Incentivized tanking?

[Slack_in_MA]

With all that’s coming out with the Brian Flores allegations about being incentivized to tank NFL games, and given our long, distinguished history of tanking (or appearing/playing like we are), where do you put the probability the Sabres have done something similar?

 

And if it’s revealed that they did, do you care?

[SDS]

Apples and oranges. One team traded away talent and the public could see the result and the other team was asked to surreptitiously lose on purpose with NFL worthy players. 

[PerreaultForever]

Don't think they have ever been told to lose a game on purpose. Not necessary. 

The Pegula method is much simpler. Just don't have a goalie. 

[Thorner]

The distinction is what, telling your GM or coach to find a way to have your good players lose, versus finding a way to lose by not bringing in good players. 

I’d say the intent is the same, regardless, when it comes to the decision makers. It’s the same look on the owner. 

The former would look worse on the coach though if he was actively manipulating game plans

[Slack_in_MA]

23 minutes ago, SDS said:

Apples and oranges. One team traded away talent and the public could see the result and the other team was asked to surreptitiously lose on purpose with NFL worthy players. 

So, do you place the probability at or near zero? 
 

I’m honestly not sure what I think, but it makes me wonder.

20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Don't think they have ever been told to lose a game on purpose. Not necessary. 

The Pegula method is much simpler. Just don't have a goalie. 

Going back to the McDavid-Eichel sweepstakes year, could it have happened?

[PerreaultForever]

11 minutes ago, Slack_in_MA said:

Going back to the McDavid-Eichel sweepstakes year, could it have happened?

My memory is vague but didn't we win against Arizona late in the year, even though many fans in the stands were cheering for a loss?

[Radar]

The lack of trust (if we should ever have had it) is possibly the beginning of meaningful caring about competitive sports. Too many fans, I suspect, Ldon't care as long as their team wins. !legalized gambling? Wow, that adds another whole dimension to the discussion. I'm not sure of where this leads whether these allegations bear out or not but I have little confidence in sports leagues to !ook out for anything but the bottom line.

 

 

 

[Thorner]

12 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

My memory is vague but didn't we win against Arizona late in the year, even though many fans in the stands were cheering for a loss?

The actual players were trying to win.

Management wanted to lose and configured the roster under this principle 

[kas23]

While (as of today) it would be pure speculation to suggest it is happening in the NHL, I think it’s absolutely possible. Is it likely? Probably not. While I don’t think offering money to lose a game is happening (or ever has), it’s obvious some GMs have purposely constructed rosters to lose. On that note, everyone on here would love to know why Patty La abruptly resigned. 

[pi2000]

Much easier to lose on purpose as a football coach than hockey coach.   

[IKnowPhysics]

"You mean management wanted you to lose?"

"Oh, no question.  No question.  It was all about losing so you could get the proper draft position."

 

 

We tanked.  It was intentional, at least right up to the door of the locker room.  They didn't tell the coaches or players to lose, the roster was simply converted into futures, prospects, and draft picks.

[Slack_in_MA]

29 minutes ago, kas23 said:

While (as of today) it would be pure speculation to suggest it is happening in the NHL, I think it’s absolutely possible. Is it likely? Probably not. While I don’t think offering money to lose a game is happening (or ever has), it’s obvious some GMs have purposely constructed rosters to lose. On that note, everyone on here would love to know why Patty La abruptly resigned. 

To your point, could the GMs be the ones incentived to construct rosters to lose? And again, if they did, would you care?

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

My memory is vague but didn't we win against Arizona late in the year, even though many fans in the stands were cheering for a loss?

We traded away a goalie who was playing pretty well. I thought that was clearly a move to lose more games. 

[GoPuckYourself]

i mean the tank concept never really sticks imo as you can want to lose all you want but the players will never be on board with that, Coaches are probably never on board with that. The best thing a GM can do is trade all the talent away and that still doesn't guarantee you'll get the #1 spot  because this is still professional sports at the highest level and competitors at the highest level. If losing on purpose was a thing then you'd be hearing about this on a much deeper scale with bitter coaches, ex coaches, ex players etc. 

[kas23]

37 minutes ago, Slack_in_MA said:

To your point, could the GMs be the ones incentived to construct rosters to lose? And again, if they did, would you care?

I don’t think they are incentivized the way Flores alleges - where a coach gains extra money. But, is keeping one’s job incentive enough?

