The 5 tanks are back at it!

[The Hanging Jowl]

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. ~10 years for each of them to win. For reference, Malkin/Crosby were drafted in 04/05 and won in 09, Toews/Kane drafted in 06/07 and won in 10. This kinda of turnaround doesn't happen anymore.

In that same window 2008-present window:

• #2 Barkov, Hedman, Doughty, Landeskog all won with their draft teams, Eichel and reinhart after trades, and Seguin on his draft team(but the Bruins didnt tank to get him).
• #3 Bogosian won with not his draft team and in a bottom pair role
• #4 Byram, Makar, Pietrangelo are the only winners with their draft team, Bennett won on his 2nd team. Critically, Makar and Byram were drafted 6 and 8 years, respectively, after Landeskog, who was 2 years AFTER Duchene and O'reilly were drafted.
• #5 Schenn bros are the only to win, both not on their draft teams.

Thats 17 players across 7 cup winning teams, over 16 years and 90 top 5 picks.

Point being, tanking isn't a guarantee for success and even if it is, the teams who have proved it works took a decade to make it happen AND got arguably their most important pieces years after tanking a top pick (Rantanen/Makar, Kucherov/Vasi, Tkachuk/Bob).

Ducks and Habs are a great example of why tanking is a risk, and as a Sharks fan i'm definitely nervous about the next few years. Nothing is close to a guarantee

The Toronto Maple Leafs and Auston Matthews say hi! We're still here. (and yes I understand you referenced only Cup winners - that's silly)

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Tanking often takes a long time. Mario Lemeuix made the playoffs 1 time his first 6 seasons.

The blackhawks additions were not to not be bad or be competitive. The sensible takes were they're jumping 20 pts of standings... which you may say is a lot. That would of pushed them from 2nd last to still 4th last based on last years standings.

They're still pushing rebuilding to be bottom 5. Just not, we are striving for bottom 2 push from the gm. It's still apart of the tank.

Agree on your conclussion, and the fact that the Hawks are still part of the rebuild phase. I also thought they'd be ~20 points better than last year, which isn't how you'd characterize a tanking team.

IMO - "tank" has the very specific connotation that the organization is bottoming out and intentionally being as bad as possible to maximize their chance for a better draft pick. Hawks were definitely in that boat 2 years ago when they traded young guys like Dach & Debrincat, and chose not to resign Kane or Strome.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Most of these guys don’t really meet my definition of decent. Maybe decent isnt the word I should have used.

My interpretation of the word 'decent' is middle six forward and middle pairing defenseman. I don't think it's usual to get better than that in free agency, unless you are a contender, but even then it's pretty rare.

 

[Zarzh]

Has parity in the league decreased?

Well there were a few weaker drafts from 2018-2022 and there was never that much parity, fewer teams are trying to shoot for mediocrity.
If you can't control and defend the center of the ice it is hard to win, and there weren't many great center prospects for a few years, let alone great 200 foot centers.

 

[Crow]

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"

Why would it matter if they are trying to be bad or just bad? Either way they were bad and it helped the team in the long run. That’s the point of a tank.

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.

Pretty solid looking top 5 actually, but falls off sharply after that in my estimation.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

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.

You can absolutely justify the move as something which gave them better lottery odds.

We can’t say for sure what they would hav been, but there is every reason to believe they would have been at least 2 points better with Strome and Debrincat; the latter of whom has been a great top-6 forward in every season of his career.

You’re right that they were lucky to get Bedard out of Bedard/Fantilli/Carlsson, but sucking bad enough gave them the best chance at getting one of those three. With just 2 more points (which, again, is extremely likely with both Debrincat and Strome), their most likely outcome is drafting Will Smith, who appears to be a cut below the other three.

 

[bossram]

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"

I agree, there isn't really player-level tanking (aside from maybe ANA, on-ice they look like a unit that doesn't care if they lose). But the other teams themselves are just generally more competitive, despite the records. They're not easy outs anymore.

 

[WarriorofTime]

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?

I think this is false memory stuff mostly. Those teams were pretty deliberately "rebuilding" and some cap floor players doesn't mean they just kinda accidentally sucked and had a great culture in place those years that's "different".

 

[Viqsi]

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?

This. Indeed, it's why over here we'd signed JG (z''l) immediately when he showed interest even though it was "too early in the rebuild".

Of course, then, well, we all know what happened...

 

[coooldude]

It's because none of those teams have actually, truly, committed to a rebuild and still ice teams of overpaid, overvalued, and underperforming veterans. Those teams all missed the boat on when to start their rebuild.

First claim flat out wrong. Every one of these teams is trying to get better. Second part right: many of them missed the boat on when to start the rebuild.

None of those teams were purposefully bad to the level of current "tanks." Most of them were bad by accident and had many good players on the roster that would stay with the team into some of their future successes.

Tanking is for cheap owners and bad GMs and I hope the fact that the bottom 5 all seem completely stuck where they are wakes more fans and media up to that fact.

