Armia, Grigorenko, Number 1 Draft Pick

[nfreeman]

 

 

That's only half of it. The other half is I don't want to be hitched long-term to Phaneuf and Stastny, because they will get in the way of adding "better" talent the following year, like Spezza, Toews, Kane, Ryan, or any trade bait that may emerge.

 

Well, Toews and Kane are probably a pipe dream. It's also hard to see Ottawa letting Spezza go, but not impossible. Ryan would be great but I chose Stastny because center continues to be a crying need. I agree with the broader point about keeping some powder dry though.

 

 

 

That's only half of it. The other half is I don't want to be hitched long-term to Phaneuf and Stastny, because they will get in the way of adding "better" talent the following year, like Spezza, Toews, Kane, Ryan, or any trade bait that may emerge.

 

Well, Toews and Kane are probably a pipe dream. It's also hard to see Ottawa letting Spezza go, but not impossible. Ryan would be great but I chose Stastny because center continues to be a crying need. I agree with the broader point about keeping some powder dry though.

[Robviously]

But isn't the only difference that I want to start this summer and you want to tank again next year in order to get one more top 3 pick?

 

 

 

Ok. So let me ask you to articulate your view, preferably in a friendly-hockey-talk tone.

You need a lot of talent to win the Stanley Cup. The best way to draft talent is with a pick at the top of the draft. And when you're a small market team that free agents generally are not interested in, you absolutely need to hit home runs in the draft.

 

So while the outcome is not guaranteed, getting a high draft pick is something we should welcome as Sabres fans.

[Hoss]

 

You need a lot of talent to win the Stanley Cup. The best way to draft talent is with a pick at the top of the draft. And when you're a small market team that free agents generally are not interested in, you absolutely need to hit home runs in the draft.

 

So while the outcome is not guaranteed, getting a high draft pick is something we should welcome as Sabres fans.

 

Perfect.

[Claude_Verret]

You need a lot of talent to win the Stanley Cup. The best way to draft talent is with a pick at the top of the draft. And when you're a small market team that free agents generally are not interested in, you absolutely need to hit home runs in the draft.

 

So while the outcome is not guaranteed, getting a high draft pick is something we should welcome as Sabres fans.

 

The core values of tank nation.

 

Even if elite to just sub-elite FA's hit the market, the odds of luring them to choose to play here are less than hitting the draft day home run IMO.

[deluca67]

Does this rebuild have to take as long as many think around here? It is a shame that Grigs has been damaged so badly because next year would have been a perfect time to bring him to the Sabres for the FIRST time. These 3 offense talents I have listed will have gigantic question marks but hopefully 2 out of the 3 will pan out to offer some offensive talent next year. Add someone else via trade and I think the majority of suffering should end by 2014. I think there will be plenty of losses next year as well but as far as true suffering/boredom goes, let's hope we see some more exciting hockey sooner than later......

I originally thought a rebuild will take 4-5 years, and that was an optimistic assessment. It may take even longer. Before a new "plan" is put in place there really needs to be a franchise wide asset assessment by any new GM. It may take a season's worth of time for any new GM to get any real feel for what he has to work with.

 

Free agency would be a waste of time and money at this point. With the exception of a low level veteran UFA for modest money who is brought in just to eat up minutes, there just isn't any point to it.

[Eleven]

Bailey went 9th overall and Neiderreiter was 5th. You can't 'tank' your way to 9th pick and expect a top flight player, that's the point of having to sustain a complete bottom out for two years (and why it's so difficult). You need top 5 and moreso top 3 picks. I'd take JT in a heartbeat. Plus their owner is cheap and won't spend the money necessary to surround JT with real talent. Even the Vanek trade they gave away Moulson and needed Buffalo to pay a portion of Vaneks salary so the money in and money out was near even.

Yea, building around Kane and Toews sounds terrible. Seriously, let's stop pretending drafting high is doomed to fail while signing a couple UFAs automatically turns us into Montreal.

 

Would you prefer that I use Edmonton as the example? Fact remains, the tank strategy is as unlikely to work as it is likely to work.

[Hoss]

 

 

 

Would you prefer that I use Edmonton as the example? Fact remains, the tank strategy is as unlikely to work as it is likely to work.

 

People keep throwing out Edmonton without realizing none of their picks were considered elite prospects. Reinhart also isn't, but next year there is some elite talent up for grabs. McDavid is a better prospect than their three picks combined.

[SwampD]

Would you prefer that I use Edmonton as the example? Fact remains, the tank strategy is as unlikely to work as it is likely to work.

Wasn't Price picked 5th overall?

 

Anyway, I think your logic is faulty. I view it like spending money in the era before the cap. Spending money didn't guarantee a winner, but not spending money guaranteed losing.

[Robviously]

Would you prefer that I use Edmonton as the example? Fact remains, the tank strategy is as unlikely to work as it is likely to work.

That's more a statement about how the teams drafting at the top are run (in general) than the benefits of having those high draft picks.

