News Article: Morgan: The Trouble with Tanking, Part II

[Rink Rage]

Craig is being really dumb here. First, that wouldn't be the correct way to say fourth versus eighth. Second, there is a consensus top 5, and after that it opens up considerably. If Craig doesn't understand how much better a fit for this team Strome and Marner are over guys like Werenski, Crouse, Rantanen etc... then he shouldn't be opining about the draft.

The whole article is essentially one big invocation of the Oilers argument. It's stupid and lazy. Worse yet, it completely ignores the largely listless play the past three years that has gotten the Coyotes to this point.

I expect a more nuanced take from a legit beat writer. I worry because Morgan's take is often a regurgitation of what management is telling him. Maybe it wasn't the plan and they really are that dumb.

Crouse's stock is sky rocketing. He could potentially leap Hanifin at this point.

 

[Sinurgy]

Perlini and Dvorak shouldn't be in the NHL next year, and they are far from a sure thing. Marner and Strome won't be either. There is no scenario where the Coyotes drastically improve next year. McDavid would marginally improve the team, but it'd still be pretty flawed.

Every team hopes their 1st rounders trickle in. The Coyotes need more than just one player a year to get this back on track. Trade the older core for a younger one.

I understand that, I'm just saying you don't have to burn it to the ground to get a lot of upside, the Coyotes are already going to have that.

 

[Rink Rage]

He loses me here.

One final note on tanking. There is no question the Coyotes, a small-market team, need to build through the draft in all areas of their roster. There are myriad examples of teams that have done this successfully. But drafting high, year-after-year, doesn't guarantee success, as the Edmonton Oilers know far too well.

Quit using this ****ing point please. It doesn't matter how well you draft if run a franchise as ****** as Edmonton has. To follow that up speaking of Edmonton, if you look at their numbers and follow their games, they're getting better. Their puck possession numbers are 5% better. They have of course shown improvement since hiring Todd Nelson, but you'd think they'll keep getting better.

Here's a thought, what if Edmonton gets McDavid or Eichel? Combine that with Darnell Nurse possibly making the team next year, that could lead to the Coyotes being bottom feeders of the Pacific for a couple years. So for that reason a lone, don't you tank in hopes of not only getting McDavid or Eichel, but keeping them from destroying you in a jersey of a division foe.

 

[Matias Maccete]

Yeah the Edmonton argument is stupid as all heck.

 

[Jakey53]

The definition of punting on 4th and 1.

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely have faith in the core of this team after being so disgusted with their play. I can understand Boedker, as he's still cost controlled, but Hanzal and Yandle will never be worth more to outside teams and worth less to the Coyotes. This is the window. It is entirely possible that McDavid turns this team around enough to where they squeak into the playoffs. What if Hanzal misses 30+ games next year? What if Yandle won't sign yet the Coyotes are clearly in the playoff hunt? You'd lose him for nothing.

Scorching the roster gets you the most potential - the brightest future. People seem to be willfully ignoring that it'd be harder to do worse than the current team. It is entirely possible that a team minus Hanzal and Yandle, but with a few key signings and the returned forwards, is much better than any previous Coyote team. And you've still got those juicy returns.

If the offers aren't there, don't trade them just for the sake of trading them. It's not a firesale. But I have to believe that Yandle and Hanzal would be two of the most appealing assets to hit the market in recent years, and would have the returns to match.

Standing pat and missing McDavid shouldn't be an option. You miss him while doing nothing abd this team is probably going to suck ass next year anyways. Trade guys for great value and avoid being painted into that corner altogether.

If you lose Vermette, Z, Erat, Moss and maybe Korpi, BJ,Chip and McMillan you add Yandle and Hanzal, that is just to much change in one year and will never ever happen. Another problem will be reaching the cap floor.

 

[MaddyB85]

If we end up with 3rd overall and Maloney drafts Hanifin, I will personally fly the 14 hours to the US and shove my size 16 boot so far up Don's ass he'll be crapping rubber for weeks.

Feel free to pass that one on, Craig.

size 16 boot? I'm impressed!

 

[MIGs Dog]

I'm okay with drafting Hanifin if there is a deal on the draft floor involving OEL, Yandle, or Gormley that returns a major asset at forward.

Or, if we hold the 3rd pick you could trade it for a bonafide forward talent and a slightly lower draft position. There are many ways to slice it.

As others have said, the coaches and players will continue to work as hard as possible to win, but the GM (with owners consent) should be in full sell mode with the intent of putting a contender on the ice in 2-3 years.

Looking at the standings today, we realistically could finish anywhere between 3rd to 8th from the bottom. Oilers and Sabres have locked up the cellar. Need the lottery gods to shower us with blessings.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

I'll spare everyone the 5000 word essay I wrote on this two nights ago, actually having the discretion to pull my punches for once...

