Should we have tanked in the first place?

[shoop]

also, I enjoyed watching the oilers from 1997 to 2006. every gam felt competitive and I watched most of every season, there was a chance to win. Post 2007 every game just felt bad and I watch considerably less

I don't think you were watching all that closely then.

2006-07 was an expected gut punch for the franchise and of course they stunk that season.

2007-08 and 2008-09 the team was competitive both seasons. Eliminated from playoff contention on the final weekend of the season in 2007-08.

 

[harpoon]

I don't think the Oilers tanked in 2009-10. Tambellini was bad at GMing.

Yeah, that was the thing with those teams. They could lose on purpose and people couldn't even tell the difference.

 

[Soundwave]

The rebuild did basically work, it just took a couple years longer than expected. The mistake was hiring Chiarelli to then take all those assets and make something of them when there were clear signs of mismanagement from his recent history in Boston. Seguin trade alone should have disqualified him.

We should have hired Ray Shero. This is still workable, but Chia has to go before he does more damage.

McDavid + Draisaitl is still the best 1-2 this franchise has had to build a team around since the 80s and both are still at the start of their careers, get a competent GM and you will get acceptable results.

 

[Jumptheshark]

might be time consider trading McDavid to fill the many holes on this team

 

[Oilslick941611]

also, after all was said and done. Hall was not worth the tank

 

[yababy]

might be time consider trading McDavid to fill the many holes on this team

Trade Draisaitl to fill those holes.
No sarcasm

 

[StevenF1919]

also, after all was said and done. Hall was not worth the tank

I disagree. He was the only watchable part of this team until McDavid came along.

 

[TheNumber4]

This thread makes no sense. We're acting like we can DECIDE if we tanking or not? Are you serious? Have you guys forgotten the last 2 decades? If the Oilers had the ability not to tank, they wouldn't have.

They "tanked" cause they sucked for various reasons.

Oh and the quoted in the OP, what the hell does any of that even mean? It's like suggesting Edmonton should have just done an expansion draft as if that's an option.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I personally see tanking solely as a management choice, not a player or coaching choice. At least, it should be. Would reframing it was 're-tooling' be better? I see your point about it being a slap in the face to the fans, but at least in Edmonton, I felt like the majority of the fans were on board with the idea. And going even further, the dominant teams since we tanked have still been teams that built around top picks: LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh and the Cupless Washington. How do you get a team with those players if not by gearing your organization towards collecting picks at some point?

The majority were on board? I question that. On what basis would you think, or believe that? Plus which fans are you talking about? The STH that pay for a decade of crap, ticket buyers, or just people on social media? Even on this board many of us were against the perennial suck. Unfortunately around 90% of those guys are no longer here, or no longer fans and are likely just as disillusioned if they still even care about the franchise. One needs to remember that any given time the ones that remain on boards like this are lifers supplemented with whatever new crew is here at any given time. This not being representative, at all, of the plurality of fans that have existed say since the cap era.

I really doubt the average fan was very sold on a massive crash on your face rebuild that would go from scorched earth rubble to whatever team which would take half a dozen years minimally. Keeping in mind that any fan old enough to remember that the club was MORE competitive BEFORE the NHL CAP and that the Oilers, and other small market clubs WON the CBA and were GRANTED a Small Cap (which made successful loaded clubs have to pare roster and give up players like Pronger and Peca) In short the massive CBA W that the Oilers got from the last prolonged labor impasse should have sealed their fate as a competitive squad. The Irony is that the Oilers fought hard for the cap, the hardest, and ensured the fan base at the time that a cap was all that would be required for the Oilers to build a very good contending team for its fans. False promises made a dozen years ago. This is important background that people should be aware of. That the CBA cap was a MASSIVE gift to this, and other small market clubs to build competitive lineups. The Oilers should have been SET in 2006. It should've been gravy on the ice for this franchise ever since.


Next, to answer the bolded my post that seemingly spurred this thread delineated how an org with a plan, Vegas, quickly put together a contending team on the basis of players that were left unprotected, or negotiated, or that other teams were getting rid of due to cap and/or payroll concerns.

The Oilers are a wealthy club, with one of the best money generating arenas in the league, that really have no limitations and that won the McD lottery.

But anyway, we just played a club that acquired most of their club. That doesn't have hardly any of their own high picks in the lineup. I think the degree to which you need high picks is overstated. As long as theres idiots in the league trading talent the likes of Hall and Seguin for lesser return or giving away guys like Marchessault due to pay problems theres ample opportunity to build.