 

There's an obvious adverse selection problem here. If your franchise is so poorly run that you're at the very bottom of the league, you have the opportunity to draft the best talent available BUT you're also probably too incompetent to do all the things necessary to actually turn your franchise around.

 

Turning a team around is NOT a one-step process, and no one is saying that one or two top 3 picks is a comprehensive solution. They can be part of the solution.

[BuffaloBorn]

Someone was mentioning that Detroit had a steal drafting Datsyuk and Zetterburg...(which i agree obviously)... But wasn't Ryan Miller drafted in the 5th round ?? Detroit's not the only team that gets lucky..

 

 

And honestly why are we still having this discussion about tanking, it's going to happen, no turning back now. I agree, when we get our top pick center, it's only PART of the solution, and the dude (whomever) would only be 18. It takes awhileeee for these players to develop, think about how long it'll take to see all those draft picks develop completely. 9 years? I don't know if I'll still be alive by then and I'm 20. You never know tho. It's sports

[Eleven]

People keep throwing out Edmonton without realizing none of their picks were considered elite prospects. Reinhart also isn't, but next year there is some elite talent up for grabs. McDavid is a better prospect than their three picks combined.

 

Every one of them was considered an elite prospect. The "Fail for Nail" nickname didn't come around for nothing.

 

McDavid = Tavares. He's not going to turn a team around on his own.

 

Let me try this from a different angle: Would you prefer the Isles' first-round pick or Strome in the Vanek deal? I'll take Strome.

[dudacek]

Every one of them was considered an elite prospect. The "Fail for Nail" nickname didn't come around for nothing.

 

McDavid = Tavares. He's not going to turn a team around on his own.

 

Let me try this from a different angle: Would you prefer the Isles' first-round pick or Strome in the Vanek deal? I'll take Strome.

Time will tell of course, but the buzz is McDavid=Crosby.

Eichel=Tavares

 

Taylor Hall was considered Tavares, Yakupov slightly lower, but potentially in that neighbourhood.

Nugent-Hopkins was considered less of a sure thing.

Reinhart is looked at in the Nugent-Hopkins level.

 

To get a Strome you usually have to pick in the top five.

It's pretty well documented that a majority of elite players are top 3 or top 5 and that a majority of modern cup winners used picks in that area.

Our franchise knows how difficult it is to get elite players drafting 12.

[Robviously]

Every one of them was considered an elite prospect. The "Fail for Nail" nickname didn't come around for nothing.

 

McDavid = Tavares. He's not going to turn a team around on his own.

 

Let me try this from a different angle: Would you prefer the Isles' first-round pick or Strome in the Vanek deal? I'll take Strome.

Given the current standings, I think I'd want:

1. The Isles 1st round pick in 2014 (i.e. we could have the top two picks in the draft)

2. Ryan Strome

3. The Isles 1st round pick in 2015. (This asset has the most potential but could also just be a 10th overall pick next year. Who knows?)

 

IF on the Vanek deal was announced as "Vanek for Strome and a 2015 1st round pick" I would have been thrilled with that (and the Islanders were .500 then so that pick wouldn't have seemed like a chance for McDavid). Vanek should have been traded for someone's top prospect. Hopefully we can pull the same trick with Moulson, Miller, Ott, etc., but I doubt it.

[dudacek]

The thing is, even though it might feel like it, we haven't really tanked yet.

We (stupidly) were 23rd last year and are only 30 games into being terrible, and we are terrible in a year without a "certain" franchise guy.

 

Edmonton and the Islanders aren't bad because of Hall and Tavares, they are bad because they failed to build a good team and organization around them.

[Hoss]

 

 

Every one of them was considered an elite prospect. The "Fail for Nail" nickname didn't come around for nothing.

 

McDavid = Tavares. He's not going to turn a team around on his own.

 

Let me try this from a different angle: Would you prefer the Isles' first-round pick or Strome in the Vanek deal? I'll take Strome.

 

Definitely Strome but that probably wasn't an option.

 

And McDavid is on an even higher level than Tavares as a prospect. Nobody knows what he will be, but he's definitely on that can't-miss level of prospect that only guys like Crosby and Ovechkin were on. He may end up being a bust, but he's worth tanking for.

[Robviously]

The thing is, even though it might feel like it, we haven't really tanked yet.

We (stupidly) were 23rd last year and are only 30 games into being terrible, and we are terrible in a year without a "certain" franchise guy.

 

Edmonton and the Islanders aren't bad because of Hall and Tavares, they are bad because they failed to build a good team and organization around them.

I wish I had made this point exactly this eloquently at some point in the past 2 years. Well done.

[nfreeman]

The thing is, even though it might feel like it, we haven't really tanked yet.

We (stupidly) were 23rd last year and are only 30 games into being terrible, and we are terrible in a year without a "certain" franchise guy.

 

Edmonton and the Islanders aren't bad because of Hall and Tavares, they are bad because they failed to build a good team and organization around them.