Ah. Okay. I guess I'm with the Dirty Old Legends, then.

I'm not sure TL would appreciate being lumped in with the likes of me, but...

TBH, reading the thread...my opinions in this thread are pretty close to that of Sinurgy, particularly this one:

I understand that, I'm just saying you don't have to burn it to the ground to get a lot of upside, the Coyotes are already going to have that.

Why burn your house down for a 13-20% chance at 'salvation', when you're going to get a 7-8% chance anyway, and still get to live in the house?

Make prudent moves to make the team eventually better, sure; but within reason.

The problem I have (and that TL notes, I think) is with the attitude that we HAVE to burn it down and try to finish 30th NOW, and if you don't agree, you're a short-sighted moron.

Some of you do have a tendency to over-estimate your own opinions. But welcome to the internet, I suppose.
---------
Here's one for the math whizzes. Which is the greater number?

- Assuming we finish 29th, that we win the lottery?

- Assuming we finish 23rd, that someone else *ahead* of us in the standings (i.e. 17th-22nd) wins the lottery?

(and you can ask the same question replacing 29 and 23 with 30 and 24, although with the latter I know some of you will fire back with a "Yeah, but McE1CHELL1:!!")

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Yeah the Edmonton argument is stupid as all heck.

It really is no worse than those of you who keep trotting out Pittsburgh (and Chicago). Those are just the extreme outcomes.

 

[Matias Maccete]

It really is no worse than those of you who keep trotting out Pittsburgh (and Chicago). Those are just the extreme outcomes.

It is though. The Pittsburgh Chicago situations have happened multiple times. If you have high picks and good management and coaching you can build a very good roster. If you have bad management you have talent but very little depth and are still mediocre as a team. To become the oilers you have to have Gretzky levels of incompetence for years on end.

To be clear I don't use the Chicago and Pittsburg argument anyway, I don't think you need repeated years of high picks to build a winner. I think we can have a quick turnaround without another year of extreme failure. But IMO there's at least some value in that comparison, whereas the oilers are in such a unique place it makes no sense to compare.

 

[rt]

Nah. Let's go back five seasons(for a clear picture). Edmonton takes Hall number one. They still suck. The year before that the Isles took Tavares. They're now pretty good. The Lightning took Stamkos the year before that. They're good. Kane went to Chicago the year before that. They're good. St Louis to EJ the year before that and they're good. Crosby and Ovechkin went the two years before that.

Out of all those teams. Only edmonton still sucks.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

But have there been any teams the last 5 years that have been successful without any players who had been a #1 overall pick? Yes/No

and re: Ovechkin - and I like the guy - would you consider the Caps successful? Really?

 

[IPreferPi]

But have there been any teams the last 5 years that have been successful without any players who had been a #1 overall pick? Yes/No

The Bruins, but technically they did have the #2 overall pick in Tyler Seguin.

and re: Ovechkin - and I like the guy - would you consider the Caps successful? Really?

They've made the playoffs 6 of 9 seasons after drafting Ovi. Forced Game 7 in the semifinals twice. Lots of offense and excitement on ice. Caps are also among the league leaders in attendance and I'd assume merchandise sales as well. So yes, the Caps are successful.

 

[hbk]

But have there been any teams the last 5 years that have been successful without any players who had been a #1 overall pick? Yes/No

and re: Ovechkin - and I like the guy - would you consider the Caps successful? Really?

Financially? Yes.

On ice? Most exciting team in hockey for a few years. I would say their success though has been limited by the preferences of their franchise player.

 

[Matias Maccete]

Nah. Let's go back five seasons(for a clear picture). Edmonton takes Hall number one. They still suck. The year before that the Isles took Tavares. They're now pretty good. The Lightning took Stamkos the year before that. They're good. Kane went to Chicago the year before that. They're good. St Louis to EJ the year before that and they're good. Crosby and Ovechkin went the two years before that.

Out of all those teams. Only edmonton still sucks.

Having a top tier player is definitely a big deal but I don't think you need multiple years of failure and multiple top picks. Oel wasn't the top pick but with how he's progressing he could be our top tier guy, anyone we get in this draft plus domi on top of that could be a scary team pretty quickly.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

The Bruins, but technically they did have the #2 overall pick in Tyler Seguin.

(so, per Mr. Math, 2 technically == 1, but that's not important right now )

My bad, I misstated the question: that should have read "...without having had a #1 overall pick of their own"... the answer I was looking for was "Yes." Bruins and Kings (but again "technically" Doughty was a #2, so that counts too right?)

