The 5 tanks are back at it!

[Nogatco Rd]

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)

Probably because you don’t need to tank to win 1 playoff round in 8 seasons.

Obviously the team has some really talented players but idk what particular relevance they have to this discussion? Jury is still out on whether they’ll have anything other than regular season success to show for their tanking effort

 

[tiburon12]

Probably because you don’t need to tank to win 1 playoff round in 8 seasons.

Obviously the team has some really talented players but idk what particular relevance they have to this discussion? Jury is still out on whether they’ll have anything other than regular season success to show for their tanking effort

This poster was responding to me, who left the leafs and matthews off the list of "teams with top 5 picks who have won a cup" and is somehow confused by that clear definition lol

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Probably because you don’t need to tank to win 1 playoff round in 8 seasons.

Obviously the team has some really talented players but idk what particular relevance they have to this discussion? Jury is still out on whether they’ll have anything other than regular season success to show for their tanking effort

The relevance is the Leafs finished dead last in 2016 and scored a pretty good first pick overall in 2017 as a result. The poster I was responding to narrowed it down to tanking only being worth it if it results in a Cup. I'm pretty sure half the league would have tanked to get Matthews whether it eventually results in a Cup or not.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

This poster was responding to me, who left the leafs and matthews off the list of "teams with top 5 picks who have won a cup" and is somehow confused by that clear definition lol

I literally made reference to your "clear definition" in my response. I'm not confused, I just think it's an arbitrary way to judge if tanking is still worthwhile. "Investing in stocks isn't smart because not all stock values go up." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's still worth bottoming out if it means getting a top tier draft pick.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Honestly it is surprising how consistent those teams are season to season. Same bottom 5 for 3 years now.

22-23 season:

32- Ducks 58 pts
31- Jackets 59 pts
30- Hawks 59 pts
29- Sharks 60 pts
28- Habs 68 pts

23-24 season

32- Sharks 47 pts
31- Hawks 52 pts
30- Ducks 59 pts
29- Jackets 66 pts
28- Habs 76 pts

This season
View attachment 932116

I am not sure of that stats but it must be pretty rare to have the same 5 teams at the bottom for 3 years straight.

Sharks win, Ducks win, Jackets win and Montreal wins and the Sharks and Canadians are no longer bottom 5.

Nice reverse jinx

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

Sharks win, Ducks win, Jackets win and Montreal wins and the Sharks and Canadians are no longer bottom 5.

Nice reverse jinx

These 5 teams shall now run the league

 

[tiburon12]

I literally made reference to your "clear definition" in my response. I'm not confused, I just think it's an arbitrary way to judge if tanking is still worthwhile. "Investing in stocks isn't smart because not all stock values go up." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's still worth bottoming out if it means getting a top tier draft pick.

I don't think "winning the Stanley Cup" is an arbitrary metric at all, actually.

 

[MeinerEiner]

Penguins making a real push to make it into the top 5

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I don't think "winning the Stanley Cup" is an arbitrary metric at all, actually.

So no one won the draft lottery at all if they haven't won a Cup yet. Is that seriously your position?