHL level or have high upside. In the Penguins case, that would mean taking a player like Rust over a player like Dumolin.

Then, for teams that don't have many decent players exposed, buy terrible contracts for picks. McPhee is not doing his job to the best of his abilities if he doesn't have three first round picks for the next three drafts, IMO. Try to get a Dustin Brown, a Dan Girardi, Henrick Zetterberg, or a David Clarkson with tons of value attached. If your GM has a 6 year plan, your team loses all of those guys in 3-5 years, and could earn you TONS of long-term assets.

Then, with your ragtag group of overpaid vets and raw young talent, hire the best possible coach (Ken Hitchcock) and try your absolute best for a playoff push. Realistically, your team won't make it, but it instills a culture of winning, keeps the new fans entertained, and theoretically your team will get better each successive season.

 

[airbus220]

Then, for teams that don't have many decent players exposed, buy terrible contracts for picks. McPhee is not doing his job to the best of his abilities if he doesn't have three first round picks for the next three drafts, IMO. Try to get a Dustin Brown, a Dan Girardi, Henrick Zetterberg, or a David Clarkson with tons of value attached. If your GM has a 6 year plan, your team loses all of those guys in 3-5 years, and could earn you TONS of long-term assets.

No, we shouldn't take other teams Clarksons and Girardis, they are not sexy. We should throw $$$ at Oshie, sign him for 1 year and trade him at the deadline and the next season we throw $$$ at him again, that is sexy.

Helping other teams cap problems so that they can do sexy things is just bad.

 

[Soundgarden]

There are a few factors that will come into play when taking back "bad" contracts:

1. Who's actually available. If we've filled out our line-up and picked a great mix of the best vets available and the best young guys available and a team doesn't have many appealing options to take, we definitely look at our options regarding bad contracts.

2. Cap. If our owners feel we can spend up to the ceiling and we're barely at the floor I don't see why it'd be a bad thing to pick up a dead contract for assets. Get as many picks/prospects as possible.

The thing about throwing big money at UFAs is that they need to actually want to be there, why would Oshie give up being on a contending playoff team for a few more million than he already has. We have yet to see how ufas are going to like playing in Vegas. Don't count your eggs before they hatch, we can't depend on getting the best free agents because we're contending with 30 other teams to sign them most of them being able to offer the opportunity to play on a contender.

 

[hi]

No, we shouldn't take other teams Clarksons and Girardis, they are not sexy. We should throw $$$ at Oshie, sign him for 1 year and trade him at the deadline and the next season we throw $$$ at him again, that is sexy.

Helping other teams cap problems so that they can do sexy things is just bad.

30 year old T.J. Oshie who is on pace for 66 points is not going to sign a 1 year deal with an expansion team

 

[airbus220]

The thing about throwing big money at UFAs is that they need to actually want to be there, why would Oshie give up being on a contending playoff team for a few more million than he already has.

We assure him to trade him at the deadline to a contender retaining 50% and taking salary back. We are interested to get a 1st rd pick plus for him and for his service we pay him more than anybody else will.
We do this every year and get assets every year. That's the big difference, other bad contracts might go over many years and we can pickup assets only once and likely with less value. And at the same time we have a good player for 3/4 of the season. That puts people in the seats.

 

[jwhouk]

Build the game first, then bring in young kids to grow the franchise, THEN try competing for the playoffs on a regular basis.

 

[VanIslander]

Get a lot of competitive players through the expansion draft and free agency and the older ones that are producing could used to TRADE at the trade deadline (if not in the playoff hunt by then).

This way the GM gets to try and build the most competitive team from the get-go, cap ceiling even! But have FA signings be mostly 1-2 year deals for the veterans, and get picks and prospects when they are dealt at the deadline to a contender.

Two to three years of aggressive deadline dealing can help fill the cupboards.

 

[artilector]

Don't "tank" -- instead "maximize future assets", haha.

Seriously, you don't often get to start from scratch. Would be criminal to short-circuit this kind of opportunity.

Including what people have mentioned:
- Pick the best assets available that you can trade later, who cares about team composition
- Get GMs to shower you with you picks to take on their bad contracts
- Throw money at vets for 1-year deals with the intent to trade at the deadline
- Pick a crap goalie for a starter, haha, but make sure to draft good ones for a few years down the line
- To keep fans engaged, put together a team with decent offense and no defense. Ideally, Boudreau-type coach to win some 5-3 games and lose a bunch of 7-1 games, haha.
- You can experiment, so why not sign some skilled KHL guys to short contracts? Never know, could stumble on a gem, and/or trade later.

Will be curious to see how McPhee handles things. Based on his Caps history, he does a decent conservative job, but has little imagination and no balls. But, it's never too late to learn...

 

[artilector]

We assure him to trade him at the deadline to a contender retaining 50% and taking salary back. We are interested to get a 1st rd pick plus for him and for his service we pay him more than anybody else will.
We do this every year and get assets every year. That's the big difference, other bad contracts might go over many years and we can pickup assets only once and likely with less value. And at the same time we have a good player for 3/4 of the season. That puts people in the seats.

You're talking about some prototypical 35-yr old veteran that can't get a multi-year deal, and whose one-year salary can only fit on contenders at the deadline.

Oshie does not need any of that. He can just go to a good team with the security of a multi-year deal -- he has a baby and a toddler, btw.

But as a general recipe, sure Vegas should do that with older players who want another shot on a contender but can't get a spot on one until the deadline.

Maybe not just older -- players of "questionable" character that need a bounce-back season. Ribeiro, haha. Skilled Russian players have had to accept 1-year deals in the past because of that. Though I think it's too radical a notion for McPhee.

 

[VanIslander]

Oshie does not need any of that. He can just go to a good team with the security of a multi-year deal -- he has a baby and a toddler, btw.

So? Babies do Vegas!

 

[TheBusDriver]

We assure him to trade him at the deadline to a contender retaining 50% and taking salary back. We are interested to get a 1st rd pick plus for him and for his service we pay him more than anybody else will.
We do this every year and get assets every year. That's the big difference, other bad contracts might go over many years and we can pickup assets only once and likely with less value. And at the same time we have a good player for 3/4 of the season. That puts people in the seats.

He wont do that. Players want security, especially at his age. Hes gonna be looking for a retirement contract. a 6 year deal most likely, and to a good team. Vegas wont be signing Oshie or any other big name FA, not this summer anyway.

 

[jkutswings]

Great thread. As a disgruntled Wings fan coming in peace, it's nice to see some honest discussion about how to best build long-term.

As for the 6 year claim, I had previously happened to track all the post-cap Cup champs, and found that, on average, the time between drafting a star player, and that player winning their first championship, is 6 years.

A fairly small sample size, but food for thought, nonetheless. And that would put a lot of pressure on Vegas hitting a home run with their first pick right off the bat.

Oh, and as an aside, there was mention of Zetterberg included in the list of bad contacts to go after, but he's not an option. The recapture penalty alone prevents it, but even if that wasn't in play, he's sooner getting a street named after him then getting traded (and I say that, wishing they could deal him and tank for the future).

Cheers!