bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,543
- 5,956
Pro Tank Thread "You said that we'd be better now, better now. But you always let us down."
- Thread starter Jack Burton
- Start date
- Status
that Albertan city failed one rebuild after another not because of their picks, but because their management group is a bunch of incompetent morons.
also, people like me support tank for two reasons: better picks for elite talent which this team still desperately needs, and to get Dim Jim's ass fired ASAP.
also, people like me support tank for two reasons: better picks for elite talent which this team still desperately needs, and to get Dim Jim's ass fired ASAP.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Some people are. Because "we will lose the draft lottery anyways."
These people dont believe in math I guess.
Knowing the pattern, ownership will just complement Benning for picking such a great prospect because we finish bottom 5 on the league.
Knowing the pattern, ownership will just complement Benning for picking such a great prospect because we finish bottom 5 on the league.
Yeah if we make playoff or barely miss they will say hey we're close
if we don't, they will say hey it's all part of Dim Jim's plan to get high pick
but we all know the second case is total bullshit, because Dim Jim seems to think that acquiring draft picks will give him Ebola or something.
You are going to have to actually lay out your argument and yes it is on you to use examples. No one gets what you are trying to say... that is on you.
Toxic0n
We are all mumps
You haven't actually said anything of substance, you are "just asking questions". I guess the sealioning technique has made its way to HF now.
Jack Burton
Pro Tank Since 13
Who's up for a pair of touchdowns tonight?
Keep it rolling Pittsburgh, keep it rolling!
Keep it rolling Pittsburgh, keep it rolling!
pgj98m3
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2012
- 1,539
- 1,079
Are you speaking for all posters cause you weren’t named specifically?
Intangibos
High-End Intangibos
Does anyone have any idea when the last time a team scored 10+ goals in a game?
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,983
- 8,942
Melvin
21/12/05
Goal Differential, Pacific Division
Arizona +6
San Jose +5
Edmonton -2
Anaheim -3
Calgary -4
Vegas -5
Vancouver -9
LA -18
Amusingly the differential standings almost exactly line up so far with my actual prediction for the standings.
Arizona +6
San Jose +5
Edmonton -2
Anaheim -3
Calgary -4
Vegas -5
Vancouver -9
LA -18
Amusingly the differential standings almost exactly line up so far with my actual prediction for the standings.
Last edited:
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
clunk
Registered User
It was obvious to see that one injury to either Edler or Tanev would send this team plummeting down the standings. Both out is nightmare status.
I don't like guys being injured but Tanev and Edler can chill in the press box or on their couches at home as much as they like.... Don't rush back.
I don't like guys being injured but Tanev and Edler can chill in the press box or on their couches at home as much as they like.... Don't rush back.
Losing Tanev/Edler is massive for the tank
Should be in the Hughes/Kakko sweepstakes with Detroit soon
Should be in the Hughes/Kakko sweepstakes with Detroit soon
I want to chime in as others have to say, what is your argument then? Clearly, put please. If it’s that tanking doesn’t guarantee you a Cup or even a good team, I don’t think many here would disagree.
But if your saying that tanking isn’t a good strategy then as many people here have shown time and time again, it definitely is. It is the most reliable strategy a GM can undertake to improve their team. The league is literally designed that way. That’s why the draft is there.
Pointing to Edmonton and saying tanking doesn’t work is like pointing to Detroit and saying picking late does work.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,543
- 5,956
It's taken for granted in this thread that tanking is the best of all possible strategies. No one in here has provided any evidence that this is true. Saying "I have a hunch this is true although I can't prove it" is fine. Discussing whether it might be true and maintaining the position you began with is fine. By and large, people in this thread actively talk about how stupid/misinformed anyone who doesn't support tanking is. I'm not presenting an argument of my own and never said I intended to do so. I'm pointing out the pomposity of people who insist something contingent and difficult to quantify or prove to any appreciable degree must be true and attack anyone who doesn't agree.
Last edited:
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,543
- 5,956
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
the arguments for and against tanking are widely known and have been hashed out in this and previous iterations of the thread as well as in countless other forums and blog posts. You have no profile on this forum and you contribute nothing of value so I'm not sure why anyone would waste time explaining it to you.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,543
- 5,956
I'm aware of the arguments for and against tanking and that isn't what I'm talking about.
To put into the most basic forms, if you want a cup, you need elite talent. How do you get said talent? Draft, or trade. Trade is very difficult, unless you drug and blackmail your opponent, no one gonna hand over a generation talent to you on a silver platter unless you overpay by a significant margin. Given how awful Dim Jim's trade record has been, the chance of this team getting anything close to elite talent by trade is about as high as me summoning Michael Jackson's ghost to sing the Chinese national anthem. This leaves the only other option: draft. To maximize the team's chance to draft elite talent, two things need to be done - you get THE highest possible pick, which can be obtained by tank or trade, as stated above, and you hoard in as many draft picks as you can get your hands on. Again, trade is not feasible at all, so you tank for the highest chance at highest picks. And hoping that the team drafts well enough to obtain some platinum level talent to support it for another series of runs with a legit shot at the cup.
And bold is just...do you understand what this thread's discussions is all about at all? You present an opinion, then support why your opinion is worth a shit by backing it up with reasoning and/or facts. You can't go around saying what ever the hell you feel like without sound argument and expect to be taken seriously. In your case you're not even making an attempt to PRETEND to make a case for your claims, and here you stand pointing your fingers at others demanding attention?
Tanking doesn't work? Fine, tell us how and why. If not, your opinion has no more worth than Venezuelan Sovereign Bolivar.
So far most arguments against tanking has been underwhelming to say the least. And most had been soundly debunked by various posters. The only possible reason I could see is that having competent management can, to a certain degree, make up for the lack of high picks. The follow up question with an obvious answer would be: do...we have management that's even within a thousand miles of "competent"?
Last edited:
megatron
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2016
- 270
- 395
I havent followed every post in this thread but from your last few posts it seems like you are pontificating.
Perhaps you should read the title of this thread: "PROTANK...", if your looking for discussion/strategies to improve the team you may want to try the management thread.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
This thread is getting ridiculous. Look at the last 10 or 20 Stanley Cup winners. Tell me how many of those teams were led by players they took in the top 5 of the draft. Look at the top 20, 30 or 40 scorers in the NHL in literally every year. Tell me how many of those players were top 5 draft picks.
This isn't hard stuff here.
This isn't hard stuff here.
- Status
