Official Tank Thread of the Toronto Maple Leafs

[hfdshdh]

bwahahahha

I just ran it:
Columbus 1st, Carolina 2nd, Detroit third
(we're 5th) LOLLLL

2nd time
Chicago (woudn't people riot) - Columbus, Avs (we're 5th)

third time
Detroit, Avs, Columbus (we're 5th)

fourth time
Columbus, Ducks, Flames (we're 4th)

fifth time
Columbus, Leafs, Avs


[man. lottery day is going to be stress.ful].

I didn't realize how awful the new lottery odds are until trying this. Adding an element of sheer randomness doesn't discourage bad teams from 'tanking', it just diminishes the likelihood of them getting better.

Perhaps somebody can correct me, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of a team that 'tanked' without having already been genuinely bad. It's not an issue. There's a group of basement-dwellers that race to the bottom each season, but that's just the nature of any draft that goes in reverse order of the standings. The only real alternatives I can think of would be some sort of ridiculous, arbitrary and complicated system involving wins past a certain date (or mathematical playoff elimination), or what we're seeing now which is increasing randomness despite that flying directly in the face of the very parity the league has been striving for over the past decade.

We picked a helluva time to start rebuilding, but oh well. Here's to finishing last and at least securing the 4th overall pick.

 

[Menzinger]

The way the league is handling the draft certainly is a step in the right direction, but it's just unfortunate that such changes have been implemented as the Leafs enter their proper rebuild.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I didn't realize how awful the new lottery odds are until trying this. Adding an element of sheer randomness doesn't discourage bad teams from 'tanking', it just diminishes the likelihood of them getting better.

Perhaps somebody can correct me, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of a team that 'tanked' without having already been genuinely bad. It's not an issue. There's a group of basement-dwellers that race to the bottom each season, but that's just the nature of any draft that goes in reverse order of the standings. The only real alternatives I can think of would be some sort of ridiculous, arbitrary and complicated system involving wins past a certain date (or mathematical playoff elimination), or what we're doing now which is increasing randomness despite it flying directly in the face of the very parity the league has been striving for over the past decade.

We picked a helluva time to start rebuilding, but oh well. Here's to finishing last and at least securing the 4th overall pick.

the only times i know for sure is
Penguins (for Mario)
Penguins (for Sid)
Buffalo the last two years, but they were really bad, and just... they were just uber aggressive.


but i agree. this could really blow up in a way that flies in the "parity" party line.

 

[TheLeastOfTheBunch]

Have a feeling we will end up drafting Matthews. This franchise needs a big break like that

Hoping the Pens' 1st round pick falls in that ~15ish range, but it looks like they're picking things up. Matthews + Brown would be a dream draft scenario for us

 

[Nithoniniel]

The way the league is handling the draft certainly is a step in the right direction, but it's just unfortunate that such changes have been implemented as the Leafs enter their proper rebuild.

Sure, but I've always seen the keys to a successful rebuild to be 1) good overall drafting 2) good overall developing.

So I'm probably going to be less stressed than most. Whether we get Laine, Nylander, Chychrun or Matthews will be interesting, but if we can't develop our prospects well then they'll just be a lone bright light anyway.

 

[hfdshdh]

the only times i know for sure is
Penguins (for Mario)
Penguins (for Sid)
Buffalo the last two years, but they were really bad, and just... they were just uber aggressive.


but i agree. this could really blow up in a way that flies in the "parity" party line.

The Sabres are actually the best example I can think of in which a half-decent, not-particularly-old team was completely blown up with the clear intention of bottoming out and amassing high draft picks. But so what? It's a legitimate team-building strategy, and if they're willing to trade a few laborious seasons for the potential to assemble a championship-calibre core of young players, then what's so 'cheap' or 'unfair' about that? Did they not earn it, in some sense?

To me, what's really cheap and unfair is that - however unlikely - a team like the Blackhawks or Ducks can have a mediocre year, miss the playoffs by a handful of points and still get to cut ahead of genuinely struggling franchises to add some of the best available young talent from that draft year.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Have a feeling we will end up drafting Matthews. This franchise needs a big break like that

Hoping the Pens' 1st round pick falls in that ~15ish range, but it looks like they're picking things up. Matthews + Brown would be a dream draft scenario for us

the real break would have been having McDavid. ah well.

