My Special Purpose
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2008
- 8,151
- 21,787
Tanking is another hot topic that is mostly misunderstood, mostly because it simply doesn't exist in the NHL. There may be examples in other leagues (ahem, NBA, ahem, NFL), but there is simply *no* tanking in the NHL. To clear up the confusion, let's get a few things straight -- like the roles and responsibilities of the people involved.
First off, the players. The players' responsibility is being prepared to give 100 percent effort the next time they step on the ice. This never changes, no matter what the score is, where in the standings the team is, or whether it's a practice, game or warm-up skate. They give 100 percent when the coach taps them on the shoulder. Obviously, the intensity necessary to win at the highest level sometimes wanes when a team is struggling or when the season looks lost, but no player wants to lose, and no player will "try" to lose. Players are judged by their ability to perform during games, and don't care about the long-term health of the franchise. Players don't tank, and we should stop asking them about it or speculating about it.
The coach's responsibility is a bit wider in scope. He's got to worry about giving his team the best chance to win each game -- not just tonight's game -- by properly managing factors like player availability, opponent's strategies, etc. A coach has to take more into consideration than a player, but in the end, he's constrained by the roster. He's only got 23 options, and they're all going to give 100 percent every time they step on the ice. Coaches are judged by their win-loss record, and aren't very concerned with anything past the current season. Coaches don't tank, and we should stop asking them about it or speculating about it.
The GM's responsibility is the biggest of the three. He can see past one shift, one game, or a month, or even an entire season, to the long-term success of the franchise. Here's where the idea of "tanking" comes in. In situations like the Hurricanes are in now, what's best for the team *today* and what's best for the team in 2015-16 and beyond are not necessarily the same thing. In those situations, the GM has to weigh any short-term gain against the long-term success of the franchise, both of which are his responsibility.
What I'm saying, is that what Buffalo, Edmonton, Carolina, Phoenix and potentially others are doing is simply not "tanking," and I wish we'd stop using that word. If the Canes trade Sekera, Tlusty and honestly, anyone, it will be to benefit the long-term. That's smart. To play out the string, try to win a few games and sell a few tickets is very short-sighted and will hurt the team (as we have seen in the past). At some point, you just *have* to scrap a season and go all in with the rebuild, or reload, or whatever you want to call it. Anything else and the GM is simply not doing his job (see Rutherford, Jim).
I get that finishing near the bottom -- or at the bottom -- doesn't guarantee anything. I get that high draft picks don't guarantee anything. I get that there are no guarantees in any of this. I really do. But picking No. 4 has got to be better than picking No. 9, right? We're talking about value here. The best way to get the most value out of a lost season is to get the highest pick possible and maybe take a flyer on a few young players. And the best way to do that is to finish as low as possible. It's really not rocket science.
And it's also not tanking. It's the GM's job.
Still to come: PK, Maniscalco, my idea to fix every league's All-Star Game.
First off, the players. The players' responsibility is being prepared to give 100 percent effort the next time they step on the ice. This never changes, no matter what the score is, where in the standings the team is, or whether it's a practice, game or warm-up skate. They give 100 percent when the coach taps them on the shoulder. Obviously, the intensity necessary to win at the highest level sometimes wanes when a team is struggling or when the season looks lost, but no player wants to lose, and no player will "try" to lose. Players are judged by their ability to perform during games, and don't care about the long-term health of the franchise. Players don't tank, and we should stop asking them about it or speculating about it.
The coach's responsibility is a bit wider in scope. He's got to worry about giving his team the best chance to win each game -- not just tonight's game -- by properly managing factors like player availability, opponent's strategies, etc. A coach has to take more into consideration than a player, but in the end, he's constrained by the roster. He's only got 23 options, and they're all going to give 100 percent every time they step on the ice. Coaches are judged by their win-loss record, and aren't very concerned with anything past the current season. Coaches don't tank, and we should stop asking them about it or speculating about it.
The GM's responsibility is the biggest of the three. He can see past one shift, one game, or a month, or even an entire season, to the long-term success of the franchise. Here's where the idea of "tanking" comes in. In situations like the Hurricanes are in now, what's best for the team *today* and what's best for the team in 2015-16 and beyond are not necessarily the same thing. In those situations, the GM has to weigh any short-term gain against the long-term success of the franchise, both of which are his responsibility.
What I'm saying, is that what Buffalo, Edmonton, Carolina, Phoenix and potentially others are doing is simply not "tanking," and I wish we'd stop using that word. If the Canes trade Sekera, Tlusty and honestly, anyone, it will be to benefit the long-term. That's smart. To play out the string, try to win a few games and sell a few tickets is very short-sighted and will hurt the team (as we have seen in the past). At some point, you just *have* to scrap a season and go all in with the rebuild, or reload, or whatever you want to call it. Anything else and the GM is simply not doing his job (see Rutherford, Jim).
I get that finishing near the bottom -- or at the bottom -- doesn't guarantee anything. I get that high draft picks don't guarantee anything. I get that there are no guarantees in any of this. I really do. But picking No. 4 has got to be better than picking No. 9, right? We're talking about value here. The best way to get the most value out of a lost season is to get the highest pick possible and maybe take a flyer on a few young players. And the best way to do that is to finish as low as possible. It's really not rocket science.
And it's also not tanking. It's the GM's job.
Still to come: PK, Maniscalco, my idea to fix every league's All-Star Game.
