Speculation: The Official Tank Thread

[Dotter]

You didn't answer my question.

You want me to tell you Detroit's success story. I find it very successful they have a 25 consecutive year playoff streak (and a cup in the cap era). That's a pretty nifty success. Hope they make the playoffs again this season.

Wings are still better than many teams that tank for top 3 picks who have cap-flexibility, teams that pick top 3 every season and never won a cup in the cap era. That's pretty cool. It proves that tanking isn't the only way to have success, or lack thereof.

But I suppose your definition of success will differ from mine. I guess the guy who truly gets to decide what is, or is not success is Mike Illitch. He hasn't fired Ken Holland, and shows no signs of displeasure, so I guess DRWs way is success after all.

 

[Flowah]

But I suppose your definition of success will differ from mine. I guess the guy who truly gets to decide what is, or is not success is Mike Illitch. He hasn't fired Ken Holland, and shows no signs of displeasure, so I guess DRWs way is success after all.

If the GM not being fired is the measure of success then sure. Strange definition but hey you do you.

What's the point in having "cap flexibility" if there's no players worth spending the flexible cap on? Avs "cap flexibility" ain't doing **** for them.

Wings are 20 points better than the Avs (mid-way through the season) with no "cap flexibility" than Avs who have "cap flexibility", and young players who people in this thread is touting is better than anything we have. If that is the essence of what "cap flexibility" is suppose to be, then I don't want it. I don't want the DRWs to become the Avs version 2.0.

Avs have recently drafted top 3 three times. They drafted top 10 twice. And looks like they'll keep their top drafting streak alive again this year. This is what people want the Detroit Red Wings to become? Lol

"cap flexibility" is overrated. Look no further than the Avs.

Cap flexibility allows for things. Whether or not you make good on them is another story. Having a flexible cap can bring returns. Some teams need cap relief and will send picks and prospects your way to get it. A rebuilding team needs lots of picks.

You want the team to be actually competitive without high picks, without cap flexibility, without the quantity of picks required to get lucky and find those elite players later in the draft. No wonder your method has led to 6 years of mediocrity. You want them to be good without giving them any reasonable way to be good.

 

[Winger98]

what exactly is the statute of limitations on using a cup win to justify an argument? We one our last one ten years ago, I don't think it says a thing about how this club has been managed for the past five years, or even 8 years. It's meaningless to any discussion of how well this team has been positioned moving forward.

 

[Dotter]

If the GM not being fired is the measure of success then sure.

And 25 consecutive playoff streak
And a cup
And young players showing some promise with the young guns emerging

From ownerships standponit

sellouts at the Joe
new arena

That's just the obvious stuff at the top of my head. Of course I know you won't agree with it because you think tank, tank, tank and losing some more is the only way for absolute success. Yet there are dozens of teams that are proving that is not true. You talk about "lignting striking" at drafting a #1 dman in the later rounds, yet these teams that tank every-single-year wish lighting would hit them once in awhile.

I think your "theory" on how to build "success" is a nice "theory" on paper. But it's not a one size fits all theory. And I don't think it works for this club.

 

[TheMule93]

2012-2017: 5 years of rebuilding on the fly. What do we have to show for it?

- no elite players
- no success
- boring hockey
- no end in sight

Please stop doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

 

[SirloinUB]

Elite players are a necessary, but not sufficient, component to building contending teams. They are however the most difficult component. Finding/Signing/Trading for Nyquists and Tatars is significantly easier than getting a top line/pairing player.

I think the Wings are pretty good at finding supporting level talent. I think if you added a 1D/1C to this club they'd be a contender. I can see our d-corp now. DK no longer required on top pair and no more PP time. Green no longer our de facto #1. Everyone moves down a slot. Z no longer required to carry the team on his back. Looks real good to me.

Fundamentally, I agree, elite talent is more difficult to acquire than quality depth. In reality, I can quickly come up with a list of teams who have elite talent but struggled to bring in a useful mix of depth.

Red Wings 2010 - 2013
Washington: intermitent success since the Oveckin Draft
St. Louis Blues: Continually failed to make it over the hump
Edmonton Oilers: Basement dweller with a ton of talent but no depth
Colorado Avalanche: Basement dweller with a ton of talent but no depth
Ottawa Senators: Maybe not the best example but with Karlsson, Turris and Ryan they have plenty of talent but never put together a great team
Montreal Canadiens: obvious high end pieces but have continually lacked depth.