The Sabres are actually the best example I can think of in which a half-decent, not-particularly-old team was completely blown up with the clear intention of bottoming out and amassing high draft picks. But so what? It's a legitimate team-building strategy, and if they're willing to trade a few laborious seasons for the potential to assemble a championship-calibre core of young players, then what's so 'cheap' or 'unfair' about that? Did they not earn it, in some sense?

To me, what's really cheap and unfair is that - however unlikely - a team like the Blackhawks or Ducks can have a mediocre year, miss the playoffs by a handful of points and still get to cut ahead of genuinely struggling franchises to add some of the best available young talent from that draft year.

exactly.

like i said - it's all fun and games until one year the Ducks, Hawks, and Kings win the lotteries.

 

[Ovate]

There's roughly a 25% chance that a team in the 10-14 range gets a top 3 pick, and some of those teams genuinely need more talent.

It hurts parity because genuinely good teams can get rewarded for an underachiveing season, but it helps parity because genuinely bad teams don't get punished for an overachieving season.

 

[MadSnowman42]

the only times i know for sure is
Penguins (for Mario)
Penguins (for Sid)
Buffalo the last two years, but they were really bad, and just... they were just uber aggressive.


but i agree. this could really blow up in a way that flies in the "parity" party line.

I'm not even sure you can say that the Penguins tanked for Crosby.

Remember that Crosby was drafted after the 2004-2005 lockout that cancelled the whole season. IIRC the draft lottery was based on playoff appearances and first overall draft picks in the previous three (or four?) years which gave the Penguins a chance of around 6 per cent. Talk about low odds. Again, IIRC, so don't blame me if I got the numbers slighty wrong.

Maybe you could say that the Penguins mailed in the 2003-2004 season, hoping to draft Ovechkin. But I honestly think their woes were caused by financial trouble, the need for a new arena and a complete ownership mess. They simply were that bad because they could not afford a better roster. Remember that they essentially traded Jagr to Washington for cash just to stay afloat. Similarly, they traded away Kovalev and Straka and lost Lang because they could no longer afford them.

 

[TheLeastOfTheBunch]

the real break would have been having McDavid. ah well.

True, but hopefully we get the next best thing - Matthews.

 

[Ovate]

I'm not even sure you can say that the Penguins tanked for Crosby.

Remember that Crosby was drafted after the 2004-2005 lockout that cancelled the whole season. IIRC the draft lottery was based on playoff appearances and first overall draft picks in the previous three (or four?) years which gave the Penguins a chance of around 6 per cent. Talk about low odds. Again, IIRC, so don't blame me if I got the numbers slighty wrong.

Maybe you could say that the Penguins mailed in the 2003-2004 season, hoping to draft Ovechkin. But I honestly think their woes were caused by financial trouble, the need for a new arena and a complete ownership mess. They simply were that bad because they could not afford a better roster. Remember that they essentially traded Jagr to Washington for cash just to stay afloat. Similarly, they traded away Kovalev and Straka and lost Lang because they could no longer afford them.

Agreed. They definitely tanked for Lemieux. They were just bad to get Crosby.

There's also this whole conspiracy that the draft lotto was rigged to give them Crosby and save their franchise, but that's another can of worms.

 

[Divine]

We've really embraced the tank, but unfortunately CBJ is tanking hard with us.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Agreed. They definitely tanked for Lemieux. They were just bad to get Crosby.

There's also this whole conspiracy that the draft lotto was rigged to give them Crosby and save their franchise, but that's another can of worms.

didn't they get Crosby the lockout year? i.e. it wasn't based on them being bad at all.

Every team had 3 balls and you loss a ball for every time you made the playoffs or a #1 pick in the previous 3 years, you could lose at most 2 balls.

The Pens had 2 balls and got lucky.

Never had anything to do with being bad or tanking, there was no season to be bad in that year.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Agreed. They definitely tanked for Lemieux. They were just bad to get Crosby.

