News Article: Tanking was totally worth it for the sabres

[Heraldic]

It really was. But those last 10 games or so with 2 against Arizona and the Chicago game were so stressful...The year before was much easier, but not as much was at stake.

I have watched several hockey seasons where my team either in Buffalo or in Finland has been poor. It's really boring.

Last year was far from being boring regarding the last games.

 

[Cirris]

The Ehrhoff buy-out was much more about cap recapture than about tanking, to be fair.

Ehrhoff was dead weight when he was bought out.

Ehrhoff wanted out. The compliance buyout was only available for a short window period of time. Sabres did what they had to do. The Kings did not. That's why the Kings had to shamelessly pull a cap circumvention by trumping up the outrage over a simple possession charge to try rid themselves of a ugly contract and save cap space.

 

[Heraldic]

Ehrhoff wanted out. The compliance buyout was only available for a short window period of time. Sabres did what they had to do. The Kings did not. That's why the Kings had to shamelessly pull a cap circumvention by trumping up the outrage over a simple possession charge to try rid themselves of a ugly contract and save cap space.

Neither did Boston... And they getting themselves in a cap crunch with paying too much money to a guy like Kelly eventually led Chiarelli getting fired.

Ehrhoff with his 4 million cap hit was a really good contract. But with the recapture penalty behind, it's obvious Murray did the right call there.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[brian_griffin]

The strategy of acquiring and flipping assets had nothing to do with luck, and was executed nearly perfectly.

However, we had advantageous timing to maximize a few results (2015 draft having that kind of top-end talent, 2016 draft moving to 3 lottery picks, the timing of the Kane trade, etc.)

Agreed. Imagine if BUF had it's 2011 lineup today, and came to the realization the center talent wasn't good enough / deep enough, so decided to rebuild rather than retool. Would be much harder with today's lottery rules, both in terms of getting lucky on the ping pong balls, and fewer teams willing to part with 1st-round picks.

I don't know. It lacked integrity and dignity and fans who supported losing are very likely people who neglect their children, disrespect the elderly and the type of people who don't fill up the tank of gas after borrowing someone's pickup.

They bought out Ehrhoff, traded away both modestly competent goalies, traded away guys like moulson who were more than willing to sign, signed terrible players to laughably above market value deals, kept guys in the minors that the coach publicly lobbied to have on the roster, no, it wasn't just passive, circumstantial sucking. They went for it and they got it. And god bless them, may we never judge a team for doing what it takes to win.

We've been through this before. Both goalies were pending UFA. Moulson too. To not trade them for assets would have been worse asset management. The only guy in the minors you could argue could have played for BUF was Pysyk. The forwards in '13-14 and '14-15 usually / already had a half-dozen fringe NHL / AHL players. No top-talents were signing in BUF, and management made the decision for a patient rebuild rather than a temporary patch job. I know you're not arguing any of that, it's just that those moves aren't tanking. If those moves are viewed as tanking, then the Kessel trade is more blatant.

Yeah, and to be more fair, there's a "to be fair" analysis for every move the Sabres made, and any one of them on their own I could say, eh, sure (Oh, let's add trading your 1D midyear for a guy who's out for the season, forgot that one). But it's all of them together in the year you just happen to guarantee yourself Jack fricking Eichel by being the worst team in the modern history of the league, and the straightface "oh, it was all a happy accident" argument just looks kinda sad.

I mean, is there a type of move that management could've made over the last two years and didn't? They pretty much did everything a management team could do to some degree or other. And there's still always a competing plausible explanation for any move on its own.

Kane trade was a great opportunity and a good opportunity cost. And the Sabres weren't the worst team in modern history by certain measures.

Let's not forget 30th place wasn't certain until game #80 of 82.

Tank = intentional losing.
Sabres had a very well-timed rebuild, and still needed help to land Eichel.

 

[haseoke39]

Agreed. Imagine if BUF had it's 2011 lineup today, and came to the realization the center talent wasn't good enough / deep enough, so decided to rebuild rather than retool. Would be much harder with today's lottery rules, both in terms of getting lucky on the ping pong balls, and fewer teams willing to part with 1st-round picks.