Perennially, even with cap league time frame there are some orgs almost ALWAYS on the top or very competitive. The following have done this without tanking; Tampa, STL, NYR, Pitts, Bos, SJ, ANA, NASH.

Next, we have clubs that have built out largely through the gifts of other clubs and without any prolonged tanking: Dallas, NJ, Vegas, Minny, Clb

Then we have teams that tanked quite awhile ago but keeping finding good additions and reloading since; LA, Chi. Wash

Now considering that all those orgs have built longstanding fairly competitive teams, and that none of them were gifted McD, and that only Pittsburgh, of all those clubs was gifted a player of similar calibre how is it not obvious that successful, even dynastic teams could be built with the means we had at our disposal. Keeping in mind we didn't tank for McD, we lucked out on him. We won the lottery, and we still suck.

 

[rboomercat90]

Let's be clear, tanking means losing on purpose. I have no idea how anyone could support that sort of idea. @Drivesaitl stated it very well in the post you quote above. Its a disgrace to the crest and the great players who have worn it with pride, not to mention a slap in the face to every fan who pays real $ for tickets.

I believe the Oilers tanked at least two seasons during the DOD. The FOAs we had during that period were not worth it in any way. Imagine wasting a whole season for the right to select Nail Yakupov

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think we tanked for McDavid. That was just sheer luck.

Kind of off topic here but your post quoting what Drivesaitl said reminded me of the year the fans were throwing jerseys on the ice. The organization was up in arms about what kind of fan could disrespect the crest and logo that much, obviously not a real fan. A couple days later a couple Oilers both hit point milestones on the same goal and the decision was made to cut the puck in half and give them each a piece. The cut sawed the Oiler logo in half.
To me that act was the most disrespect that could ever be shown to the logo and the team did it, intentionally, themselvesand then put it on their website to brag about how smart they were.

All this talk about love for crest has never meant less than it does right now. It’s love for money before anything else.

 

[Aerchon]

Teams like Chicago and Pittsburgh got lucky imo. Tanking is a foolish way to rebuild. I say that in complete hindsight tho. I was very pro tank to start.

Teams like the Oilers and Buffalo plus changes to the draft really make tanking look stupid now imo.

 

[Aerrol]

The majority were on board? I question that. On what basis would you think, or believe that? Plus which fans are you talking about? The STH that pay for a decade of crap, ticket buyers, or just people on social media? Even on this board many of us were against the perennial suck. Unfortunately around 90% of those guys are no longer here, or no longer fans and are likely just as disillusioned if they still even care about the franchise. One needs to remember that any given time the ones that remain on boards like this are lifers supplemented with whatever new crew is here at any given time. This not being representative, at all, of the plurality of fans that have existed say since the cap era. I really doubt the average fan was very sold on a massive crash on your face rebuild that would go from scorched earth rubble to whatever team which would take half a dozen years minimally.

It's hardly scientific, but I'd base it on 1. my personal group of friends, I'd say 20 or so hardcore hockey/Oilers fans; 2. message boards online; and, just barely, 3. the media, as sycophantic as they may be. Of my own friends, not a single one was opposed to the idea of rebuilding through the draft. In fact, they were by and large very very excited by the idea - they looked at Washington, Pittsburgh and Chicago and thought "why not us?". Similarly, after having moved to Ontario, every Leaf fan I met talked to me about how sick they were of being mediocre and how they wanted a proper rebuild for top talent. It's all anecdotal, but as far as I can recall, I haven't met a single hardcore hockey fan who's been down on the overall idea of a rebuild/tank for picks. I'll grant you that my friend group/personal interactions skew very hard towards the younger crowd, 20-30s or so.

Keeping in mind that any fan old enough to remember that the club was MORE competitive BEFORE the NHL CAP and that the Oilers, and other small market clubs WON the CBA and were GRANTED a Small Cap (which made successful loaded clubs have to pare roster and give up players like Pronger and Peca) In short the massive CBA W that the Oilers got from the last prolonged labor impasse should have sealed their fate as a competitive squad. The Irony is that the Oilers fought hard for the cap, the hardest, and ensured the fan base at the time that a cap was all that would be required for the Oilers to build a very good contending team for its fans. False promises made a dozen years ago. This is important background that people should be aware of. That the CBA cap was a MASSIVE gift to this, and other small market clubs to build competitive lineups. The Oilers should have been SET in 2006. It should've been gravy on the ice for this franchise ever since.