It turns out it's hard to build a winning team in the NHL, but a huge number of winning teams went through a prolonged period of suck. I bet we could go back and find posts just like yours about some of the best teams today - claiming they'd never make it out of the basement. Hell, the Panthers just won the cup.

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

The draft is the best way to acquire good players. The top of the draft is the best way to acquire difference makers.

Your turnaround/reinvention list is 20% for cup wins in the last 10 or so years.

Toronto may have gotten the core composition wrong, but they have given themselves a chance to build a winner. NJ has a chance to build a winner and went through a tank period. DET needed 1-2 higher end pieces that they didn't get, so we'll see... But then again, all of a sudden the Wild look like they've jumped out of mediocrity, so the same may be true of DET. Buffalo and Ottawa appear organizationally effed, as does CBJ, but the same was said about Florida.

If you go back and look, tanks lead to a cup about 50% of the time, and the other half you end in a horrible situation. For many fans, it's worth the gamble.

 

[Dumais]

While getting a generational or even "G.O.A.T" is great for a team, that doesn't always translate to success. Didn't buffalo have Eichel & Reinhart at the same time for a handful of years, and couldn't win games.

Look at a teams like the Red Wings from late 80s to early 2k or Boston Bruins more recently. It's about culture, being a part of a team and system than is strengthen with experience. They had a few good players, but new players would come and go but expectations never changed.

The real question should be, do any of those (bottom 5) teams have enough players on their roster that are willing to put in the work required to come together as a team. Do they have coaches and staff that prepare and work with them. And finally, is the GM smart enough to pick players who are better than half the players in the league.

If any of those teams have those 3 things in place ... then the likelihood of being in the bottom 5 would go down. Picking 1st overall won't solve that.

 

[JPeeper]

That's what happens when these teams delayed rebuilding forever and the past few drafts have had zero immediate impact players. There was no Crosby or ovi to turn things around. Bedard clearly isn't generational. Slaf still needs work. Celebrini isn't an immediate difference maker.

You know Sid and Ovy in their rookie seasons got 2nd and 4th overall picks for their teams right? And Ovy got 5th overall his sophomore season. Sid put up 102 points and his team was 2nd worst in the league. It took Pitt Malkin, Fleury + to get out of the basement.

Even with impact players you need a good team. McDavid has proven that for years.

 

[Pancakes]

These teams may think they know how to tank, but the Pens are on the way back to reclaim the crown, and soon:

 

[EddieTheEagle]

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

Tanking/being terrible is literally the best way to acquire good players. The system is designed as such.

"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." The bolded are the only teams that have truly had Stanley Cup level success.

VGK: notable exception to what I said, but were in a unique position to have assets from day 1 and sacrificed an incredible amount of capital to acquire high end talent that helped them win.

FLA: was teeeerrible around 2010 and got Barkov at 2nd overall, and Ekblad 1st overall, then acquired three high-end assets that were incredible trades in Bennett (4th), Tkachuk (6th), and Reinhart (2nd). Amazing trades supplemented their drafted assets.

BOS: another notable exception from 2011. Seguin (2nd) and Horton (3rd) would be the only two that were "high end" talent.

The rest haven't done anything to date.

As for the unsuccessful examples, for sure there are going to be teams that eff it up, and while many haven't done anything yet, some are just entering their window of when they should be making noise, like Edmonton, Toronto, and New Jersey.

 

[Laus723]

Tanking/being terrible is literally the best way to acquire good players. The system is designed as such.

"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." The bolded are the only teams that have truly had Stanley Cup level success.

VGK: notable exception to what I said, but were in a unique position to have assets from day 1 and sacrificed an incredible amount of capital to acquire high end talent that helped them win.

FLA: was teeeerrible around 2010 and got Barkov at 2nd overall, and Ekblad 1st overall, then acquired three high-end assets that were incredible trades in Bennett (4th), Tkachuk (6th), and Reinhart (2nd). Amazing trades supplemented their drafted assets.

BOS: another notable exception from 2011. Seguin (2nd) and Horton (3rd) would be the only two that were "high end" talent.

The rest haven't done anything to date.

As for the unsuccessful examples, for sure there are going to be teams that eff it up, and while many haven't done anything yet, some are just entering their window of when they should be making noise, like Edmonton, Toronto, and New Jersey.

Panthers also got new owners who invested heavily in the team. They spent to the cap and learned as they went instead of making the same mistakes. Previous ownership was ass and couldn’t get out of their own way. Poor Lou got stuck with shit owners that never would’ve put proper players in front of him.

 

[ForsbergMoDo21]

Well, I know the next banner that the Sabres can raise.

 

[Enga Olly]

Oilers are responsible for draft odds and luck now?

Gifted Gretzky? You mean signed him.

surely you know that Gretzky wasn't available for other teams to draft, that ridiculous "Personal Service" contract was unique and excluded him from rightly being available to draft when the 4 WHA loser teams got the privilege to join the NHL.

