The "Tanking" And/Or Other Roster Moves Discussion Thread

[majormajor]

You played the correlation game. There has been a very strong correlation between Cup winners and top picks in the past decade.

More precisely there has been a strong correlation between cup winners of the past decade and top picks from the years 2004 to 2008. The only thing top picks in the past decade correlate with is absolute sucktitude, some of the worst hockey you'll ever see. If the Jackets pull an Oilers/Sabres there's a decent chance this team ends up in Quebec City.

 

[EspenK]

The thing about tanking for this team is that it would provide an opportunity to land a generational player (Alexis Lafrenière) or a potential top 2 C to pair with PLD or at least a very good prospect in a deep class. Add to the current core the Jackets would take a major leap into becoming a great team down the road. If the jackets get the 15th or worse pick then I think it becomes a matter of luck as to whether that player is another Marchand or turns out to be a plodder like most guys picked 71st.

My point being that this team is not a candidate for disaster if it doesn't get a top pick its just that imo they will never become a great team without adding some top 6 talent through the draft.


[MOD EDIT: fix runaway link]

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

I don't believe this team is bad enough to tank properly.

To me, you tank when your future looks hopeless and the cupboards are bare. I won't pretend this team is good enough to win the Stanley Cup, but I think trying to tank would be a bad look.

 

[majormajor]

I don't believe this team is bad enough to tank properly.

Yeah it wouldn't even work. This entire thread is an academic discussion about the virtues of tanking, it has no possible bearing on what the Jackets should do because they couldn't suck enough by trying a traditional tank. Ottawa tanked by selling off its stars. That's what tanking teams do, they sell their good UFA aged players. The Jackets could sell off Savard and Foligno, and they'd be a worse team, not get that much of a return, and still be not nearly bad enough to get in last place (to get that coveted 18.5% chance of drafting 1st OA ). If we sell off PLD and Jones we would suck bad enough. Is anyone seriously going to argue for that?

 

[Viqsi]

And then the team won’t even go with the consensus pick and will take some center who spends another year in juniors and everyone suffers for another year.

And then when that player emerges a year or two later and is actually a productive member of the team to start, he'll be dismissed and/or ignored because we've known him for a year or two and he's not an obvious immediate superstar therefore OMG WE SUCK MOAR TANKING NAO

 

[CBJWerenski8]

People call me negative.

 

[Cowumbus]

Can you explain what the purpose of this line of argument is?

There's 100 top 5 picks in the last 20 years. They're all over the league, on good teams and on bad ones. The fact that the Bruins have been successful without them is an important argument. If you want to list all teams and where they got their top players go ahead, I'd like to do something else with my day. The fact that the reigning Hart Trophy winner was drafted 58th OA should be interesting to you, if you really want to know where great players come from.

Because the teams were already good. The Bruins teams in 2001-05 were led by Samsonov (8OA) Thornton (1OA) Guerin (5OA) Rolston (10OA) Berard (1OA) they fired their coach bc the team underperformed when it has plenty of top players.

05/06 Bruins top 7 scorers: BERGERON24,18,21,8,1,8,3OA
those teams had players drafted high. There is a reason they were good.

they traded many of the players they got in the top10 and used then to get picks (draft Lucic) and other assets.

 

[Viqsi]

Because the teams were already good. The Bruins teams in 2001-05 were led by Samsonov (8OA) Thornton (1OA) Guerin (5OA) Rolston (10OA) Berard (1OA) they fired their coach bc the team underperformed when it has plenty of top players.

05/06 Bruins top 7 scorers: BERGERON24,18,21,8,1,8,3OA
those teams had players drafted high. There is a reason they were good.

they traded many of the players they got in the top10 and used then to get picks (draft Lucic) and other assets.

By this logic, we're already set because we have Murray [2OA], Dubois [3OA], Werenski [8OA], and Jones [4OA].

I look forward to the "but that's different because mumble mumble something" rebuttal.

