The 5 tanks are back at it!

[EddieTheEagle]

From all the research I've ever done looking at this:

• It typically takes 7-10 years to go from a bottom 5 team to a Top 5 team / Stanley Cup appearance or championship.
• You require around 4-5 top 15 picks either via draft/trade.

Like it or not, tanking works. Obviously, this is how the system is designed, so of course it does.

It isn't guaranteed, but there aren't many exceptions that have been able to win it all without being really savvy and acquiring top talent that was drafted high (either via their own draft or trade). Bar teams are supposed to get good and good teams will fall off and become bad. It's the great wheel of life. Some teams shortcut it or prolong it but generally how it goes.

Vegas was actually fairly "low draft" for their players when they won but still had Eichel (2), Pietro (4), and Kessel (5).

 

[ponder]

Very impressive consistency from these 5, but I think the Pens have a solid shot to ruin their streak. The Pens look straight up too old, I can see them finishing bottom 5 for sure. But I do expect them to be joined by 4 of SJ, Chicago, Montreal, Columbus and Anaheim.

My best guess is the Pens moving into the bottom 5, and the Ducks moving out - they've got a lot of quality young talent, should be enough for at least 6th worst in the league.

 

[BB79]

crazy that you can look at the Blue Jackets’ schedule and spot the moment when their jinx thread was started

Dean Evason and the Columbus Blue Jackets

now have the second best goal differential in the metro. team is playing incredible hockey right now. Elvis has stopped 60 of his last 61 shots. (shutout tonight) the monahan-chinakhov-marchenko line is currently graded the #1 forward line in the entire league. jackets currently are scoring...

forums.hfboards.com

View attachment 932125

They had a great win one/lose one streak going through October lol

 

[GOilers88]

The idea that teams should trade everyone of value in order to get some high picks is what kills me. How many times do we watch teams full of U23 prospects fall flat because there's no one around to insulate them?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Tanking has proven to be more unsuccessful than successful over course of the post-lockout era. MacKinnon and Ekblad are the only #1 picks since 08 #1 Stamkos to win the cup.

Loaded way of looking at it. Nico Hischier is like 25. So much career to play, and all the number 1 picks after him are naturally younger. If the Devils get a Cup in the next few years with him and Hughes, suddenly the tank strategy is back on the menu?

Look at an 11-year portrait of players that have played long enough to see all or much of their career play out.

2003 - Fleury - Penguins: Cup with drafted team
2004 - Ovechkin - Capitals: Cup with drafted team
2005 - Crosby - Penguins: 3 Cups with drafted team
2006 - E. Johnson - Blues: No Cup with drafted team, but St. Louis wins a Cup 13 years later.
2007 - Kane - Blackhawks: 3 Cups with drafted team
2008 - Stamkos - Lightning: 2 Cups with drafted team
2009 - Tavares - Islanders: No Cup with drafted team
2010 - Hall - Oilers: No Cup with drafted team
2011 - Nugent-Hopkins - Oilers: No Cup with drafted team
2012 - Yakupov - Oilers: No Cup with drafted team
2013 - MacKinnon: Avalanche: Cup with drafted team
2014 - Ekblad - Panthers: Cup with drafted team

Expand it to Number 2 picks, you have Cups on drafted team for E. Staal, Malkin, J. Staal, Doughty, Hedman, Seguin, Landeskog and Barkov.

The only teams that have recent Cups without ever really doing the tanky thing were St. Louis (who is debatable as they picked 1st, 4th and 5th in a four year span from 06-09 drafts... and on paper is the most fluke-ish recent SCF winner in recent times) and Vegas (a not replicable case for how their original 'build' went to begin with which carried over and leveraged into sustained success)

 

[qc14]

The only teams that have recent Cups without ever really doing the tanky thing were St. Louis (who is debatable as they picked 1st, 4th and 5th in a four year span from 06-09 drafts... and on paper is the most fluke-ish recent SCF winner in recent times) and Vegas (a not replicable case for how their original 'build' went to begin with which carried over and leveraged into sustained success)

The vast majority of teams you listed were not tanking in the same way the current bottom 5 are tanking.

There is a massive difference between "being bad" and "purposefully trading everyone over the age of 23 and icing an AHL roster"

 

[WarriorofTime]

The vast majority of teams you listed were not tanking in the same way the current bottom 5 are tanking.

There is a massive difference between "being bad" and "purposefully trading everyone over the age of 23 and icing an AHL roster"

You're caught up in the semantics and purposeful intent of it, most of these teams did do tanky/rebuildy things which contributed to them bottoming out. And it matters not that much because only a handful of players were both on rosters when those teams bottomed out to picking 1st overall and then were all the way there through the stanley cup victories.

