The Tank Megathread | 8 | The Tank Awakens

[The Drop]

Because it sets a bad precedent and example to the young players in our system. What type of message do you think it sends to guys like Horvat, Baertschi, Etem, Markstrom, McCann, Virtanen, Vey, Hutton, etc., when management deliberately 'tanks' via trade all/most vets? Players aren't stupid.

Establishing the integrity of a team is extremely important. That's how you get the young players to 'buy in' to the team code so that one day, they can become leaders on the team.

So explain what message is sends the youth when you trade one of your hardest working ones away to move up in the draft.

You're in the wrong thread anyway if you want to discuss not tanking.

 

[Horse McHindu]

C'mon man. You understand *why* tankers want a high pick right? Because it's a free asset. What's the point of giving up a top asset just to get a pick? Then it becomes a lateral move and we are no further ahead.

Remember that one time when we sucked and traded McCabe and a 1st for that Sedin guy?

And like I said - tanking sets a bad precedent and example to young guys like Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Baertschi, Etem, Vey, McCann, Virtanen, etc.

Or put it another way. What assets do we have that could realistically garner the #5 pick in this draft? That list starts and ends with Bo Horvat.

Not necessarily. I think our own 2016 1st + Shinkaruk or a McCann could land said pick.

You NEVER compromise the integrity of your team when you have a bunch of young guys coming up. It sets a bad precedent. That's why tanking via immediate firesale is unacceptable. Yes - if the Nucks are out of contention, you can move vets on expiring contracts, but deliberate tanking via trading all/most vets is never acceptable as it compromises the integrity of the team.

 

[CanaFan]

Some?? Like 99% of his posts

I was being kind :grin:

 

[Exquisite]

He really, really doesn't.

Probably not because we don't have a history of drafting and developing these players but it's much easier to say that there's no chance than to actually remember the times when players and Getzlaf were just drafted and had legitimate question marks

 

[Horse McHindu]

how is wanting to trade Hamhuis, Vrbata, and maybe Hansen trading "all vets".

Im sure Virtanen would be thrilled if Vrbata is traded, maybe he actually would've some stability on this team.

Trading Hansen would be moronic (unless it's for a 1st which we won't be offered). People who advocate the idea of trading Hansen (for less than a 1st.....which we won't be offered) do not truly understand what a rebuild is all about. Ditto for those that want to trade Edler.

I have no complaints about moving Vrbata.

As far as Hamhuis goes, it would actually hurt the rebuilding process if we traded Hamhuis and were unsuccessful in re-signing him in the off-season (or, signing another decent veteran D). Canucks defense is thin as is, and by trading a guy like Hamhuis, you'd force certain players into roles that they'd likely be too green for (or flat out, not good enough for).

When you do that, you then put far more pressure on your goalie with a weakened defense..........and since we are trying to groom Markstrom, I hardly think that putting Markstrom behind a WEAK defense would be the best way to develop him and groom his confidence.

 

[CanaFan]

Remember that one time when we sucked and traded McCabe and a 1st for that Sedin guy?

Thought you'd try that example. First of all that was still *far* from free which is my point; trading for a top 5 pick bleeds assets we badly need.

Secondly I suggest you go read up on the mechanics of how Burke managed to get Chicago to trade them the #4 pick and subsequently trade up. Here's a spoiler: it hinged heavily on the fact that the Sedins were twins and Burke made sure the other teams knew that only he had the chips to get BOTH of them. He basically bullied the other GMs to get that pick.

Once in a lifetime circumstances.

And like I said - tanking sets a bad precedent and example to young guys like Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, Baertschi, Etem, Vey, McCann, Virtanen, etc.

And what will this example do exactly to these young players? Diminish their skills? Make them not want to compete hard? Make them want to give up too and not try anymore?

Life doesn't work that way mate. These players are all internally driven or, guess what, they wouldn't have made it this far to begin with.

Not necessarily. I think our own 2016 1st + Shinkaruk or a McCann could land said pick.

Again a total waste of assets. We need more McCanns, not less.

You NEVER compromise the integrity of your team when you have a bunch of young guys coming up. It sets a bad precedent. That's why tanking via immediate firesale is unacceptable. Yes - if the Nucks are out of contention, you can move vets on expiring contracts, but deliberate tanking via trading all/most vets is never acceptable as it compromises the integrity of the team.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Running a team is a business. Businesses require smart strategies, not simplistic "codes of honour" just to feel good about themselves. As long as they act within the confines of the CBA and the law, the team is acting with all the integrity they need. Everything else is purely the projection of your own personal value system. Not everyone shares that system with you.

