Tank 3.0

[WildCard]

Tanks are successful if they get you the pick/talent you want. That's it. The rest if the franchise's success lies in the management of the rest of the rebuild. Tanking makes the rebuild easier in most cases, it does not guarantee it's success

[Sabres Fan in NS]

How about non-expansion teams that tanked and have taken forever to win another cup ...

 

Leaves ... 50 years and counting

 

Rangers ... 50ish years

 

Bruins ... 40ish years

 

Red Wings ... 50ish years

 

Hawks ... 50ish years

Edited March 11, 2016 by Sabres Fan In NS

[ddaryl]

How about non-expansion teams that tanked and have taken forever to win another cup ...

 

Leaves ... 50 years and counting

 

Rangers ... 50ish years

 

Bruins ... 40ish years

 

Red Wings ... 50ish years

 

Hawks ... 50ish years

 

hard to go back that far and compare to the modern day NHL though.. Dramatically different leagues

 

Leafs being the exception but there problem is they never really tanked till this year they were always trying to make magic happen without a real tank I do believe

[Claude_Verret]

Are we really re-litigating the risks/probabilities associated with the tank? Didn't we get enough of that over the last two years? I think I'm gonna go talk about guns in the politics thread.

Yep, water under the bridge. They tanked two full seasons. As with anything, it might work and it might not.

[Jsixspd]

I've no concerns about the Tank itself.   The Tank - no question - was the smart and right move at the time.

 

Now we're in the stage of evaluating;  how well did we use it?   How effective are the results?   That's what we'll be gauging GMTM on in 2016-17 and 2017-18.   GMTM told us it would be faster than 5 years - well, this was year 1, and now the clock is ticking.   Hopefully we have a lot more success next season than this we did in this season.  
 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Jsixspd

[dudacek]

How come no one ever cites the numerous tanks that failed? Hell, pick any modern-era expansion team and tell me how long it took them to win a Cup.

The one no one ever talks about is Florida.

Their tank started in 2009/10.

They had three firsts and three seconds in 2010, 2 seconds and 4 thirds the following year

They got Huberdeau 3rd, Gudbranson 3rd, Barkov 2nd, Ekblad 1st over a 5-year period.

They are finally good now, in year six.

 

Colorado is another one who picked high for a stretch, although they never really did a big sell-off.

Edited March 12, 2016 by dudacek

[Crusader1969]

How about non-expansion teams that tanked and have taken forever to win another cup ...

 

Leaves ... 50 years and counting

 

Rangers ... 50ish years

 

Bruins ... 40ish years

 

Red Wings ... 50ish years

 

Hawks ... 50ish years

 

 

Can you help me out and remind me when these teams, save Chicago, Tanked? . When did the Leafs purposely sell off their core players and made a concerted effort to come last place prior to this season? Rangers? Bruins? Red Wings??  I've been watching hockey for 40+ years and can't remember this time you speak of. 

How come no one ever cites the numerous tanks that failed? Hell, pick any modern-era expansion team and tell me how long it took them to win a Cup.

 

are you still mad that Johnson isn't playing all the games?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Can you help me out and remind me when these teams, save Chicago, Tanked? . When did the Leafs purposely sell off their core players and made a concerted effort to come last place prior to this season? Rangers? Bruins? Red Wings??  I've been watching hockey for 40+ years and can't remember this time you speak of. 

 

 

OK.  You got me, they probably didn't tank, but were just historically bad for what were extended periods of time.

 

*The leaves don't fall far from the tree, Julian*

[kas23]

How about non-expansion teams that tanked and have taken forever to win another cup ...

 

Leaves ... 50 years and counting

 

Rangers ... 50ish years

 

Bruins ... 40ish years

 

Red Wings ... 50ish years

 

Hawks ... 50ish years

Even though the teams you mentioned didn't purposely tank at any point, I don't think winning a Stanley Cup is the appropriate metric for judging the success (or failure) of a tank. Let's say the Sabres never win a SC, when you sit down in your seat with your family at FNC to watch Eichel light it up, don't you think it was worth it? Edited March 12, 2016 by kas23

[dudacek]

Interesting factoid from today's Vogl piece:

 

They are 6-8 in two-goal games and 10-12 in games decided by three goals or more, meaning they’re almost as likely to win a rout as get routed.

Last season, they were 1-12 in two-goal games and 4-26 in three-goal contests. The year before, they were a ridiculous 1-19 in games decided by three goals or more

[Crusader1969]

I will never understand the anti-tank people

 

I do get that its a long process and there are no guarantee's that it will bring a Stanley Cup but they tried the alternative for over 40 years and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

I also think it is crazy for anyone to look at this year and not see improvement or think that this wasn't a successful season.  

 

They may end up with four players with 20+ goals - all of whom are playing their first season in the Blue and Gold.

 

Risto has proven that he is a legit top pairing D-man and how old is he? 21 maybe 22? McCabe and Pysyk have played decently in their first full season. Maybe they can be the 3/4 Dman pairing, maybe they slot 5/6 on a true cup contender but definitely are assets to the team.

 

Next season you are going to add one more elite prospect through the 2016 draft, there will be more competition for 1st team jobs as guys like Fasching (if he signs), Bailey, Carrier, Baptiste fight for NHL jobs. Guys, like Moulson, Girgensons, Foligno will have huge pressure on them to perform and if they don't they will be likely watching games in the rafters or lining up for the Americans.

 

Eichel and Rienhart have been terrific in their rookie years and will most likely improve next year.