To reiterate, I agree with your sentiment, but I believe many underestimate/under appreciate the difficulties of building a "deep" team.

 

[Dotter]

what exactly is the statute of limitations on using a cup win to justify an argument? We one our last one ten years ago, I don't think it says a thing about how this club has been managed for the past five years, or even 8 years. It's meaningless to any discussion of how well this team has been positioned moving forward.

I would say when a few bottom dweller teams that proved "tanking" success with a few cup wins. That hasn't happened. Oilers, Sabres, Isl, Avs, Arizona, Panthers. TML

You know, teams that have blatantly tried to tank for multiple top drafts and yet continue to whiff.

 

[Dotter]

2012-2017: 5 years of rebuilding on the fly. What do we have to show for it?

- no elite players
- no success
- boring hockey
- no end in sight

Please stop doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

2012, huh?

Well Oilers have been drafting #1 overalls since 2010 and they are still doing the same thing over and over again with no different results.

Yet Wings success has been better than Oilers, Oilers fans wish their team could sniff the playoffs.

 

[Winger98]

I would say when a few bottom dweller teams that proved "tanking" success with a few cup wins. That hasn't happened. Oilers, Sabres, Isl, Avs, Arizona, Panthers. TML

You know, teams that have blatantly tried to tank for multiple top drafts and yet continue to whiff.

you know, making a response to a point I didn't argue.

edit: but wth, there's Chicago and Pittsburgh as tanked franchises that rebuilt and win cups. Quite a few of them, really.

 

[Frk It]

2012, huh?

Well Oilers have been drafting #1 overalls since 2010 and they are still doing the same thing over and over again with no different results.

Yet Wings success has been better than Oilers, Oilers fans wish their team could sniff the playoffs.

I know everyone likes to pretend like the Oilers aren't good this year... but the Oilers are good this year.

Pretty sure Oilers fans don't want to be in many other team's shoes right now.

 

[HisNoodliness]

2012, huh?

Well Oilers have been drafting #1 overalls since 2010 and they are still doing the same thing over and over again with no different results.

Yet Wings success has been better than Oilers, Oilers fans wish their team could sniff the playoffs.

The Oilers are the ultimate example of the fact that tanking doesn't lead to free cups. You have to rebuild well. They didn't. Look at the trajectory of their team versus the Wings right now though. Edmonton is in a playoff spot, has looked very convincing this year and is poised to start competing for cups. The Wings are slowly falling apart. We'll similarly be drafting at the top line they were...it's just a matter if you want to do it from 2017-2020+ or struggle along and do it 2020-2023+. Luckily I think this team will choose for us and they're picking now.

 

[SirloinUB]

I know everyone likes to pretend like the Oilers aren't good this year... but the Oilers are good this year.

Pretty sure Oilers fans don't want to be in many other team's shoes right now.

The Oilers are still pretty much a one man band and this is actually discussed quite a bit by media and fans alike. It works, but I'm not ready to crown them a "good team." Maybe its semantics, but they still have work to do.

 

[jkutswings]

I would say when a few bottom dweller teams that proved "tanking" success with a few cup wins. That hasn't happened. Oilers, Sabres, Isl, Avs, Arizona, Panthers. TML

You know, teams that have blatantly tried to tank for multiple top drafts and yet continue to whiff.

So when Toronto and Edmonton make a conference finals before Detroit wins another playoff round, that'll be enough evidence? Because I very much see that happening.

 

[Dotter]

I know everyone likes to pretend like the Oilers aren't good this year... but the Oilers are good this year.

Pretty sure Oilers fans don't want to be in many other team's shoes right now.

They damn well better be, they drafted what is suppose to be a generational forward. It only took them a million years. Even still, they haven't proved anything to date.

The Oilers are the ultimate example of the fact that tanking doesn't lead to free cups. You have to rebuild well. They didn't. Look at the trajectory of their team versus the Wings right now though. Edmonton is in a playoff spot, has looked very convincing this year and is poised to start competing for cups. The Wings are slowly falling apart. We'll similarly be drafting at the top line they were...it's just a matter if you want to do it from 2017-2020+ or struggle along and do it 2020-2023+. Luckily I think this team will choose for us and they're picking now.

Oilers are just one example out of many. Isle, Sabers, AZ, Avs, and the list goes on...