 

[Cowumbus]

Also, while I am here (and I'm putting it in a separate post so I can make it clear that I am taking off my moderator hat for this), I want to reiterate my position on this topic:

**** tanking. **** it. **** hoping for it, **** wishing for it, **** advocacy of it, **** actions in support of it. It is evil. It destroys teams rather than renews them. It is the stuff of which eternal damnation is made. Pursuit of same has been the doom of teams time and time again, and yet folks continue to push for it because they can't tell the difference between correlation and causation. I hate it, I hate everything about it, I hate even the mere mention of it, and I hate any attempt to distract folks from the axiomatic truth of its at best essential worthlessness and at most its continual plunging of developing teams into the abyss.

But if y'all want to discuss such nonsense, feel free. As far as I'm concerned there is no hope for you to ever be right so long as you support it as a concept, but being wrong is not against the rules here.

You need to chill out.

Nobody is going to go full tank mode, but it might not be a bad idea to sell “high” on older players such as Foligno, Atkinson, Savard even Jenner before they turn into contracts like Dubinsky. None of our current core seems like they have elite potential, so we need to look to our prospects for that.. and we don’t have any. We need to build back up our prospect pool and our veterans (at the time we are good) need to be guys like 28,18,3,8?,77,42,52 and we need elite young talent around them. To get young guys who make a different you need to be picking high.

 

[Cowumbus]

By this logic, we're already set because we have Murray [2OA], Dubois [3OA], Werenski [8OA], and Jones [4OA].

I look forward to the "but that's different because mumble mumble something" rebuttal.

No that’s exactly what I’m saying (all drafted in the top 10 and are our best players. Murray is made of glass though). That needs to be the veteran group. Not Foligno/Atkinson/Jenner/Savard they are not good enough.
We need to draft elite players to play under that young group.

 

[Viqsi]

No that’s exactly what I’m saying. That needs to be the veteran group. Not Foligno/Atkinson/Jenner/Savard they are not good enough.
We need to draft elite players to play under that young group.

...so we need to have been drafting high to get good players, but not too good because once they're established we need to be able to keep drafting high (or even higher) to somehow get even better players to play under the other high-drafted players?

That doesn't even begin to make sense. It's like "we need to be crap at drafting high before we can be good at it" or something. Hell, arguably we've been there, with Brassard [6OA] and Brule [5OA] and Nash [1OA] and Klesla [4OA] and Voracek [7OA]. Except we didn't draft as high when they were around - because, y'know, we'd drafted high and had good players on the team partially as a result of doing so, and once we gave them up, we were back to drafting high, but there were no longer high-drafted players on the team to be the "older core".

 

[Cowumbus]

...so we need to have been drafting high to get good players, but not too good because once they're established we need to be able to keep drafting high (or even higher) to somehow get even better players to play under the other high-drafted players?

That doesn't even begin to make sense. It's like "we need to be crap at drafting high before we can be good at it" or something. Hell, arguably we've been there, with Brassard [6OA] and Brule [5OA] and Nash [1OA] and Klesla [4OA] and Voracek [7OA]. Except we didn't draft as high when they were around - because, y'know, we'd drafted high and had good players on the team partially as a result of doing so, and once we gave them up, we were back to drafting high, but there were no longer high-drafted players on the team to be the "older core".

Idk if you just can’t read or choose not to? If Savard, Foligno, Jenner, Atkinson were gone we would be picking top 5/10 easy for at least a couple years (Drafting good-elite players) Yes we need more of that. More of those type of players are required to be good. I can’t even fathom how you try to spin everything. [MOD]

 

[Viqsi]

Idk if you just can’t read or choose not to? If Savard, Foligno, Jenner, Atkinson were gone we would be picking top 5/10 easy for at least a couple years (Drafting good-elite players) Yes we need more of that. More of those type of players are required to be good. I can’t even fathom how you try to spin everything. [MOD]

We have drafted top-10 players and yet we have folks claiming they're Not Good Enough. I'm not seeing how that's suddenly going to be different all of a sudden just because we decided to dump a handful of vets right now. This sounds less like a reasoned plan and more "if we draft guys I've heard hype for, it will be better."