Solid point re: the cap being something the Oilers pushed for. I won't argue there.

Next, to answer the bolded my post that seemingly spurred this thread delineated how an org with a plan, Vegas, quickly put together a contending team on the basis of players that were left unprotected, or negotiated, or that other teams were getting rid of due to cap and/or payroll concerns.

The Oilers are a wealthy club, with one of the best money generating arenas in the league, that really have no limitations and that won the McD lottery.

But anyway, we just played a club that acquired most of their club. That doesn't have hardly any of their own high picks in the lineup. I think the degree to which you need high picks is overstated. As long as theres idiots in the league trading talent the likes of Hall and Seguin for lesser return or giving away guys like Marchessault due to pay problems theres ample opportunity to build.

I think you overstate the degree which these opportunities arise, but OK, they do happen. Fair. Dallas hasn't been able to take the next step forward to become a true contender still though, as you've pointed out elsewhere.

Perennially, even with cap league time frame there are some orgs almost ALWAYS on the top or very competitive. The following have done this without tanking; Tampa, STL, NYR, Pitts, Bos, SJ, ANA, NASH.

Errr, Pitts definitely doesn't belong here. They had long periods of suckage and tanked TWICE - for Lemieux and then for Crosby. Tampa tanked as well, Yzerman pointedly made a few trades for picks and built around their top picks of Stamkos and Hedman. SJ had some originally high picks/trades. I'm curious to see what they do once Thornton and Co finally retire. STL, NYR, BOS, ANA, NASH are solid examples, but of those only Bos and Ana have climbed to the top. Still, enough teams to be food for thought so fair.

Next, we have clubs that have built out largely through the gifts of other clubs and without any prolonged tanking: Dallas, NJ, Vegas, Minny, Clb

NJ and CLB have also relied on top picks as well though - CLB had Johansen, Werenski, Murray; NJ has had Zacha and Hirschier and Larsson.

Then we have teams that tanked quite awhile ago but keeping finding good additions and reloading since; LA, Chi. Wash

No disagreement here. I am for tanking/rebuilding to get a solid foundation to last you a decade+ with good GMing. We clearly have failed at step 2 here.

Now considering that all those orgs have built longstanding fairly competitive teams, and that none of them were gifted McD, and that only Pittsburgh, of all those clubs was gifted a player of similar calibre how is it not obvious that successful, even dynastic teams could be built with the means we had at our disposal. Keeping in mind we didn't tank for McD, we lucked out on him. We won the lottery, and we still suck.

We still suck because we've had terrible drafting, scouting, development, trading etc. No disagreement there. But I still think the draft system is an important tool to regain top players. I suppose with the current lottery rules, flat out tanking is less needed than ever however.

Thanks for the long reply, I enjoyed reading and responding to it.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Perennially, even with cap league time frame there are some orgs almost ALWAYS on the top or very competitive. The following have done this without tanking; Tampa, STL, NYR, Pitts, Bos, SJ, ANA, NASH.
.

False.

Check where these players were drafted:

Hedman Stamkos
Crosby malkin fleury j.staal


Outside of BOS, the rest havent won cups so don't matter. By the way, youre conveniently missing chicago who went through their own decade of darkness, and LA who got Kopitar and Doughty.


Sorry to say but tanking IS the only way to get franchise 1C's and D's.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Thanks as well for the reply. Also for considering my post from the other thread and figuring there could be a thread on it. I don't start threads here as you know and so this is as close as its come to me having a thread. Although its your thread.

As usual you are very astute. The first point above, yes, your age, that IS a critical factor. Almost everybody I know and talk hockey to are older and none of these people wanted a new fangled rebuild. Its a more recent concept. Only recently something like that would even be considered acceptable by anybody (and I don't know why) To me top sporting competition should have a sanctity, whether it be boxing, horse racing, hockey, football, Soccer it better be about the winning. As soon as other angles are sought after (vice, gambling, extortion, tanking, throwing matches, ) the entire validity of the league and sport is GONE. Called into question. Its one of the reasons why I feel so strongly in my statement that "tanking is antithetical to the professionalism of sport". Indeed ever having a goal of anything other than winning goes so hard against what I feel pro sport owes to its fans. Especially in a gate driven league like the NHL where people are paying so much and deserve an actual competed match every time they go out. Indeed this is the fan/sport unwritten contract in pro sports that the product be competent, competitive, that it is cream. That it isn't junk.