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

My memory is vague but didn't we win against Arizona late in the year, even though many fans in the stands were cheering for a loss?

We lost that game.  Those of us cheering for the team to win were jeered by our fellow fans.  I myself had food and beer thrown at me.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Slack_in_MA said:

To your point, could the GMs be the ones incentived to construct rosters to lose? And again, if they did, would you care?

They don't need extra incentive, they get paid millions to be GMs and deconstruction can be a plan they sell the owners on. The only question to me would be are the coaches ever in on it. I mean in our first tank Ted Nolan was a sacrificial lamb, and he knew it I think, but the relationship between a GM and a coach of a tank team has to be unusual at the very least. 

3 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

We traded away a goalie who was playing pretty well. I thought that was clearly a move to lose more games. 

Ya, that was my point earlier. The Pegula plan is get rid of all goalies and that's why I think this year was a tank too. I just don't think the players lose on purpose. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

12 hours ago, Thorny said:

The distinction is what, telling your GM or coach to find a way to have your good players lose, versus finding a way to lose by not bringing in good players. 

I’d say the intent is the same, regardless, when it comes to the decision makers. It’s the same look on the owner. 

The former would look worse on the coach though if he was actively manipulating game plans

I agree with all of this.

The coaches and players were never asked to lose on purpose.  They were mocked and told ... try to win with a bunch of marginal players.

No matter what management took us down that terrible road.

And the worst part was that it turned fan against fan on this message board and in the arena.  So sorry for what you went through @Marvin, Sabres Fan.  Disgraceful.

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

We lost that game.  Those of us cheering for the team to win were jeered by our fellow fans.  I myself had food and beer thrown at me.

That's because you're a depressed robot, not because you were cheering for the team to win.

[PromoTheRobot]

14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Don't think they have ever been told to lose a game on purpose. Not necessary. 

The Pegula method is much simpler. Just don't have a goalie. 

And while everyone is kvetching about the goalies, stop doing anything that approaches playing defense while also handing the puck back on a platter while playing offense. It's brilliant I tell you.

[PromoTheRobot]

13 hours ago, kas23 said:

While (as of today) it would be pure speculation to suggest it is happening in the NHL, I think it’s absolutely possible. Is it likely? Probably not. While I don’t think offering money to lose a game is happening (or ever has), it’s obvious some GMs have purposely constructed rosters to lose. On that note, everyone on here would love to know why Patty La abruptly resigned. 

He put Tim Murray in charge. Pat's work was done. Destroyed a franchise in one move.

[Palm Trees And Taxes]

If the Peguals were paying GM's to tank, the former Sabres GM's would be doing anything to retain their jobs as the richest GM's in sports.

[Marvin]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

That's because you're a depressed robot, not because you were cheering for the team to win.

And me with this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.

4 hours ago, The Ghost of Doohickie said:

I agree with all of this.

The coaches and players were never asked to lose on purpose.  They were mocked and told ... try to win with a bunch of marginal players.

No matter what management took us down that terrible road.

And the worst part was that it turned fan against fan on this message board and in the arena.  So sorry for what you went through @Marvin, Sabres Fan.  Disgraceful.

I pin a lot of this on WGR.  A few of the hosts pushed the idea that you can't win a Cup without a tank, so, by implication, those of us who did not want to tank did not want the Sabres to win a Cup.  It used to be that we all want the same thing, but we honestly differed in our opinions of how to get there.  Not any more in Buffalo.

I view this as a precursor to the current social and political dynamic where if you are not 100% on our side, then you want to destroy us.  So me wanting the Bills to improve both lines is considered sabotage because I don't want to get JA17 more weapons first.  Same with R versus D politically.

Aside: one thing I really like about this place is that we can all disagree agreeably.  When I speak about politics outside, I like to bring up SabreSpace as an example of how political discourse should go.  I mention how vociferously many here disagree with me about The Tank.  But we all want the best for the Sabres, and we know that intuitively.  I point out that I remember this about political views -- we all want what we think is best for the country, but we differ in how we think we should get there.

[Trettioåtta]

1 hour ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

If the Peguals were paying GM's to tank, the former Sabres GM's would be doing anything to retain their jobs as the richest GM's in sports.

Have any of them had to take a top job since? They just need to work for beer money now

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

Have any of them had to take a top job since? They just need to work for beer money now

Botterill is the AGM of Seattle.