mamiller99

Tanking: Should it be allowed?

Recommended Posts

Also, how are you supposed to fault the Sabres for amassing cost-controlled player rights when we know that the delicate hothouse flowers that are NHL players refuse to go willingly to Buffalo because wah wah it's cold and wah wah they care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that fielding a mediocre, average product every year is a bigger middle finger to the fans than tanking. At least tanking has the end goal of winning big in mind. Trying your hardest to stay on the treadmill of mediocrity is almost always a cynical ploy to sell tickets and merchandise based off false hope as opposed to a legitimate attempt to build a winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but what the Sixers have been doing is a total farce.

As a franchise, they've decided that if they can't get the number one pick or have enough assets to sign or trade for a transcendent superstar, they're happy to lose as much as possible.

The problem is that they're not going to get LeBron James or Anthony Davis every year, and those players come along once a decade. And free agents won't go to Philadelphia because why would they?

It's especially bad when they throw away players because they decide they aren't going to be superstars. MCW isn't the greatest player of all time, but he might be a useful PG to support that greatest player.

The Spurs have good players, but it's not like Manu and Tony Parker are super awesome. Instead they are smart, talented, and work well within their system and are supported by management that's taking the long view of team development.

The Sixers might draft Okafor this year, but then what? How does having a good player and assets mean anything more than 15 wins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It varies from league to league, but we're fundamentally talking about the Sabres here, and the way to rebuild successfully in the NHL is to acquire high picks and prospects in high volume so that your most important contributors -- when you get them amid inevitable misses -- are paid below fair market value. With guaranteed contracts and a hard salary cap, the only league that subjects teams to both, this is the way you have to do it, and doing this requires a period of short-term pain. If you disagree with these realities, then your problem is not with the Sabres (or the Penguins, Blackhawks, or Kings) but with the collective bargaining agreement.

EDIT: For whatever it's worth, I suspect the 76ers are closer to the Ted Stepien Cavaliers than the NHL teams who go to the bottom to hit the top. Something feels like the best interests of the team are not at heart here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It varies from league to league, but we're fundamentally talking about the Sabres here, and the way to rebuild successfully in the NHL is to acquire high picks and prospects in high volume so that your most important contributors -- when you get them amid inevitable misses -- are paid below fair market value. With guaranteed contracts and a hard salary cap, the only league that subjects teams to both, this is the way you have to do it, and doing this requires a period of short-term pain. If you disagree with these realities, then your problem is not with the Sabres (or the Penguins, Blackhawks, or Kings) but with the collective bargaining agreement.

This is why the Red Wings are so annoying. Everybody else, even the hill-people in Pittsburgh, have gone through a brutal rebuild.

Detroit's not playing by the unwritten rule that you have to be bad at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but what the Sixers have been doing is a total farce.

As a franchise, they've decided that if they can't get the number one pick or have enough assets to sign or trade for a transcendent superstar, they're happy to lose as much as possible.

The problem is that they're not going to get LeBron James or Anthony Davis every year, and those players come along once a decade. And free agents won't go to Philadelphia because why would they?

It's especially bad when they throw away players because they decide they aren't going to be superstars. MCW isn't the greatest player of all time, but he might be a useful PG to support that greatest player.

The Spurs have good players, but it's not like Manu and Tony Parker are super awesome. Instead they are smart, talented, and work well within their system and are supported by management that's taking the long view of team development.

The Sixers might draft Okafor this year, but then what? How does having a good player and assets mean anything more than 15 wins?

With the Sixers, it's really bad because you don't (and maybe they don't) even know if it's a 2-year, 3-year, 4, 5, or indefinite plan. They (and most people here) think they have a great coach that will be with them if/when they decide to try, but yeah they'll get rid of any player who seems to be good enough to play them out of the basement. The MCW thing was a slap in the face to their last three or four fans because they had just unveiled their new marketing campaign that featured him, Noel, and Embid, and lots of little kids have his jersey. They say they value getting that draft pick back though.