 

[qc14]

From all the research I've ever done looking at this:

• It typically takes 7-10 years to go from a bottom 5 team to a Top 5 team / Stanley Cup appearance or championship.
• You require around 4-5 top 15 picks either via draft/trade.

Like it or not, tanking works. Obviously, this is how the system is designed, so of course it does.

It isn't guaranteed, but there aren't many exceptions that have been able to win it all without being really savvy and acquiring top talent that was drafted high (either via their own draft or trade). Bar teams are supposed to get good and good teams will fall off and become bad. It's the great wheel of life. Some teams shortcut it or prolong it but generally how it goes.

Vegas was actually fairly "low draft" for their players when they won but still had Eichel (2), Pietro (4), and Kessel (5).

This isn't saying that tanking works, it's saying that having good players works! I'm still not at all convinced that
1) tanking is the best way to acquire good players
or
2) that if it is, it's worth the 10 years of purposefully being a bad team

Of the "turnarounds" or "reinventions" the last ten or so years, the vast majority of them -- VGK, DAL, MIN, WPG, VAN, CAR, NYI, NYR, BOS, FLA -- have come from explicitly not tanking.

Meanwhile OTT, DET, BUF are yet to make the playoffs, NJD have made it once, and TOR -- by far the most successful example of a full rebuild -- has won a grand total of one playoff series

 

[qc14]

You're caught up in the semantics and purposeful intent of it, most of these teams did do tanky/rebuildy things which contributed to them bottoming out. And it matters not that much because only a handful of players were both on rosters when those teams bottomed out to picking 1st overall and then were all the way there through the stanley cup victories.

The intent absolutely matters.

I think it's been pretty clear to see that being bad by accident or in the natural cycle of things sets you up with a better player pool, better development environment for your high picks, and better overall culture in the organization than purposefully setting up a team to lose.

How much better would CHI be right now and in the future if they still had DeBrincat and Strome? Anaheim if they still had Lindholm? Ottawa if they still had Stone? Detroit if they still had Hronek and Bertuzzi?

 

[Ezpz]

They've already added veterans in free agency for the whole rebuilding process though. Vatrano, Strome, Gudas, Killorn, McGinn and Dumoulin have all been signed in the past 3 seasons.


There's not a single hockey player that can do that. It's not that kind of sport.

Carey Price.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Hawks have definitely been tanking for 2-3 years and it's no surprise that they're still a bottom feeder team.

Most of their "tank-era" 1st rounders have not graduated full-time to the NHL yet.

Nazar 2022
Rinzel 2022
Korchinski 2022
Moore 2023
Levshunov 2024
Boisvert 2024
Vanacker 2024

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

In a standings-based system, there will be a bottom 5 of those standings. And sometimes, the teams that are not in the bottom 5 won't make it super easy for those teams to escape the bottom 5. It's crazy.

 

[TheNumber4]

Which of these teams actually "tanked" and which just sucked. Let's not throw around that term willy nilly. Sucking does not equal tanking.

For example, the Oilers never tanked, they just sucked. Meanwhile, the Leafs tanked specifically and dishonorably for Matthews/McDavid.

 

[Enga Olly]

FWIW, though the bottom-tier of teams is mostly the same, just by eye (catching some of their games), most of the tanking teams at least look more competitive.

CBJ and CHI are legitimately trying. The players are playing hard. They're not exactly easy outs. The Sharks are also better, though it was pretty much impossible for them to be worse. ANA is still a disaster though - Cronin is determined to ruin every young player in their system.

MTL also has a path to pretty rapid improvement. They just need to fire MSL, who appears to be the worst defensive head coach in the cap era.

Yeah, I don't disagree but it's not at the player level the tanking occurs. All those players are ros with some integrity - depending on their personality, where they are in their careers, they are workings their tails off night in and night out. It's management that does the tanking with all the decisions behind the scenes, who dresses, who gets traded, who gets sent down to the minors, the lines and defensive pairings, starting goalies etc. No player is going to be purposely subpar so "we have a better chance at Hagens"

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

The intent absolutely matters.

I think it's been pretty clear to see that being bad by accident or in the natural cycle of things sets you up with a better player pool, better development environment for your high picks, and better overall culture in the organization than purposefully setting up a team to lose.

How much better would CHI be right now and in the future if they still had DeBrincat and Strome? Anaheim if they still had Lindholm? Ottawa if they still had Stone? Detroit if they still had Hronek and Bertuzzi?