 

[Cowumbus]

We have drafted top-10 players and yet we have folks claiming they're Not Good Enough. I'm not seeing how that's suddenly going to be different all of a sudden just because we decided to dump a handful of vets right now. This sounds less like a reasoned plan and more "if we draft guys I've heard hype for, it will be better."

When we drafted the players in the top 10 in the past, we did not have a young top D pair and 1C for the next 10 years.

 

[Viqsi]

When we drafted the players in the top 10 in the past, we did not have a young top D pair and 1C for the next 10 years.

...AKA the sorts of players whose presence would render going for a top pick impractical at best.

 

[Cowumbus]

...AKA the sorts of players whose presence would render going for a top pick impractical at best.

Not if you trade away the deadweight Foligno/Cam/Jenner/Savard. Let the other young guys develop (Texier Bemstrom Foudy).

also the Oilers finished at the bottom with Hall, Draisaitl, McDavid and company. To suggest that PLD Jones and Werenski couldn’t do the same seems wrong.

look at the Winnipeg Jets before Laine. Wheeler, Scheiffle Ehlers Buff.. added a top pick guy and turned to cup contenders

 

[Viqsi]

Not if you trade away the deadweight Foligno/Cam/Jenner/Savard. Let the other young guys develop (Texier Bemstrom Foudy).

I confess I do not see any reason why they can't develop with those guys present.

also the Oilers finished at the bottom with Hall, Draisaitl, McDavid and company. To suggest that PLD Jones and Werenski couldn’t do the same seems wrong.

That's because the Oilers had nobody of any value underneath those guys. Our fourth line may not be a powerhouse, but it's managed more than one or two goals all season.

Also, I feel obliged to point out that you are suggesting that we should be using the Edmonton Oilers as an example of a developmental model to follow.

look at the Winnipeg Jets before Laine. Wheeler, Scheiffle Buff.. added a top pick guy and turned to cup contenders

So, basically, take away their #1C and their top defenseman - y'know, the things you just acknowledged we have - and now they can have top picks again? Pretty sure that puts us right back to "we have too many good guys to be that bad".

 

[Cowumbus]

I confess I do not see any reason why they can't develop with those guys present.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the young guns take the ice time of the guys we trade away

That's because the Oilers had nobody of any value underneath those guys. Our fourth line may not be a powerhouse, but it's managed more than one or two goals all season.

We would be the same way without Jenner/Foligno/Cam/Savard

Also, I feel obliged to point out that you are suggesting that we should be using the Edmonton Oilers as an example of a developmental model to follow.

They seem to be doing well right now don’t they.

So, basically, take away their #1C and their top defenseman - y'know, the things you just acknowledged we have - and now they can have top picks again? Pretty sure that puts us right back to "we have too many good guys to be that bad".

No. It’s the ages of all those positions that matter. Schief 22, Elhers 19 Trouba 21 Armia/Morrissey 22

 

[majormajor]

Because the teams were already good. The Bruins teams in 2001-05 were led by Samsonov (8OA) Thornton (1OA) Guerin (5OA) Rolston (10OA) Berard (1OA) they fired their coach bc the team underperformed when it has plenty of top players.

05/06 Bruins top 7 scorers: BERGERON24,18,21,8,1,8,3OA
those teams had players drafted high. There is a reason they were good.

they traded many of the players they got in the top10 and used then to get picks (draft Lucic) and other assets.

Those Bruins teams never had a run of seasons as good as the three year run the Jackets just had. You can't possibly be arguing that they had a different viable path because they were better.