That we perennially had 5 teams tanking and trying to throw games later in the year to win the tank derby was a complete and utter joke and why they changed the rules and setup the draft lottery. Its an imperfect action but it helps, and it should ALWAYS have been in place. The NHL too has suffered credibility as a lot of its sporting results have been chronically laughed at. With longstanding suggestions that games are just poorly competed in regular season. (its improved somewhat) Case in point, and I called it out just a week ago in the Around the NHL thread that out of 8 games on NYE 7 were not even close and were dominated by one club. 5 of the games were blowouts. We're talking multiple scorelines from 5-0 to 7-1. To me this invoked a feeling that not even half the clubs bothered to show up on NYE. Yet the games were scheduled, all sold out, and with many tickets being resold for higher price (as they were here) As long as this kind of stuff happens the NHL will never be taken as seriously as the big leagues. Hockey is so much more attractive a pro sport when both clubs are trying and competing.

Two agents exist that have caused the Oilers fans long standing misery. First Oilers org incompetence and an org as loathesome as to select the tank rationale and action. Its reprehensible. This is not revisionist either, people know I was fervently against it, fervently against throwing games, and not above challenging that people here and online were cheering for losing.
The other, is already mentioned, that the NHL had in place a draft format that would quite clearly reward tanking for whatever org that would potentially choose that route.

I disagree with you that some of the teams above tanked purposely. Some teams mentioned were bad because they had on ice and off ice issues and ranging from declining attendance, revenue, owners that wanted to pare some contracts, to not have to pay as much etc. All of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and others at different times were subject to this kind of Harold Ballard paradigm (older people remember that as well) next, Pittsburgh didn't get Crosby because they tanked, its because they won a lottery to pick him.

Finally, no team ever has sucked for as long as the Edmonton Oilers. I've run lots of numbers in the past and no team in the modern era has had an extended record as bad as the Oilers for that length of time. (one corrects for current Bettman points in comparing that). For instance the Oilers are, by a large margin the worst team since the lockout. Its not even close. We've been far worse than any of the other teams and for longer. So that a Toronto tank is hardly even notable. Short duration, Ditto teams like NJ.

In time I likely have some more comments but this does nicely for now.

cheers

 

[Drivesaitl]

False.

Check where these players were drafted:

Hedman Stamkos
Crosby malkin fleury j.staal


Outside of BOS, the rest havent won cups so don't matter. By the way, youre conveniently missing chicago who went through their own decade of darkness, and LA who got Kopitar and Doughty.


Sorry to say but tanking IS the only way to get franchise 1C's and D's.

If this is your rebuttal you clearly didn't read my post clearly. So that I'm not going to respond to a reply that refutes without even reading the initial premise carefully.

Nor is a discussion even possible if your reply is "tanking is the only way". So if your mind is made up what is there to discuss? In anycase my primary stance is that tanking is unconscionable in any professional sport. That is shouldn't occur.

ps tell me where Tampa tanked or were horrendous for extended periods of time. What this thread is about is that a team should not intentionally go on a fullbore clownshow tank rebuild lasting several years. That a team should instead endeavor to be competitive from game to game and from season to season. Tampa, on the whole have done that.

Tampa Bay Lightning Franchise Index | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Perfect_Drug]

If this is your rebuttal you clearly didn't read my post clearly. So that I'm not going to respond to a reply that refutes without even reading the initial premise carefully.

Nor is a discussion even possible if your reply is "tanking is the only way". So if your mind is made up what is there to discuss? In anycase my primary stance is that tanking is unconscionable in any professional sport. That is shouldn't occur.

ps tell me where Tampa tanked or were horrendous for extended periods of time. What this thread is about is that a team should not intentionally go on a fullbore clownshow tank rebuild lasting several years. That a team should instead endeavor to be competitive from game to game and from season to season. Tampa, on the whole have done that.

Tampa Bay Lightning Franchise Index | Hockey-Reference.com

Ok then,

Whether a team should or shouldn't has no bearing if they win a cup.

If they don't win a cup, then tanking is clearly a bad option.


After chicago and Pittsburgh emerged from their scorched earth rebuilds.. nobody questioned whether it was the wrong option. It was clearly the ONLY option.

After a miserable first half to this season I'm sure a lot of Oiler fans aren't sure it's worth it.