*If* Oilers do turn it around, and *if* they do turn out to become perennial contenders and if they don't blow this opportunity they were gifted with hitting "lightning strike" at finally drafting their generational talent, which took like a million years to finally get.... then that will be the first real proof that tanking for success is a liable option since the cap era has settled in. But at this point we can't say it took them 8+ years until they are proven to become perennial contenders. It might take them 12+ years since falling for Taylor Hall... and that gives enough time to stumble back into their cozy abyss again.

 

[AD1066]

If our management and scouting is as incompetent as Edmonton's was, I don't see how staying the present course leads anywhere, either.

 

[Flowah]

And 25 consecutive playoff streak
And a cup
And young players showing some promise with the young guns emerging

25 year streak with the past 5 years being an absolute non-contender for the cup. I don't see how you can take pride in making the playoffs when more than half the teams do every year.

"Yay! We're in the upper 55% of the league! We're so good! #proud."
"I've managed to get average grades from kindergarten to college! #proud!"

- Dotter

Wow the young players sure are promising. Too bad none of them look like the elite players you need to win a cup. So wonderful. Fills me with such hope for the future.

Babcock was right. There's no Datsyuk in the pipeline. And we need one.

Yet there are dozens of teams that are proving that is not true. You talk about "lignting striking" at drafting a #1 dman in the later rounds, yet these teams that tank every-single-year wish lighting would hit them once in awhile.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I genuinely cannot parse this jumbled mess.

I think your "theory" on how to build "success" is a nice "theory" on paper. But it's not a one size fits all theory. And I don't think it works for this club.

Actually it's completely the opposite. Your way is the one that's totally unworkable. The number of teams that have won the cup via tanking for high draft picks far exceeds the number of teams that didn't. It's not "in theory." It's literally how the majority of the past decade's cup winners have held such dominance over the trophy.

*If* Oilers do turn it around, and *if* they do turn out to become perennial contenders and if they don't blow this opportunity they were gifted with hitting "lightning strike" at finally drafting their generational talent, which took like a million years to finally get.... then that will be the first real proof that tanking for success is a liable option since the cap era has settled in.

As already stated your dishonesty knows no bounds. Are you forgetting the Hawks, Pens, Kings? High picks formed the core for all their teams. Together they've won 7 cups in the past decade. How are they not proof?

Not sure how you can write that off as "theory on paper" without being completely delusional/dishonest but you never cease to amaze.

To reiterate, I agree with your sentiment, but I believe many underestimate/under appreciate the difficulties of building a "deep" team.

The good thing is the Wings have shown they're pretty good at making use of their picks to find that depth. We got plenty of depth. We just don't have elite players which we desperately need. I don't see any reason why tanking for a few years should make our ability to find good depth talent in the later rounds disappear.

 

[Dotter]

What exactly are you trying to say here? I genuinely cannot parse this jumbled mess.

Yeah it was jumbled, sorry.

I am saying the teams who are perennial tankers like Oilers, Isle, Sabres, Avs wish they can draft a group of players with their #1 overalls that will make a difference and help create a winning culture. Yet they continue to suck year in, year out and get more top 3 picks as a result -- rinse & repeat; the vicious cycle continues...

 

[Chance on Chance]

I would say when a few bottom dweller teams that proved "tanking" success with a few cup wins. That hasn't happened. Oilers, Sabres, Isl, Avs, Arizona, Panthers. TML

You know, teams that have blatantly tried to tank for multiple top drafts and yet continue to whiff.

You like to point out teams that have tanked and not won the cup, can you provide example of re-builds on the fly working?

 

[InjuredChoker]

sabres are teally the only team that tanked.

reast didn't really intend to tank. incompetent management was why they sucked. tried to compete but management brought in bad players. zona for 15 does apply though. but they don't have the same resources to spend money.

sucking and tanking are not the same thing.

 

[jkutswings]

They damn well better be, they drafted what is suppose to be a generational forward. It only took them a million years. Even still, they haven't proved anything to date.



Oilers are just one example out of many. Isle, Sabres, AZ, Avs, and the list goes on...

*If* Oilers do turn it around, and *if* they do turn out to become perennial contenders and if they don't blow this opportunity they were gifted with hitting "lightning strike" at finally drafting their generational talent, which took like a million years to finally get.... then that will be the first real proof that tanking for success is a liable option since the cap era has settled in. But at this point we can't say it took them 8+ years until they are proven to become perennial contenders. It might take them 12+ years since falling for Taylor Hall... and that gives enough time to stumble back into their cozy abyss again.