There's also this whole conspiracy that the draft lotto was rigged to give them Crosby and save their franchise, but that's another can of worms.

It wasn't rigged. A quick read-up makes it pretty clear that it wasn't even possible. People are not going to let that stop them.

I think the best system would reward teams for trying to compete, while at the same time having a safety net so the worst teams don't get stuck there. I'd probably look at something where all non-playoff teams have equal chance for the picks, but where the worst teams are guaranteed a decent pick still. So the worst team is guaranteed the fourth pick if they didn't pick before that, the second worst would be guaranteed the sixth pick and the third worst is guaranteed the eight pick. Other than that, no differentiation between any non-playoff teams.

 

[pcruz]

the only times i know for sure is
Penguins (for Mario)
Penguins (for Sid)
Buffalo the last two years, but they were really bad, and just... they were just uber aggressive.


but i agree. this could really blow up in a way that flies in the "parity" party line.

There was no season played immediately before Crosby was drafted. He was selected in a 30 team lottery!

 

[p.l.f.]

Another good tank night ☺

 

[Leafidelity]

the only times i know for sure is
Penguins (for Mario)
Penguins (for Sid)
Buffalo the last two years, but they were really bad, and just... they were just uber aggressive.


but i agree. this could really blow up in a way that flies in the "parity" party line.

Montreal tanked the Seals for Lafleur
Ottawa tanked for Daigle (lol)

 

[Jacquestrapless]

0-6

 

[p.l.f.]

1-12-3 sounds good

 

[Swayze*]

The Sabres are actually the best example I can think of in which a half-decent, not-particularly-old team was completely blown up with the clear intention of bottoming out and amassing high draft picks. But so what? It's a legitimate team-building strategy, and if they're willing to trade a few laborious seasons for the potential to assemble a championship-calibre core of young players, then what's so 'cheap' or 'unfair' about that? Did they not earn it, in some sense?

To me, what's really cheap and unfair is that - however unlikely - a team like the Blackhawks or Ducks can have a mediocre year, miss the playoffs by a handful of points and still get to cut ahead of genuinely struggling franchises to add some of the best available young talent from that draft year.

Amen brother

 

[King85Kong]

The Sabres are actually the best example I can think of in which a half-decent, not-particularly-old team was completely blown up with the clear intention of bottoming out and amassing high draft picks. But so what? It's a legitimate team-building strategy, and if they're willing to trade a few laborious seasons for the potential to assemble a championship-calibre core of young players, then what's so 'cheap' or 'unfair' about that? Did they not earn it, in some sense?

To me, what's really cheap and unfair is that - however unlikely - a team like the Blackhawks or Ducks can have a mediocre year, miss the playoffs by a handful of points and still get to cut ahead of genuinely struggling franchises to add some of the best available young talent from that draft year.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[AustonMcDavid]

Post game panel was talking about how the Leafs are possibly looking at the goalie market and Elliotte said in 2009 we picked up Gerber on waivers and it really hurt our draft position because he played so well and we could have been in on Duchene or Hedman. And then Kyper said "so you're saying tank" and Friedman said "I hate saying it but you have to" and that was the plan for this season to improve the prospect base and he thinks it's wrong but if he was running the team that is how he would feel.

Elliotte Friedman is all for the tank.

 

[King85Kong]

Elliotte Friedman is all for the tank.

If we do that than the Leafs deserve to forever be bad. We tried it before and it doesn't work. Patience is the way to go.

 

[deletethis]

The Quebec Nordiques tanked several seasons in a row getting Sundin, Nolan and Lindros including trading a bunch of vets to the Leafs to ensure they didn't pass the Leafs in the standings in the Lindros year. The Flyers tanked the year they ended up drafting JVR.

 

[Pookie]

The concerning thing in this tank is Babcock. Coming out and saying he will fix it, he's responsible.

He might. But when is a massive question here in toronto.

Many have written off this season so we hear those words and admire the commitment.

What about next season? Do the words start to ring hollow? Do fans start to say, ok we get it but when?

The longer the rebuild goes, the more likely these words will build into pressure.

It's ok to say it but I wouldn't make it his hallmark and repeat it too often. The media and fans will eventually eat him up.