I think everyone was cool with the one-year tank, a lot of people are cool with a two-year tank, but at what point do they decide they're ready to start trying? Do they sit a healthy Embid out next year just to play it safe and because they don't care? Eventually, their "cornerstones" will be on their second contracts before the team even starts trying. And then all those players know is a culture of losing and not caring - that alone may totally negate the benefits gained by acquiring #1 picks.

People are generally on board with the tank, and the NBA is so screwed up with the most ridiculously complicated CBA in the world that makes it super hard for teams to compete, that it's pretty much the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(17th place gets 1st pick, 30th gets 14th pick)

I really like this.

Purposely losing a bunch of games and hoping to land McDavid or Eichel isn't a solid plan. That's throwing results. And it borders on cheating not only because you're losing games on purpose, but also messing with the entirety of the league's standings and determining who gets in the playoffs and who doesn't.

Now, gaining some draft picks and prospects is a plan, but that's a plan shared by about 8-10 other teams at this point of the season. What exactly is Murray's plans if you take McDavid or Eichel out of the equation? What are his back-up plans should McDavid or Eichel either holdout and not want to play for the Sabres or they suffer a career-changing injury? Or they simply want out after their initial contracts?

No matter, you're viewing tanking from an outside perspective. Look at it from a ticket-buyer's standpoint. Your team has already gone through some losing seasons, and now your team is going to purposely lose games in hopes to getting a franchise-changing player. As a season-ticket holder being charged big-money full-price for tickets, parking, concessions, etc....don't you feel you're being cheated out of what your experience could be? You're dishing out 4- to 5-figures only to have management purposely not put the best product possible out there for you to see....you would be alright with that?

I'd argue that fielding a mediocre, average product every year is a bigger middle finger to the fans than tanking. At least tanking has the end goal of winning big in mind. Trying your hardest to stay on the treadmill of mediocrity is almost always a cynical ploy to sell tickets and merchandise based off false hope as opposed to a legitimate attempt to build a winner.

STK-NHL-TOM-A1982-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem I can envision if you give the first pick to the 17th best team that barely misses the playoffs: That incentivizes missing the playoffs for those 7 and 8 seeds and then you'd see a different kind of tanking. What would you rather do? Get killed in the first round or get Connor McDavid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stepien Cavs are just about the worst possible comparison for the Sixers. Those Cavs traded away so many picks that the league had to change the rules to prevent such idiocy from happening again. The Sixers, on the other hand, try to stockpile as many draft picks as possible.

Also, criticizing the Sixers for trading Carter-Williams is dumb, especially when they got a great asset like the Lakers' pick in return. MCW is awful. He's so bad at shooting that he makes Rondo look like Steph Curry, and he's also turnover-prone. Yes, he's a former Rookie of the Year, but in the same way that Mike Miller is a former ROY (being in a weak draft lacking in elite talent and basically winning it by default). To say they sold high would be an understatement. What would have actually been dumb is building around all the players the Sixers have been bashed for trading away (MCW, Holliday, Hawes, etc.) and continuing to ride the treadmill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(17th place gets 1st pick, 30th gets 14th pick)

I really like this.

This is probably the worst idea to stop something that I don't even think is a problem. Instead of bad teams tanking to be awful, you'd have teams trying not to make the playoffs. A mediocre team would get to choose between trying to sneak into the playoffs (where they stand little chance to even make it past the first round) or losing at the end of the season so they barely miss the playoffs and land the player that could put them over the top.

On the other end of this, teams that truly suck would be stuck at the bottom for years. They'd only get a mid-round draft pick which is almost never means immediate help. On top of that, attracting free agents would be even harder than it already is for bad teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanking can be good for the franchise, but it's always bad for the fanbase. That's how I look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(17th place gets 1st pick, 30th gets 14th pick)

I really like this.