 

I would be surprised if Murray doesn't make at least 1 significant trade over the summer to improve the team.

 

Though, I can already hear the moaning this time next year if they improve by another 20 points but sit just outside the play-offs.

[Jsixspd]

If they're a ~90 point team next season,  but not in the playoffs, then the rebuild will be on track, and I'll be pleased.   

If they're an ~80 point team next season, then I'll be writing "There's trouble in River City...."  

 

Next season will be crucial in judging the rebuild.  

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I could make the argument that the Red Wings tanked to draft Stevie Y. and the Hawks tanked to get JT and PK.

[Thorner]

I will never understand the anti-tank people

 

I do get that its a long process and there are no guarantee's that it will bring a Stanley Cup but they tried the alternative for over 40 years and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

I also think it is crazy for anyone to look at this year and not see improvement or think that this wasn't a successful season.  

 

They may end up with four players with 20+ goals - all of whom are playing their first season in the Blue and Gold.

 

Risto has proven that he is a legit top pairing D-man and how old is he? 21 maybe 22? McCabe and Pysyk have played decently in their first full season. Maybe they can be the 3/4 Dman pairing, maybe they slot 5/6 on a true cup contender but definitely are assets to the team.

 

Next season you are going to add one more elite prospect through the 2016 draft, there will be more competition for 1st team jobs as guys like Fasching (if he signs), Bailey, Carrier, Baptiste fight for NHL jobs. Guys, like Moulson, Girgensons, Foligno will have huge pressure on them to perform and if they don't they will be likely watching games in the rafters or lining up for the Americans.

 

Eichel and Rienhart have been terrific in their rookie years and will most likely improve next year.

 

I would be surprised if Murray doesn't make at least 1 significant trade over the summer to improve the team.

 

Though, I can already hear the moaning this time next year if they improve by another 20 points but sit just outside the play-offs.

 

I agree with this completely. Well, aside from the elite prospect in this year's draft bit. We may still get one, but we may win enough games that we don't. And I would be completely good with that. Let the chips fall where they may this year. It could also depend on where the line is drawn for "elite" prospects in this year's draft. I'd be tempted to say there are only 3 truly elite prospects in the draft.

[Doohicksie]

I could make the argument that the Red Wings tanked to draft Stevie Y. and the Hawks tanked to get JT and PK.

Yeah, and Yzerman took only 13 years to pay dividends....

[kas23]

I could make the argument that the Red Wings tanked to draft Stevie Y. and the Hawks tanked to get JT and PK.

You could. But that would be a quick self-defeating one.

[Marvelo]

what has happened to Zemgus? he seems to have disappeared this year.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Yeah, and Yzerman took only 13 years to pay dividends....

 

I'll give you that one, but they still tanked to get him.

 

You could. But that would be a quick self-defeating one.

 

Well, both of you seem not to have addressed my Hawk example, which, IMO, is a good counter to PA's post above concerning the effectiveness of tanking in the modern era.

[Crusader1969]

I'll give you that one, but they still tanked to get him.

 

 

Well, both of you seem not to have addressed my Hawk example, which, IMO, is a good counter to PA's post above concerning the effectiveness of tanking in the modern era.

 

I thought the Hawks example of tanking is the model that the Sabres are trying to follow? no one is going to argue that they didn't tank nor that it was highly effective.

[WildCard]

NS, you want to point to the Hawks tanking for Toews as Kane as why tanking isn't successful?

[Crusader1969]

I agree with this completely. Well, aside from the elite prospect in this year's draft bit. We may still get one, but we may win enough games that we don't. And I would be completely good with that. Let the chips fall where they may this year. It could also depend on where the line is drawn for "elite" prospects in this year's draft. I'd be tempted to say there are only 3 truly elite prospects in the draft.

 

you are right "elite" is too strong a word for guys outside the top 3 but drafting anywhere in top 10 is going to net you a top 6 Forward or a top 4 Dman, so I should have used the term "blue-chip" prospect.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Sorry, guys I think I sidetracked myself somehow, but I seem to remember some kind of post that I addressed without quoting it ... I don't think I see it now, so maybe it's been deleted, or maybe I just imagined it.

 

Many of the long established teams *tanked* to get high draft picks, but didn't end up winning the cup as a result.  I'm talking original six teams that went years and years without winning a cup ... Bruins, Rangers, Hawks and Red Wings.

[kas23]

Well, both of you seem not to have addressed my Hawk example, which, IMO, is a good counter to PA's post above concerning the effectiveness of tanking in the modern era.

I don't exactly understand what PA was saying in regards to the Hawks, but they are one of the biggest reasons in modern professional sports why a team should tank to be successful.

[SwampD]

I don't exactly understand what PA was saying in regards to the Hawks, but they are one of the biggest reasons in modern professional sports of a team that was successful after tanking.

Ftfy.

 

There are plenty of other examples of teams that weren't.

[MattPie]

Even though the teams you mentioned didn't purposely tank at any point, I don't think winning a Stanley Cup is the appropriate metric for judging the success (or failure) of a tank. Let's say the Sabres never win a SC, when you sit down in your seat with your family at FNC to watch Eichel light it up, don't you think it was worth it?

 

Furthering the point, If you look back through the drafts from 2006-2010 or so, you'll see some familiar names picking the top 5 (or at least 10). Tampa Bay, LA, Chicago, St Loius, Boston, etc.. You'll also see some other familar names, like the Coyotes and Atlanta popping up too, so it's not a sure-fire thing, but the teams that have been bad usually had other issues with budgets and funding.