Tanking: Should it be allowed?

[oddball]

I'm baffled by the concept that people think teams/GMs "tank" on purpose. You really think that players aren't trying to win every game they play and play up to their potential thus throwing away millions of dollars? I just don't see why anyone would want to have a lottery pick. I know a lot of people talk about franchise players coming from the lottery, but if the lottery and high picks had anything to do with winning, then wouldn't the Edmonton Oilers be just about undefeated with all their #1 draft picks. Teams that are bad are not tanking, they are just built poorly. Edmonton's built a team that is all about scoring and no defense. On the other hand you look at what the Kings did since Lombardi came on board, they focused on Goaltending and Defense and lo and behold they have a couple of Cups built on goaltending and defense and the Oilers are looking to trade some of those #1 picks and having a year where they are in position to have the #1 pick again. Sometimes what looks like tanking is just bad choices by management and bad development. Yet, there is an interesting piece that was posted last week on ESPN about the Sixers and what they are doing. I've seen enough people complain about the Sixers that I had to post this interesting piece on what the Sixers are doing: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12318808/the-philadelphia-76ers-radical-guide-winning. I'm not saying what the Sixers are doing is right, but it's an intersting view on what's going on there. Is this sort of a moneyball approach to the NBA draft? I don't know. I just wonder how much competitive sports people have played that even suggest a team is tanking to get a pick. Everyone I know who's played competitive sports or is involved with it, hates to lose. There is no pride in losing or gaining a draft pick, only in winning. Everytime I see a draft pick, I kind of chuckle, because we all know the hype around them and how many of them actually are the players they've projected them to be.

[2001mark]

I know a lot of people talk about franchise players coming from the lottery, but if the lottery and high picks had anything to do with winning, then wouldn't the Edmonton Oilers be just about undefeated with all their #1 draft picks. Teams that are bad are not tanking, they are just built poorly.

90's Ottawa Senators already showed drafting the best prospects in a row isn't greater than proper team building.

Daigle-Yashin-Bonk gave them a few years of dumpster fire hockey.

[IceCap]

The question is "should tanking be allowed?" The answer is yes. Yes it should be. I mean what's the alternative? How do you go about enforcing a "no tanking" rule? Is every team at the bottom of the standings going to have each loss reviewed to see if they tried hard enough or something? How do you punish it? Do you award teams wins for games they lost? The idea that you can "outlaw" tanking is ridiculous. The best you can do is set up a lotto system, but not even that will stop it. Some people may not like it but it's a reality when it comes to pro sports.

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

I mildly disagree

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

Yep. Not to mention the fans of the Leafs, Sabres, and others all pulling for their team to tank to get a shot at McDavid. The idea that tanking hurts the fanbase just doesn't hold up. Most Leafs fans I know have actually been cheering for loses since the team began to implode in January. I was even a bit bummed earlier tonight when they pulled out the win against Florida.

[HedleyLamarr]

No one said anything (at least, that wasn't inferred by me) about tanking hurting a fanbase. Sports are pretty immune to losing popularity. My point is that the team is doing a disservice to their fans, especially their season-ticket fans that are putting 5-figures into a season, by not doing everything in their power to try to win games in the present time.

I also contend that many of you are looking at this from far away instead of personalizing yourself into the situation. It's awfully easy to say "I support tanking." when you don't have a financial tie to the team or only go to a handful of games at the most.

If you had enough means to get season tickets for a family of four for one season only, and that season is a year where that team is knowingly not trying to win every game, are you putting down the $15,000-$20,000+ for everything that goes with getting season tickets that season and attending every game? Very few, if any of you, are answering "Yes" to that.

[Cosmic]

If you had enough means to get season tickets for a family of four for one season only, and that season is a year where that team is knowingly not trying to win every game, are you putting down the $15,000-$20,000+ for everything that goes with getting season tickets that season and attending every game? Very few, if any of you, are answering "Yes" to that.

As far as I know, the only people that are/were (does it end this year?) locked into a multi-year commitment for tickets are/were the Winnipeg Jets fans. Even if there are other situations, it's not that common. Everybody else makes that decision every offseason whether or not to renew. And every Sabres fan knew what was coming this season. Maybe not to this extent, but I don't think the Sabres expected to be quite this bad, either. Thank goodness they are this bad, though, because Edmonton really brought their "M" game this year.

Am I dropping $20,000 to go to 41 Sabres games a year? No, but I couldn't afford to do that even if they went 82-0. People make that choice, though, for a variety of reasons. It's like baseball... I have no idea how tens of thousands of people show up to a 1:05 Tuesday baseball game, because I wouldn't take off of work to go. People do it, though.

I'm baffled by the concept that people think teams/GMs "tank" on purpose. You really think that players aren't trying to win every game they play and play up to their potential thus throwing away millions of dollars?

Players don't give a damn about draft picks, but if the GM puts together a roster that just doesn't stack up to the rest of the league, it's not really their fault. If you don't see it, you're blind.

Edmonton's built a team that is all about scoring and no defense.

Nobody said tanking automatically works, but picking higher gets you better odds of getting good players.

On the other hand you look at what the Kings did since Lombardi came on board, they focused on Goaltending and Defense

Who is the cornerstone of their defense? Drew Doughty, picked #2 overall.

[BBTV]

Re: oddball (or at least the part of that long post that I read)

Players don't tank. They're playing for contracts, exposure, pride, etc. GMs ABSOLUTELY tank. If your players are going to play hard, a GM can make sure that only the young ones play, or he can trade the good ones, or he can have stars sit out for "rest" or because of an "injury." Tanking is real, and short of making the lottery equal among all teams, there's no way it can be stopped.

[The_Admiral]

No one said anything (at least, that wasn't inferred by me) about tanking hurting a fanbase. Sports are pretty immune to losing popularity. My point is that the team is doing a disservice to their fans, especially their season-ticket fans that are putting 5-figures into a season, by not doing everything in their power to try to win games in the present time.

I know this is trivializing, but let's say your shoe is untied. Do you keep walking with an untied shoe until you're clomping around with a shoe barely on your foot before your foot finally comes out and you trip and fall, all the while looking like some idiot who can't tie his shoes, or do you kneel down and tie your stupid shoe already? The Sabres are finally tying their shoe. But I think they'll get where they're going. The Sharks are going to faceplant into a puddle of mud.

[goalieboy82]

we (have) tank here everyday.