This is probably the worst idea to stop something that I don't even think is a problem. Instead of bad teams tanking to be awful, you'd have teams trying not to make the playoffs. A mediocre team would get to choose between trying to sneak into the playoffs (where they stand little chance to even make it past the first round) or losing at the end of the season so they barely miss the playoffs and land the player that could put them over the top.

On the other end of this, teams that truly suck would be stuck at the bottom for years. They'd only get a mid-round draft pick which is almost never means immediate help. On top of that, attracting free agents would be even harder than it already is for bad teams.

Yeah, the really heavy con's outweigh the pro's and would make it impossible to be implemented. It might work if teams didn't focus on draft picks at all, but that's just not the reality. Plus with that you'd still have teams who relinquish in the bottom of the standings for years, while teams coming off up to a decade of playoff success can draft the next big player and climb right back up to the top.

There should probably be a more even based lottery system, preferably favouring the worse teams more, but not totally. Next year's system might work well, but I suppose we'll have to see how the teams treat it first to judge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how are you supposed to fault the Sabres for amassing cost-controlled player rights when we know that the delicate hothouse flowers that are NHL players refuse to go willingly to Buffalo because wah wah it's cold and wah wah they care?

Hey now, when we're not in 30th place anymore, I think we have a good chance at being only the 6th or 7th city that players least want to play for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every pro sport should follow the format of the Premier League. There should be a way for teams to be relegated. Every big league in the U.S. could be grouped into 2 or even 3 tiers. This would make things more exciting in my opinion. As for as tanking, I hate it. The Blue Jackets are guilty of doing it for years. Because of it, I will no longer support the team. Along with the Bengals... it just gets to a point where you give up (as a fan). Why waste your hard earned money and attention on an organization that doesn't give two XXXXX about getting to the top. ....just my opinion.

Tanking is advantageous to teams that use those oppurtunities properly. Not every first overall pick is franchise-changing. Some turn out to be mediocre. Some can be busts. And every team needs some depth to their roster. A roster comprised of only All-Stars won't cut it.

The Pittsburgh Penguins would have never drafted Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin if it weren't for those crappy seasons they had. But not every player on that Stanley Cup winning team was a top 5 draft pick. When it comes to the Blue Jackets, you're right. They indeed had trouble getting their stuff together for a long time.

The players aren't being paid all those figures to go out there and purposely lose games. Its up to the GM to build a team just like its up to the players to win games regardless the situation in the standings. I agree with HedleyLamarr that it's a slap in the face to the fanbase.

The Canucks are only a few points up from 8th place. If they hit a losing skid, they could miss the playoffs. If they miss the playoffs, they have a shot at drafting Connor McDavid. I no doubt understand your point that it feels wrong on some levels to start bad AHL'ers on purpose to stink the joint up, to trade away decent players on purpose for good players who will be out for the season, essentially trading talent for empty roster spots, and to skip practice and hit the ice still hungover to ensure that they will most definitely lose. But if those Canucks do miss em' by some 'unfortunate' turn of events, I can't imagine that Canucks fans won't be grinning at this possibilty. You won't be screaming for joy for every goal scored against your team by the opposition like I (as well as most Habs fans) did a few years ago, but I can see that smile. So all in all, the situation is grey and I think everybody truly has mixed emotions about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Sixers, it's really bad because you don't (and maybe they don't) even know if it's a 2-year, 3-year, 4, 5, or indefinite plan. They (and most people here) think they have a great coach that will be with them if/when they decide to try, but yeah they'll get rid of any player who seems to be good enough to play them out of the basement. The MCW thing was a slap in the face to their last three or four fans because they had just unveiled their new marketing campaign that featured him, Noel, and Embid, and lots of little kids have his jersey. They say they value getting that draft pick back though.