And, for the Caps: yes they have been exciting, yes they may be profitable, but if you measure success by Cups and playoff rounds won (game 7 losses are losses, coulda woulda shoulda)....wellllllll....Ovi's won exactly one more playoff series than we have (and God knows I've been on their bandwagon in the spring a few times). I would call them more 'underachieving'.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Nah. Let's go back five seasons(for a clear picture). Edmonton takes Hall number one. They still suck. The year before that the Isles took Tavares. They're now pretty good. The Lightning took Stamkos the year before that. They're good. Kane went to Chicago the year before that. They're good. St Louis to EJ the year before that and they're good. Crosby and Ovechkin went the two years before that.

Out of all those teams. Only edmonton still sucks.

Okay, okay. But keep going...

http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=18342

2003 - Florida - traded the pick to Pittsburgh (Fleury) - always sucked, and PIT had to get a 2nd #1 to escape
2002 - Florida - traded the pick to Columbus (Nash) - both teams sucked
2001 - Atlanta (Kovalchuk) - always sucked
2000 - NY Islanders (DiPietro) - sucked for another 10-12 years

Did all those teams have crap management? Maybe. Does our team have crap management now? Some of you believe so, which means we're likely screwed anyway, right?

 

[kihekah19*]

Nah. Let's go back five seasons(for a clear picture). Edmonton takes Hall number one. They still suck. The year before that the Isles took Tavares. They're now pretty good. The Lightning took Stamkos the year before that. They're good. Kane went to Chicago the year before that. They're good. St Louis to EJ the year before that and they're good. Crosby and Ovechkin went the two years before that.

Out of all those teams. Only edmonton still sucks.

So next year is Edmonton's year then?

 

[starman]

......

1. Would you like to trade Vermette and Michalek for less established, younger pieces some time before the deadline?

Yes, and/or draft picks.

2. Would you like to trade Yandle and Hanzal for younger, less established pieces some time before the deadline? At the draft?

Yandle only if the return is ridiculously good, so ridiculously good that we'd be utter fools to turn it down. Hanzal would need to bring an unexpectedly good return as well, but not up to the Yandle standard. There are only a handful of players that I'd consider trading Yandle for, probably less than 10, or the #1 pick. Whether any of this gets done at the deadline or the draft, I would defer to GMDM and trust his judgment and ability to get the best for our assets.


3. Heading into next season, would you like to continue focusing primarily on youth, trading older pieces, and signing fewer veteran players, all in an effort to secure a top five pick in next year's draft also?

It depends on what we do at the draft and any other deals and signings that happen beforehand. If we get McDavid or Eichel somehow and sign a couple of good free agents then I'm all for shooting for the playoffs. I think it could be very dangerous to have two seasons in a row like this one, so I'd be hesitant to support going for a top 5 pick next year.

 

[rt]

Perhaps my sample size is just convenient to my point, but it's also conveniently more relevant to today than the pre-lockout(take one!) era.

 

[Matias Maccete]

So next year is Edmonton's year then?

Same as the cubs fans, next year is always the year.

 

[Sciamachy]

Okay, okay. But keep going...

http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=18342

2003 - Florida - traded the pick to Pittsburgh (Fleury) - always sucked, and PIT had to get a 2nd #1 to escape
2002 - Florida - traded the pick to Columbus (Nash) - both teams sucked
2001 - Atlanta (Kovalchuk) - always sucked
2000 - NY Islanders (DiPietro) - sucked for another 10-12 years

Did all those teams have crap management? Maybe. Does our team have crap management now? Some of you believe so, which means we're likely screwed anyway, right?

Isles GM at the time was Milbury who was awful, preceded by Maloney who is still thought by some Isles fans to be the worst GM they ever had. Add in Wangs nickel and dime act for years while he tried to get a new arena... yes they had bad management.

Atlanta actually started to get better and won their division a few years later before ASG purposely destroyed the team so they could sell them and get them out of their arena. They had bad ownership, not so much the management.

Columbus was still basically an expansion team in 2002 and had Doug MacLean as their GM for years. There is no question that MacLean was a terrible GM. He was followed by Scott Howson (thanks for basically giving us Klesla and Vermette, Scott). Yes they had bad management.

Florida, from 2000-2010 had 8 different GMs at one time or another, Martin being there the longest for a whooping 3 years. Not exactly stable management.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Perhaps my sample size is just convenient to my point,

...and I respect you for admitting that..

but it's also conveniently more relevant to today than the pre-lockout(take one!) era.

So if we finish last, is it due to our incompetent management? Or our fiendishly clever management?

The lady or the tiger?

 

[MIGs Dog]

If you have high picks and good management and coaching you can build a very good roster.

Add to that an owner who will spend the money.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Same as the cubs fans, next year is always the year.

But this time it's true!!! (for Cubs fans that is)