How much better would Chicago be right now if they had kept Debrincat, a high-end top-6 forward who would almost certainly have led them to finish with at least 1 more point in 2022-2023, and therefore not draft Bedard? Gee, I’m gonna say not at all?

 

[Enga Olly]

Which of these teams actually "tanked" and which just sucked. Let's not throw around that term willy nilly. Sucking does not equal tanking.

For example, the Oilers never tanked, they just sucked. Meanwhile, the Leafs tanked specifically and dishonorably for Matthews/McDavid.

please Oilers got so many lottery wins plus were gifted Gretzky - not an honourable bone in that organizations body. Besides got to shed this welfare state mentality, too many welfare Queen teams in this league looking for handouts one way or another

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Theory: The quality of prospects lately hasn't been that great or is taking long to develop compared to say the mid-2010s and/or these teams have drafted poorly.

Each of these 5 teams have had at least 7 and often 9 or so picks in each of the last 5 drafts excluding one draft in 2020 where CBJ only had 5 picks.

Their draft picks for the most part look meh, it could be some confirmation bias too, eg: the reason these teams are bad is possibly cos their front offices may have been bad and cos their front offices are bad, they can't draft/develop players that well.

 

[TheNumber4]

please Oilers got so many lottery wins plus were gifted Gretzky - not an honourable bone in that organizations body. Besides got to shed this welfare state mentality, too many welfare Queen teams in this league looking for handouts one way or another

Oilers are responsible for draft odds and luck now?

Gifted Gretzky? You mean signed him.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

How much better would Chicago be right now if they had kept Debrincat, a high-end top-6 forward who would almost certainly have led them to finish with at least 1 more point in 2022-2023, and therefore not draft Bedard? Gee, I’m gonna say not at all?

Exactly.

With Debrincat they still stink and have worse picks for the future.
That trade helped them get worse (winning Bedard) while adding Korchinski, Ludwinski, and Spellacy to the prospect list.

 

[Fantomas]

The upcoming draft looking pretty ho-hum from what I see. No huge star there, as I see it. But 2026/27 might be a different story.

 

[Tawnos]

Tampa Bay traded their first the year before they drafted Stamkos. Colorado traded their first the year before drafting MacKinnon and had 112 points the season after. Florida won the division the year before they took Barkov.

They all made moves at various points to make their current roster worse for future assets. They were nowhere near the teardown rebuilds we see today.

I said the vast majority. There are, of course, going to be some that it isn't the case.

The Panthers don't fit your point anyway. They were in the midst of a teardown rebuild after the failure of the Weiss/Bouwmeester/Horton rebuild to result in a contender. Two of those players had already been moved out. That division win you cite was a surprise to literally everyone. THN & THW predicted them 14th in the East. Bleacher Report 12th. Oddsmakers had them 12th, plus with the worst chance to win the Cup in the league. They overachieved hard under new coaching and then fell back to expectations the next season. Their top 3 scorers were Fleischmann (61 pts), Weiss (57), and Versteeg (54). That's a tank first line if I ever saw one.

 

[qc14]

How much better would Chicago be right now if they had kept Debrincat, a high-end top-6 forward who would almost certainly have led them to finish with at least 1 more point in 2022-2023, and therefore not draft Bedard? Gee, I’m gonna say not at all?

You can't retroactively justify the move as a master plan to get exactly the third best lottery odds and then win said lottery. If they had tanked a little harder and moved on from Kane or McCabe or Domi even earlier maybe they finish with one point less and lose out on Bedard!

The point is they would've still been just as bad with Strome and DeBrincat to keep them in the running for Bedard but would've had two good players to work with moving forward instead of the zero they have now.

 

[ICanMotteBelieveIt]

Sharks more like Shark Tank.

 

[OneSharpMarble]

The results are in! According to hfboards "Bad teams finish last!" Holy smokes Batman, who could have ever guessed? Teams that are bad tend to be bad for a long time, you don't go from dead last to middling without a lot of work.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

I know it is you and this is your schtick, but are your really trying to argue a yearly playoff team is the same thing as a yearly bottom 5 team? Cause as a Leafs fan who has cheered for both, I easily take making the playoffs every season

You're probably not old enough to have cheered for the Leafs in the SC final. Most of planet Earth alive today wasn't alive when the Leafs last played in the finals.

Being continously bounced in the first round compares in no way to the joy and success of a SC final run. You wouldn't know...but your great-grandfather could tell you.