We've been through this before. Both goalies were pending UFA. Moulson too. To not trade them for assets would have been worse asset management. The only guy in the minors you could argue could have played for BUF was Pysyk. The forwards in '13-14 and '14-15 usually / already had a half-dozen fringe NHL / AHL players. No top-talents were signing in BUF, and management made the decision for a patient rebuild rather than a temporary patch job. I know you're not arguing any of that, it's just that those moves aren't tanking. If those moves are viewed as tanking, then the Kessel trade is more blatant.

Kane trade was a great opportunity and a good opportunity cost. And the Sabres weren't the worst team in modern history by certain measures.

Let's not forget 30th place wasn't certain until game #80 of 82.

Tank = intentional losing.
Sabres had a very well-timed rebuild, and still needed help to land Eichel.

Pretty much all the UFAs we traded were willing to re-sign, so the argument that we had to trade them makes no sense.

Pysyk wasn't some strange judgment call. Your head coach was lobbying to the freaking media and your GM was sending him down. It was a canary in the coal mine, and the only chance you have of seeing the inner conflicts in the organization that for all we know applied everywhere.

Everything else, we're basically on the same page. There's probably a logical non-tanking argument for any of these moves on their own. But in the eye of this beholder, all of them at once is incredible, in the "it's not credible that all this is happening at once without a plan to lose" sense.

 

[Dreakon13]

B-but the jerks on the main boards don't respect us anymore.

And that sort of respect, it's priceless. I wouldn't want to just give that up.

 

[Eichphoria]

I'm glad we have Jack but we lost a lot of good people from all the losing. Drew, Ryan, Paul, Ted, and others. Hopefully that's in our rear window now!

 

[Der Jaeger]

The strategy of acquiring and flipping assets had nothing to do with luck, and was executed nearly perfectly.

However, we had advantageous timing to maximize a few results (2015 draft having that kind of top-end talent, 2016 draft moving to 3 lottery picks, the timing of the Kane trade, etc.)

I think tanking to get two top picks was the plan. I also think the teardown was far more deliberate and planned for a few years of drafts prior to the final bottoming out. I think they torn down slowly to build organizational depth just prior to the final bottoming out. And I think they took some cues from the Penguins and Blackhawks.

Pittsburgh had the following players in the organization prior to bottoming out to get MAF, Malkin, Crosby, and Staal: Scuderi, Malone, Orpik, Armstrong, Talbot, and Whitney. The got Goligoski and Letang during the bottom out years. Post-bottoming out, the Pens won enough/traded enough players to contend and win a Cup, but they've never really re-stocked their pipeline that well (Maatta, Bennett, Despres, Pouliot) - mostly because I'd argue it wasn't that deep to start.

Compare to Chicago prior to the Toews / Kane drafts: Ruutu (who gets traded for Ladd), Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Byfuglien, Bolland, Bickell, Brower, Hjalmarsson are all in the organization prior to picking Toews and Kane. After the bottoming out, Chicago adds in Kruger, Saad, Shaw, and Teravainen.

Chicago drafted better post-bottoming out, but more in quality than quantity. The Pens had double the top picks, but also started with way less in the organization. Once a team prospers, re-stocking the organization is hard enough. Rebuilding around the core gets really hard - Pittsburgh has struggled to find the pieces to surround their top centers. Chicago had three of their top 4 defensemen and a bunch of forwards, including Bolland at center, prior to ever picking Toews and Kane.

I know I missed some player transaction details along the way, but Chicago started with more organizational depth, allowing them to put more around their top forwards, and trade to keep re-stocking the team.

I think Buffalo gradually torn down the NHL roster to build organizational depth prior to bottoming out. Buffalo gradually torn down, adding picks and players along the way: Girgensons, Grigorenko, McCabe, Ristolainen, Zadorov, Compher, Bailey, Baptiste, Fasching, Larsson, and Carrier before finally bottoming out to get Eichel and Reinhart. They already had Myers, Ennis, Foligno, Armia, and Pysyk in the organization.

So prior to ever bottoming out, Buffalo's got it's #1 defender (Ristolainen), two impact two-way forwards (Girgensons and Larsson), scoring in Ennis, young power forwards in Foligno, Fasching, Baptiste, and Bailey, and defense with Pysyk and McCabe. And the trade equity to get Kane, Bogosian, O'Reilly, and Lehner.

Buffalo's cupboard is stocked more like Chicago's was than Pittsburgh's. I think the gradual decline was planned to gain organization depth prior to bottoming out, with the goal of coming out of the bottom of the league with Chicago-like organizational depth.