The Tank Megathread | 8 | The Tank Awakens

[CanaFan]

I'd love to see an anti tank post without mentioning Edmonton.

I don't think I've ever seen one tbh.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Like I say, if they weren't brought up constantly by anti tankers (though perhaps not yourself) then it wouldn't elicit further discussions (and videos) on said team. It's not like the pro-tank crowd ever really brings them up.

If you want to cheer on a perennial basement dweller and one of the most pathetic pro sports franchises in the world in the past 10 years on the Canucks forum, by all means... But I'd suggest there isn't really a justification for it.

 

[CanaFan]

If you want to cheer on a perennial basement dweller and one of the most pathetic pro sports franchises in the world in the past 10 years on the Canucks forum, by all means... But I'd suggest there isn't really a justification for it.

Who's cheering them on? I didn't watch the video but I'm assuming it was a McDavid highlight or something, maybe to point out that tanking can get you good players or whatever. As I'm now saying for the 3rd time, it wasn't one of "us" who brought up the Oilers. It was - as usual - an anti tank proponent. Maybe you should make a motion at the next club meeting or something.

 

[lawrence]

hoping to get a 1st rounder from hamhius.

right now Florida has injuries to their D (Gudbranson, Mitchell)
St.Louis (Petriangelo is out for at least 3 weeks)
Dallas Stats (lacking Defensive depth, no joke, due to their lack of depth, unable to retain their number 1 spot in the NHL)

Hoping someone is desperate enough.

 

[Hit the post]

Who's cheering them on? I didn't watch the video but I'm assuming it was a McDavid highlight or something, maybe to point out that tanking can get you good players or whatever. As I'm now saying for the 3rd time, it wasn't one of "us" who brought up the Oilers. It was - as usual - an anti tank proponent. Maybe you should make a motion at the next club meeting or something.

Jimson ain't in the club...

 

[mathonwy]

Was thinking of Hamhuis, but Edler is intriguing...term left on his contact and a legitimate top-pairing d-man...just how desperate are the Blues, Rangers and Caps likely to be?...but Edler has a limited 'no-movement' clause in his contract, does he not?

Yup.

Edler would command a kings ransom.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I don't think I've ever seen one tbh.

It's not even just Edmonton. There are numerous "usual suspect" teams that have been at or near the bottom of the standings for the better part of 10-15 years.

Carolina, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Florida, Toronto, Calgary, Buffalo, New York Islanders, etc.

Even teams like St. Louis, Minnesota, Colorado, Dallas, etc., spent a number of years missing the playoffs over the past 10 years.

Before 2005, teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, Boston, etc., spent MANY years being irrelevant non-playoff teams.

My point is this: Can tanking work? Sure - if a team is willing to miss the playoffs for 5-7+ years to "strike oil" with a few high end picks, then by all means, tank.

However - for every Chicago, there is an Edmonton. For every Chicago, there is a Minnesota, St. Louis, or Nashville that end up being a middle-of-the-road teams anyways even after serving years of penance in the bottom 1/4th of the league.

Teams like Detroit, San Jose, and Vancouver have been the ideal way to carry an organization for the past 15 years in my opinion. Detroit won cups, San Jose should have won a cup (if it wasn't for freakishly mental fragility), and Vancouver came within a game of winning a cup...........all the while, consistently fielding competitive teams, and developing prospects while being able to successfully find ways to 'pass the torch' to the next core.

 

[VanillaCoke]

**** i forgot about vrbata ntc. That sucks

 

[Horse McHindu]

Given Vrbata's attitude this season (i.e. feeling slighted over not being given ample ice time with the twins), I'm pretty sure Vrbata would welcome the opportunity of being traded and playing for a contender (with the hope of driving up his value with an impressive playoff performance before becoming a UFA).

 

[Hit the post]

Given Vrbata's attitude this season (i.e. feeling slighted over not being given ample ice time with the twins), I'm pretty sure Vrbata would welcome the opportunity of being traded and playing for a contender (with the hope of driving up his value with an impressive playoff performance before becoming a UFA).

Seems like it was Vrbata himself that 'driving his value down' this past season so far...

 

[Horse McHindu]

Seems like it was Vrbata himself that 'driving his value down' this past season so far...

Agreed. Although in Vrbata's defense, none of the centers outside of Henrik really complement Vrbata's game that well. McCann is a little too green, while Horvat and Sutter aren't natural playmakers.