Also I was a hockey fan back then, not born yesterday. Berard (post-injury) wasn't worth that much, and Guerin and Rolston were 30+ veterans that the Bruins let go in UFA. They also traded Thornton for scraps that they didn't hang on to. It's true they got a 2nd rounder for Samsonov and drafted Lucic. If drafting well in the second round was what you were arguing for then that would be something.

The reason I didn't understand your argument was because it was a complete reach. The simple story here is that the Bruins became a great team and won the cup because they did a great job of drafting players outside of the first round. It's something that Jarmo has also excelled at lately, though it takes many years to find out just what you got. It takes a long time to develop players.

 

[majormajor]

Also, I feel obliged to point out that you are suggesting that we should be using the Edmonton Oilers as an example of a developmental model to follow.

Yep. Oilers, Panthers, Sabres, Devils. All those great dynasties of the last decade. That's the ticket!

 

[CBJWerenski8]

The team isn't as bad as they look right now.

The team was not as good as they looked last week.

Tank thread? In early November? Were people not around for the 0-8 start? People need to chill out. This team is still figuring out where the offense is going to come from and some of our most important veterans aren't cutting it (Cam, Jones, Wennberg recently). However, I have faith in those vets to figure it out (aside from Wennberg who I still don't trust).

Some of the young players management were counting on are doing that and more (Dubois), while some aren't cutting it because they're not ready (Bemstrom), not playing well consistently (Bjorkstrand, Werenski, Milano, Anderson, Texier pre injury). There's still time for people to catch up, but it is getting frustrating that we were told these guys were ready to take on the challenge but haven't stepped up.

 

[Theo Von]

The team isn't as bad as they look right now.

The team was not as good as they looked last week.

Tank thread? In early November? Were people not around for the 0-8 start? People need to chill out. This team is still figuring out where the offense is going to come from and some of our most important veterans aren't cutting it (Cam, Jones, Wennberg recently). However, I have faith in those vets to figure it out (aside from Wennberg who I still don't trust).

Some of the young players management were counting on are doing that and more (Dubois), while some aren't cutting it because they're not ready (Bemstrom), not playing well consistently (Bjorkstrand, Werenski, Milano, Anderson, Texier pre injury). There's still time for people to catch up, but it is getting frustrating that we were told these guys were ready to take on the challenge but haven't stepped up.

might be the best post you have ever had, @CBJWennberg10 in your 10.5 years on here.

 

[EDM]

Two points:

1-Tanking is unfair to season ticket holders who in good faith put their money down expecting to b able to go to games & see professional competitive hockey. In addition the Jackets are not well established enough with the fans to go thru a couple of years of tanking. Fans would flee in droves.

2- I am not convinced that Jarmo can b trusted with the job. The last time Jarmo had a bunch of first round picks all we wound up with was Wennberg to show for it

 

[EDM]

Whoops ! To continue.

Jarmo’s draft picking has been spotty at best. And even when u develop expertise in tanking such as the Oilers did, it may still take several years to put together the right team. I seriously doubt Columbus fans would remain enthusiastic fans thru a 4-5 year rebuild

 

[domi28]

Those Bruins teams never had a run of seasons as good as the three year run the Jackets just had. You can't possibly be arguing that they had a different viable path because they were better.

Also I was a hockey fan back then, not born yesterday. Berard (post-injury) wasn't worth that much, and Guerin and Rolston were 30+ veterans that the Bruins let go in UFA. They also traded Thornton for scraps that they didn't hang on to. It's true they got a 2nd rounder for Samsonov and drafted Lucic. If drafting well in the second round was what you were arguing for then that would be something.

The reason I didn't understand your argument was because it was a complete reach. The simple story here is that the Bruins became a great team and won the cup because they did a great job of drafting players outside of the first round. It's something that Jarmo has also excelled at lately, though it takes many years to find out just what you got. It takes a long time to develop players.

Signing UFA Chara and trading for Rask might have had a little something to do with becoming a great team.

They also weren't afraid to trade guys like Sequin, Thornton, Kessel, etc.