 

[Horse McHindu]

So explain what message is sends the youth when you trade one of your hardest working ones away to move up in the draft.

You're in the wrong thread anyway if you want to discuss not tanking.

I do not want to trade Horvat (not sure if that's who you were alluding to when you mentioned, "hardest working ones?").

As far as your question goes, I don't think it sends any kind of message other than the fact that you are attempting to trade green houses for a red hotel.

I'm sure our young guys in 1999 didn't have too much of an issue when McCabe and a 1st were traded for Sedin.

As far as my philosophy on 'tanking' goes, like I said, I'm all for trading vets on expiring contracts under the right circumstances. I just think immediate firesale sell-offs are misguided (for reasons that I've already stated).

 

[CherryToke]

Remember that one time when we sucked and traded McCabe and a 1st for that Sedin guy?

that is a great success rate. everyone should deploy this strategy.

Edler and our 1st and Mathews is ours.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Some?? Like 99% of his posts

Got it. I have no idea what I'm talking about and 99% of what I say is based on groundless notions.

Cool.

 

[Knight53]

Trading Hansen would be moronic (unless it's for a 1st which we won't be offered). People who advocate the idea of trading Hansen (for less than a 1st.....which we won't be offered) do not truly understand what a rebuild is all about. Ditto for those that want to trade Edler.

I have no complaints about moving Vrbata.

As far as Hamhuis goes, it would actually hurt the rebuilding process if we traded Hamhuis and were unsuccessful in re-signing him in the off-season (or, signing another decent veteran D). Canucks defense is thin as is, and by trading a guy like Hamhuis, you'd force certain players into roles that they'd likely be too green for (or flat out, not good enough for).

When you do that, you then put far more pressure on your goalie with a weakened defense..........and since we are trying to groom Markstrom, I hardly think that putting Markstrom behind a WEAK defense would be the best way to develop him and groom his confidence.

That's why Hansen is a maybe. Try to get a first for him off his career year.

This is our defence with hamhuis traded.

Edler-Tanev
Hutton- 'x'
Sbisa-Biega

With guys like Pedan and maybe Tryamkin coming up and potential to sign FA d-men like Demers to replace that 'x'.

Hamhuis is 33, upcoming UFA need to get value for him. Asset management baby.

This defence is already below average and Markstrom is thriving.

 

[Horse McHindu]

that is a great success rate. everyone should deploy this strategy.

Edler and our 1st and Mathews is ours.

My congrats to you on creating a Strawman.

So what are you saying exactly? That moving up in a draft hardly ever occurs, or is an unwise strategy?

Remember that one time when Boston traded Phil Kessel to the Leafs?

 

[Horse McHindu]

That's why Hansen is a maybe. Try to get a first for him off his career year.

This is our defence with hamhuis traded.

Edler-Tanev
Hutton- 'x'
Sbisa-Biega

So if injuries to the defense in a given year are inevitable, what would the defense possibly look like then?

Hamhuis is 33, upcoming UFA need to get value for him. Asset management baby.

I agree with this, but did you read the 2nd part of my Hamhuis thought?

This defence is already below average and Markstrom is thriving.

And this justifies putting Markstrom behind what would then possibly be the worst defense in the NHL?

The goal of a rebuilding-retooling team should be to make things comfortable for their prospects. Push them slowly.

 

[LeftCoast]

Lou Lam knows how to tank.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

My congrats to you on creating a Strawman.

So what are you saying exactly? That moving up in a draft hardly ever occurs, or is an unwise strategy?

Remember that one time when Boston traded Phil Kessel to the Leafs?

You know that happened a year in advance of the draft, right? As in, it was a first round pick at the time, not a guaranteed top 5 pick. Big difference that you conveniently omitted, there.

The last time a top 5 pick was traded on draft day was 2004, 12 years ago. It was #4 (Andrew Ladd) for #8 (Alexandre Picard) and #59 (Kyle Wharton).

So, no it doesn't happen often (because teams aren't stupid, and don't want to gamble with picks that high).

 

[Knight53]

So if injuries to the defense in a given year are inevitable, what would the defense possibly look like then?



I agree with this, but did you read the 2nd part of my Hamhuis thought?



And this justifies putting Markstrom behind what would then possibly be the worst defense in the NHL?

The goal of a rebuilding-retooling team should be to make things comfortable for their prospects. Push them slowly.