BTW, loved the Boush Bomb on Saturday

And as far as odds in the lottery go - again if the league were to flip the odds in favour of the best non-PO teams, Edmonton wouldn't have been in the position to win that absurd amount of firsts. Shouldn't reward terrible teams

 

[TheNumber4]

surely you know that Gretzky wasn't available for other teams to draft, that ridiculous "Personal Service" contract was unique and excluded him from rightly being available to draft when the 4 WHA loser teams got the privilege to join the NHL.

BTW, loved the Boush Bomb on Saturday

And as far as odds in the lottery go - again if the league were to flip the odds in favour of the best non-PO teams, Edmonton wouldn't have been in the position to win that absurd amount of firsts. Shouldn't reward terrible teams

Oilers traded like last place in the Draft to keep Gretzky. Didn't come free. And we took advantage of the Racers who had issues paying, so we bought and signed that contract. League was sleeping and we took advantage.

Flip the odds to Best non-PO teams? So like destroy the entire purpose of the draft in every League in the world? Makes tons of sense.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

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.

This year has a bunch of solid but not generational guys. 2026 is the year to really tank. McKenna is likely the best prospect since McDavid. Leading the whl in scoring at 16 yo right now.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

surely you know that Gretzky wasn't available for other teams to draft, that ridiculous "Personal Service" contract was unique and excluded him from rightly being available to draft when the 4 WHA loser teams got the privilege to join the NHL.

And the WHA teams were "punished" by having to select at the end of the 1st round because "reasons" (Oilers still managed to draft 3 HOFers in that draft)
plus, no one was stopping other owners from signing him to a "personal services" contract

BTW, loved the Boush Bomb on Saturday

And as far as odds in the lottery go - again if the league were to flip the odds in favour of the best non-PO teams, Edmonton wouldn't have been in the position to win that absurd amount of firsts. Shouldn't reward terrible teams

why is this only a problem in the NHL? NFL doesn't need a stupid lottery system
funny enough, if the NHL got rid of the lottery, the Oilers only have two #1 overalls

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

You failed to discuss the definition of success. Winning the Cup is a terrible measurement. One team wins the Cup every year. Was every decision by every team which did not win a bad one? You're making up stats to support a false premise. You can imagine any while you're at it: "How many times did acquiring the best goalie in the league result in winning the Cup? See???!! It doesn't work most of the time!! We shouldn't try to get a good goalie!"

Tanking and drafting future super stars results in media buzz, ticket and merchandise sales, advertising, making the team more attractive for good coaches and players as a destination, points and wins, the list goes on.

If you actually did analysis and came to the conclusion that multiple very bad seasons actually do more harm to the franchise compared to the eventual upswing made possible by high first and 2nd round picks then you'd got something, but all you said is duh see they don't win the Cup that often. Duh, winning the cup requires hundreds of things to go right, not only getting a star player, despite it surely being a big help.

regardless if ur right or not this has to be the swarmiest responses ive read in ages.

you also failed to respond to the actual argument too. what is your definition of success and how has failing contributed to it? yiiikes

 

[qc14]

Tanking/being terrible is literally the best way to acquire good players. The system is designed as such.

Except for the part where you have to move on from good players and wait 3-7 years for the draft picks you get in return to maybe be as good as the previous players to get there.

"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." The bolded are the only teams that have truly had Stanley Cup level success.

IDK man, I think it's a pretty long list of teams that have had successful seasons and put themselves into position to contend for cups and didn't have to spend 5-10 years in the basement to do so.

Once again, there's nothing wrong with being bad. Sometimes it happens due to luck like Nashville, sometimes it's just time like Pittsburgh, sometimes its poor pro scouting or roster construction like Seattle, often it's a combination of all those things at once like CBJ. A lot of the time it makes sense for teams in those positions to move on from players on expiring deals for a little extra draft capital to play with, like Calgary with Lindholm last year.

It is, however, a complete slap in the face to fans to pretend that purposefully tanking -- not qualifying a 25yo 1C, or trading your surprisingly good goalie in-season for no compensation, or starting the year with Jake Walman as your 1D, or putting Pat Maroon on your powerplay -- is the only, let alone best, option.

There have been multiple examples over the years of teams that chose to do something different and were rewarded with fun, intriguing, and successful seasons even if they didn't end up with a Cup at the end of it.

I hope that the teams with cheap owners and bad GMs that continue to go down this path and keep telling fans "just 3 more years!" continue to be punished for it, and the teams like MIN, WPG, WSH, NYI, NSH, BOS that go out and try to continue winning (the entire goal of the sport!) are rewarded for it.

 

[Dicky113]

Boston want Hagens and with don Sweenius as commander anything is possible

 

[dirtydanglez]

anaheim should be out of the bottom 5 soon. they have been at the rebuild a while.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's just common sense that if you spend four years picking really high in the Draft and then stockpiling additional picks, you'll likely have among the best collection of 18-21 year olds [Prospects/ELCs]. That would position you best four years later to have the best 22-25 year olds [RFA Deals], and eight years later to have the best 26-29 year olds [UFA Deals]. After all, you started with the lead there. Doesn't mean you will of course, but you're the best positioned to.... Only a combo of bad drafting, bad management, bad luck is why you wouldn't if you think about it logically.