So Pittsburgh and Chicago don't count because some of their awful years were prior to the cap? Thanks for casually eliminating a huge chunk of the evidence.

 

[izlez]

So just off the top of my head,

Sample size of teams with multiple top 10 picks in the last 10 years: 28
Results: Obviously range from top best in league to worst in league because it's everybody
Conclusion: This is how you build a winner!

Sample size of teams that don't have mulitple top 10 picks in the last 10 years: 2
Results: Played in Stanley Cup Finals last year
Conclusion: There is no way this can ever come close to being remotely successful


We have to be better at finding good players than we have been. To act like there is any simple formula in doing that is silly.

 

[Dotter]

sabres are teally the only team that tanked.

reast didn't really intend to tank. incompetent management was why they sucked. tried to compete but management brought in bad players. zona for 15 does apply though. but they don't have the same resources to spend money.

sucking and tanking are not the same thing.

Wasn't there a poll thread a while back about if Wings management was incompetent? I think the general consensus was they thought Wings management was incompetent.

So if Wings management is incompetent, then the Red Wings have a much, much bigger problem within to overcome. It starts at the very top with ownership.

 

[Frk It]

So just off the top of my head,

Sample size of teams with multiple top 10 picks in the last 10 years: 28
Results: Obviously range from top best in league to worst in league because it's everybody
Conclusion: This is how you build a winner!

Sample size of teams that don't have mulitple top 10 picks in the last 10 years: 2
Results: Played in Stanley Cup Finals last year
Conclusion: There is no way this can ever come close to being remotely successful


We have to be better at finding good players than we have been. To act like there is any simple formula in doing that is silly.

If you are referring to the Sharks... they have had two top 10 picks in the last 10 years.

We have to be better at finding good players than we have been. To act like there is any simple formula in doing that is silly.

AHHH!!! I want to scream at this point. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING the best way to "be better", "get better results" drafting is to draft higher. It literally IS that simple. When you draft high all you have to do is do an average job and you get really good players. It's more about not messing up. Where we draft you have to find miracles. That's the difference.

A lot of the issues with the teams you guys are listing isn't because they got bad players with their high draft picks. It's teams like Arizona are a cap floor team, teams like AVs have a terrible front office, things like that.

There is even DATA that's supports these things. It's crazy, I know.

 

[Flowah]

Yeah it was jumbled, sorry.

I am saying the teams who are perennial tankers like Oilers, Isle, Sabres, Avs wish they can draft a group of players with their #1 overalls that will make a difference and help create a winning culture. Yet they continue to suck year in, year out and get more top 3 picks as a result -- rinse & repeat; the vicious cycle continues...

No one is saying high picks is all you need. You can't win with just Crosby or McDavid. It's still a team sport. But you need the elite talent and it's near impossible to get it without a high pick. That's the difference.

So just off the top of my head,

Sample size of teams with multiple top 10 picks in the last 10 years: 28
Results: Obviously range from top best in league to worst in league because it's everybody
Conclusion: This is how you build a winner!

Same reply as to Dotter. Yes there's more to it. Yes you still need coaches and supporting talent. I'm confident in the Wings ability to continue finding good supporting talent throughout the draft as they have done for years. What they've been completely unable to do is get lucky with finding elite talent. It's been over a decade now since they have done so. The teams that have the best talent are going to win. I think we're at least as good as most teams at finding depth talent. We've obviously not found elite talent in some time.

So no, we're not the Avs or the Oilers. We can give the start players the help they need to be competitive.

So Pittsburgh and Chicago don't count because some of their awful years were prior to the cap? Thanks for casually eliminating a huge chunk of the evidence.

Let's not forget the Kings. 2 cups in that time off the backs of Doughty (2OA) and Kopitar (11OA). Both higher picks than we've had in a long long time.

 

[Dotter]

So Pittsburgh and Chicago don't count because some of their awful years were prior to the cap? Thanks for casually eliminating a huge chunk of the evidence.

People say Detroit's WCF appearances, SCF appearances and cup win doesn't count because Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk were drafted before the cap era.

Also the lottery, when did that come to play? I still say the nu:NHL has major problems that need addressed. I hate the tank as much as I hated the cap circumvention loophole.

Tanking for top picks feels like the same things as rewarding lazy people free EBT food for refusing to get a job. It a pandemic problem that needs to be addressed.