But when we were finishing 8th and losing to dallas in the first round for several years, it was obvious to me back then our 3rd line grinders would never beat 4 teams of superstars.

We need superstars to win in this league and tanking was the only way to get them.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Ok then,

Whether a team should or shouldn't has no bearing if they win a cup.

If they don't win a cup, then tanking is clearly a bad option.


After chicago and Pittsburgh emerged from their scorched earth rebuilds.. nobody questioned whether it was the wrong option. It was clearly the ONLY option.

After a miserable first half to this season I'm sure a lot of Oiler fans aren't sure it's worth it.


But when we were finishing 8th and losing to dallas in the first round for several years, it was obvious to me back then our 3rd line grinders would never beat 4 teams of superstars.

We need superstars to win in this league and tanking was the only way to get them.

Several of the teams above have obtained superstars without tanking to get them. As mentioned.

Nor is the problem you mention due to tanking at all. I'm not sure how to respond to comments that are incorrect in the first place. The Oilers, precap, were a small market club with small market revenues trying to compete against clubs with huge revenues and huge payrolls. That wa the issue there. No tanking was required then, either, to obtain great players. Just huge bank accounts. In anycase you state a false problem. That a team needs to win it all to provide a good and entertaining product. I don't know anybody that wasn't pleased with the Oilers 97 and 98 seasons. just in a pgt the other day a ton of fans here were wishing we had a heart and soul club that was more like that one. With that club you were rarely disappointed or feeling like the players didn't lay it all on the line. As Harpoon mentioned winning it all is not the only aspect. Its not the only goal. Its providing a good product to a fanbase. There can be no doubt that the Oilers had that in the late 90's. Given a choice I'd rather watch that club.

Nor are superstars REQUIRED to win the cup. Who were the superstars in the Carolina SC W? Before you answer consider that some of those like Weight were quite old and not at their peak. That was pretty much a team depth type win by the Canes. A lunchbucket W.

 

[KickHimPedro]

You guys are fooling yourselves if you don’t think we were tanking for McDavid. Sure there was so much incompetence going on, but some of the early season personnel decisions were clearly made to make the team worse.

Most obvious though was the clinging on to Eakins for as long as possible. You can just see the “brain”trust meeting every week saying “one more week. Let’s just hang onto him one more week. Almost there”. They walked a dangerous line there and milked him for as long as they possibly could

 

[Tyrolean]

To the Oilers credit, I don't think they ever played to tank. They were just plain lousy before. I really think Buffalo and other teams purposely tanked before to get MacD etc.

 

[Tyrolean]

You guys are fooling yourselves if you don’t think we were tanking for McDavid. Sure there was so much incompetence going on, but some of the early season personnel decisions were clearly made to make the team worse.

Most obvious though was the clinging on to Eakins for as long as possible. You can just see the “brain”trust meeting every week saying “one more week. Let’s just hang onto him one more week. Almost there”. They walked a dangerous line there and milked him for as long as they possibly could

Unless you have proof I strongly doubt that.

 

[harpoon]

Outside of BOS, the rest havent won cups so don't matter.

I guess if winning a cup is your only measuring stick.
Personally I'd rather have the consistent respectability (and the chance to be a cup contender) over the ten years as league laughingstock and permanent damage to franchise reputation. But that's probably just me.

 

[TheNumber4]

People still talking about this like we had a choice to tank? Lol.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Clearly because it's done such great things for the team and fan base.

 

[Summary]

The tank job was simply the management assembling a bad team due to widely chronicled incompetence and so Lowe, ever coveting the "big fish" decided to embrace the tank to land a few superstars that couldn't say no.

The big problem came when we realized that Katz didn't really care how bad the management team was so he kept them on. The Oilers were a badly run team that acquired superstars through the draft but kept the anchors that pulled them down the standings in the first place. So it should be no surprise that a team content with losing for at least 2 of those seasons, who would rather lose with the OBC than win with competent people, would struggle to find lasting success

Katz is a previously successful businessman who has now just become a rich comfortable loser

 

[Jumptheshark]

The NHL should instistute a rule preventing this organization from drafting top 5 for the next decade.

They should not be rewarded for repeated and self inflicted failure.

This team's problem is building a balanced roster of players around its top end picks. Can't speak for other organizations but roster management has been the constant factor that bites this team in the ass.

I agree with this. We have had enough top 5 picks in the last ten years.