I think everyone was cool with the one-year tank, a lot of people are cool with a two-year tank, but at what point do they decide they're ready to start trying? Do they sit a healthy Embid out next year just to play it safe and because they don't care? Eventually, their "cornerstones" will be on their second contracts before the team even starts trying. And then all those players know is a culture of losing and not caring - that alone may totally negate the benefits gained by acquiring #1 picks.

People are generally on board with the tank, and the NBA is so screwed up with the most ridiculously complicated CBA in the world that makes it super hard for teams to compete, that it's pretty much the only way.

Bill Simmons calls it a pyramid scheme that only benefits Sam Hinkie. He gets to trade players for picks, and always gets to point to the future.

A better comparison might be Waiting for Godot. Today is a waste, but tomorrow will certainly be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a fan of the team, you should absolutely hate it.

I mildly disagree.

Canadian NHL teams, save the recent Oilers* & now Leafs, have been forever afraid of tanking because trading up/buying mediocre players allowed them to reach the bottom rungs of the playoffs- just enough to satisfy ownership & fans.

Of course none have won the Cup since 1993.

Thus they're both never great enough to win, & also never bad enough to draft a long term superstar.

I said mildly because the Red Wings spit in the face of that. However, I am a Leafs fan & seen way too many springs starting with 1995's nonsense trading for name players with nothing left in the tank, or signing guys in July who lead nowhere.

The cap era has all but neutered the power of free agency, thus tanking is not the worst thing.

*When I say Oilers, their tanking days are long gone. That is a team now actually trying to win games, before years creep up & their bluechippers walk away. So yeah, they're still rock bottom... only that's cuz their team actually sucks & is not actively tanking as we know it.

The Oilers are now the Oakland Raiders lols.

A fav line about Al Davis - 'The reason Al Davis keeps drafting guys like Darrius Heyward-Bey so early is because Al Davis loves being able to draft guys like Darrius Heyward-Bey so early'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the Canadian teams + Buffalo, the only certainty is that whatever they're doing is wrong. Even if different teams are doing completely different things, they're doing them wrong. The Flames are spinning their wheels finishing 10th every year? They're idiots who can't build a team, but their idiot fans will support them anyway. Finishing last so that eventually they'll finish above 10th again? They're tanking! They should forfeit their draft picks. How can these idiots take such advantage of their idiot fans? Is tanking A Hot Topic To Be Discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're idiots who can't build a team, but their idiot fans will support them anyway.

That is a crux of it, certainly for the Leafs.

They could lose 82 games & sell out the following season's tickets in 5 minutes.

I'm a Leafs fan mostly because HNIC Leafs was the first tv I watched, all the way back as a 5yr old. This from a person who expects them to never ever again win a Cup lols. It's just a part of my sports dna.

It also lets me rip on them, as friends will disagree, not because I hate the Leafs but because I am such a fan I get mad when they F up & I simply want them to build a better roster & win more games.

I remember Brian Burke was on Simmons' BS Report, was asked (for American audience) what it's like 'Leafs Nation'.

Brian, without flinching, and only half joking, said to Bill - You take Red Sox fans & Boston media, Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers... put them all together, & it's not even close. Not. Even. Close.

The lowest Leaf years beyond Harold Ballard, because those were simply disgraceful, were the Mike Murphy years - in between the Gilmour & Pat Quinn eras, because all they were doing was spinning their wheels.

At least Burke was going to blow it up - until he caved & traded for Kessel... & now Shanahan wants to blow it up & we're all begging him not to cave again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a fan of the team, you should absolutely hate it.

I mildly disagree

These fans sure didn't feel that way...

colts-suck-for-luck_design.pngsuckforluck_large.jpgluck-column-400x241.jpg

Suck-for-Luck-sign.jpg23456380244580-04103531.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL has no lottery, + a generational bluechip QB is far more of a gamechanger than a hockey forward.

I dunno, I think as mentioned, I've seen the Leafs avoid burning it to the ground for 30yrs & they've accomplished nothing from it. Might as well try it for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.