So keeping Hamhuis...

Edler-Tanev
Hamhuis-Sbisa
Hutton-Beiga

Essentially what we have right now.

So if injuries to the defense in a given year are inevitable, what would the defense possibly look like then?

You wouldn't think this is a below average d-crop? What I listed doesn't look much worse could even possibly be better. Why is it fine for Markstom to play behind this defence?

You think Hamhuis is going to affect Markstrom's play even though he was thriving when he was injured.

Is sacrificing what could be a first round pick for UFA Hamhuis really worth it for a rebuilding team.

 

[VanJack]

Keep the faith tankers....Willie will come back with Miller tomorrow in Phoenix...guarantied loss night.

 

[geebaan]

Lou Lam knows how to tank.

The Leafs are gonna be better than us, basically guaranteed. Can't believe I am saying this, but that management looks to be doing exactly what they need to to win long term, and we look like we are gonna spin our wheels for the same amount of time.

 

[Bobby Digital]

Because it sets a bad precedent and example to the young players in our system. What type of message do you think it sends to guys like Horvat, Baertschi, Etem, Markstrom, McCann, Virtanen, Vey, Hutton, etc., when management deliberately 'tanks' via trade all/most vets? Players aren't stupid.

Establishing the integrity of a team is extremely important. That's how you get the young players to 'buy in' to the team code so that one day, they can become leaders on the team.

Players aren't dumb. They know if we trade guys like Hamhius, Vrbata, Burrows, Hansen etc that it will help us alot more in the future and it's probably the smartest move for the future of this team. If anything the younger guys might be more prideful as the realise that they will be the new core of the "new" Canucks. It may make them work harder.... who knows? But all this talk that you need all these vets to mentor these young kids is so annoying. How did guys like OEL and Risotolianen develop into #1 Dman after basically being thrown to the wolves early in their careers? Sure you want to bring the young guys along slowly and with the cap space we will have after moving out these vets we can sign other vets on short term deals that can shield these guys. How the Maple Leafs are going about the rebuild is exactly what we should be doing.

 

[canucks20]

I'm starting to get really worried that Benning is going to buy instead of sell at the deadline. Which may be the dumbest decision I have seen in the NHL.

 

[MISC*]

People need to get used to the reality of us picking 7-12th.

That should be the dialogue here.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm starting to get really worried that Benning is going to buy instead of sell at the deadline. Which may be the dumbest decision I have seen in the NHL.

But the integrity it will show. Oh just think of the integrity! Can't put a price on all that integrity baby.

 

[SniperHF]

Keep the faith tankers....Willie will come back with Miller tomorrow in Phoenix...guarantied loss night.

Unfortunately for you pro-tank folks (and Coyotes fans ) Miller has owned the Coyotes historically .

 

[Roy Baby*]

People need to get used to the reality of us picking 7-12th.

That should be the dialogue here.

And there's no difference in quality lmao getting livid over 2-3 spots is ridiculous. They'll be the same people saying "we shoulda took player B over player A !" , when historically you can do that for any team in any draft.. Drouin, Yakupov, Schenn, Johnson, Turris, Brule, Bogosian, Hodgson , etc. list goes on and on and I mixed it up from 1-10 for variety.

Higher chances sure , but not even close to the guarantee the young guys on this site like to think it is ...from the 7th to even 5 spots higher makes 0 difference

 

[ahmon]

I'm sure our young guys in 1999 didn't have too much of an issue when McCabe and a 1st were traded for Sedin.

Your 1999 Sedin example actually hurts your own argument. You are arguing that we don't "need" to have a top 5 pick because we can trade for one right?

If we didn't have a top 5 pick to being with, Burke wouldn't be able to pull off the robbery of getting both twins from the draft. He even stated that himself.

You are basically arguing its better to pay for something rather than getting it for free. Makes no sense.

And it really has very little to do with "integrity' when a team needs to get younger and it trades some veterans. It's reality.

 

[me2]

Your 1999 Sedin example actually hurts your own argument. You are arguing that we don't "need" to have a top 5 pick because we can trade for one right?

If we didn't have a top 5 pick to being with, Burke wouldn't be able to pull off the robbery of getting both twins from the draft. He even stated that himself.

You are basically arguing its better to pay for something rather than getting it for free. Makes no sense.

And it really has very little to do with "integrity' when a team needs to get younger and it trades some veterans. It's reality.

Not to mention the player we traded doesn't meet his criteria either.