 

I agree that if tanking was the strategy, they should've started it in earnest last year. Classic DR -- a day late and a dollar short on everything.

 

Still, I don't see how it can be disputed that this is a tank year. Even though there isn't a certain franchise guy, they iced a team that was certain to be terrible -- and did so intentionally in order to get a high draft pick.

 

And McDavid is on an even higher level than Tavares as a prospect. Nobody knows what he will be, but he's definitely on that can't-miss level of prospect that only guys like Crosby and Ovechkin were on. He may end up being a bust, but he's worth tanking for.

 

But it wouldn't be tanking for him. It would be tanking for a 25% chance, at best, of getting him.

[Hoss]

But it wouldn't be tanking for him. It would be tanking for a 25% chance, at best, of getting him.

 

You don't have to mention it everytime, because the team would be tanking for McDavid either way you look at it. McDavid is the goal. In the end, whoever you want to say it, it's the same thing.

 

If we're in the game of repeating ourselves, I'll say it again: 25% is a better chance than anybody else has.

[TrueBlueGED]

Would you prefer that I use Edmonton as the example? Fact remains, the tank strategy is as unlikely to work as it is likely to work.

 

And the fact remains trying flashy UFA signings and trades is as unlikely to work as tanking, yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge this. How many teams "win" the offseason and still stink the next season?

[Eleven]

And the fact remains trying flashy UFA signings and trades is as unlikely to work as tanking, yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge this. How many teams "win" the offseason and still stink the next season?

 

I don't want flashy UFA signings, at least not until the team is one or two players away, which it isn't. I do want smart trades, for real hockey players, and not an infinite cycle of potential. The cupboard is bare, and instead of buying groceries, the team is stocking up on coupons for future groceries.

[nfreeman]

You don't have to mention it everytime, because the team would be tanking for McDavid either way you look at it. McDavid is the goal. In the end, whoever you want to say it, it's the same thing.

 

If we're in the game of repeating ourselves, I'll say it again: 25% is a better chance than anybody else has.

 

OK -- but my point is that "tanking for McDavid" is a fool's quest because of the odds -- and it really doesn't matter that those odds are better than anyone else's -- and because of the odds, and presumably the common sense of the decision-makers, it doesn't seem likely that this would be the strategy.

 

Edmonton and the Islanders aren't bad because of Hall and Tavares, they are bad because they failed to build a good team and organization around them.

 

I forgot to respond to this earlier. Certainly no one would think those teams are bad because of those players. The point is that when a team gets bad enough to draft those players, and stays that bad for a period of years, it becomes much harder to build a good team and organization around them because losing becomes institutionalized. Some teams are able to overcome it; many others aren't.

 

We're willing to risk becoming Edmonton if it means a chance at being Chicago.

 

Here's how I look at it: Callahan, Stastny, Vrbata, Phaneuf...can any of those guys be the best player on a championship team? I don't think they can.

 

Bottom line is I want a perennial contender, not a perennially competitive team. And I'm willing to risk falling into a bottomless pit to get there.

 

Well said, as always, and I think the bolded really sums up the crux of the issue. I am not willing to take this risk. More importantly, I think that it's not necessary to take this risk to become a perennial contender. Look at the 2005-07 Sabres teams -- but for TG/LQ, that team would've been in the hunt every year for 5-6 years or more, and it was built without tanking. (For that matter the same is true of Dominik's teams.)

 

As for Callahan et al not being good enough to be the best player on a Cup winner -- I agree with this too -- but Boston won it, and is in the hunt every year, with a goalie and Chara as their best players. I offer you Miller and Myers.

[Eleven]

I think it's obvious that I'm in agreement w/ freeman here.

[Hoss]

OK -- but my point is that "tanking for McDavid" is a fool's quest because of the odds -- and it really doesn't matter that those odds are better than anyone else's -- and because of the odds, and presumably the common sense of the decision-makers, it doesn't seem likely that this would be the strategy.

 

Okay. Let's just make it more simple. Tanking. In general. You tank to get a high pick. The higher the picks the better the players. That's the general way things work.

Next year is a better year to tank because there is a supreme player at the top of the draft, so any improved chances of getting him would be ideal for a team that needs a player like him.

 

Aim for the moon. If you miss you'll end up in the stars.

[Taro T]

Okay. Let's just make it more simple. Tanking. In general. You tank to get a high pick. The higher the picks the better the players. That's the general way things work.

Next year is a better year to tank because there is a supreme player at the top of the draft, so any improved chances of getting him would be ideal for a team that needs a player like him.

Aim for the moon. If you miss you'll end up in the stars.

Only if you've got enough juice. If you don't, you end up crashing back to Earth in a spectacular fireball.

[TrueBlueGED]

Only if you've got enough juice. If you don't, you end up crashing back to Earth in a spectacular fireball.

 

To some of us this is preferable to being perpetually stuck in a boring orbit around Earth.