From Vrbata's perspective, there was no reason for him to be taken off the twin line. He produced 30 goals last season with the twins, and was mysteriously taken off that line before the playoffs. Vrbata always produced well with the twins, and wasn't really given a reason as to why he was being taken off that line (other than the fact that WD wanted to spread around the scoring talent to other lines).

 

[me2]

If you want to cheer on a perennial basement dweller and one of the most pathetic pro sports franchises in the world in the past 10 years on the Canucks forum, by all means... But I'd suggest there isn't really a justification for it.

Good luck with that because that is exactly where the Canucks are heading with the loss of so much trade value and subsequent futures. The Canucks are the oilers plus the Sedins minus the young stars. When the Sedins fade this team will be Edmonton minus McDavid or draisaitl or Hall.

 

[kanucks25]

Really need to stay in the top-7 so we can draft someone like Juolevi


Please lose.

 

[CanaFan]

It's not even just Edmonton. There are numerous "usual suspect" teams that have been at or near the bottom of the standings for the better part of 10-15 years.

Carolina, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Florida, Toronto, Calgary, Buffalo, New York Islanders, etc.

Even teams like St. Louis, Minnesota, Colorado, Dallas, etc., spent a number of years missing the playoffs over the past 10 years.

Before 2005, teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, Boston, etc., spent MANY years being irrelevant non-playoff teams.

My point is this: Can tanking work? Sure - if a team is willing to miss the playoffs for 5-7+ years to "strike oil" with a few high end picks, then by all means, tank.

However - for every Chicago, there is an Edmonton. For every Chicago, there is a Minnesota, St. Louis, or Nashville that end up being a middle-of-the-road teams anyways even after serving years of penance in the bottom 1/4th of the league.

Teams like Detroit, San Jose, and Vancouver have been the ideal way to carry an organization for the past 15 years in my opinion. Detroit won cups, San Jose should have won a cup (if it wasn't for freakishly mental fragility), and Vancouver came within a game of winning a cup...........all the while, consistently fielding competitive teams, and developing prospects while being able to successfully find ways to 'pass the torch' to the next core.

First of all I think you are mis-reading which teams are "perenially good". Vancouver missed playoffs from 1997-2000, 2006, 2008, 2014, and likely 2016. That is 6 of 19 seasons or nearly 1/3. Interestingly, the nucleus of the 2006-2012 teams were acquired with picks #2 and #3 in the 1999 draft ... a year we missed the playoffs and our worst season in the last 20 years. Hmmmm, interesting that.

We have not "consistently fielded competitive teams" nor have we "developed prospects". We have had several playoff misses and our longest consecutive playoff streak is only 5 years (2009-2013). We also had a run of 7 drafts between 2005 and 2011 where we only drafted 3 NHL regulars - Mason Raymond, Michael Grabner, and Cody Hodgson. That is the furthest thing from "developing prospects". Things look a bit better recently (2012-2015) however that has largely been aided by the dealing of two vets (Schneider, Kesler) to acquire picks used for Horvat and McCann. Of course dealing vets is something that us "tankers" want, so if you approve those moves then you are, to a large degree, agreeing with our "tank" methods.

And what exactly is the point of bringing up Detroit in this conversation? We are not Detroit. We do not have Detroit's track record of drafting and development excellence (see above for our recent draft drought). If we *were* Detroit, then we wouldn't have the second fewest regulation wins in the league and a core of players that is over 30 years of age. If we *were* Detroit, we would have a nice mix of vets, peak age players, and young developing players on our team.

So if I wake up tomorrow and we suddenly walk, talk, and act like the Detroit Red Wings organization, then by all means I will concede there is absolutely no need for this team to tank to acquire elite talent. But until then, citing Detroit as a reason we shouldn't tank is about as relevant as citing Bill Gates as a reason why I shouldn't need to go into work tomorrow.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

Really need to stay in the top-7 so we can draft someone like Juolevi


Please lose.

If we take Joulevi over Dubois, Chychrun, Nylander, McLeod, or even Sergachyov (whom I see as having considerably more offensive upside due to his puck skills), I'd be choked. Juolevi's a guy with Hamhuis-like potential, but the above guys, I feel, have more.

 

[sting101]

First of all I think you are mis-reading which teams are "perenially good". Vancouver missed playoffs from 1997-2000, 2006, 2008, 2014, and likely 2016. That is 6 of 19 seasons or nearly 1/3. Interestingly, the nucleus of the 2006-2012 teams were acquired with picks #2 and #3 in the 1999 draft ... a year we missed the playoffs and our worst season in the last 20 years. Hmmmm, interesting that.

We have not "consistently fielded competitive teams" nor have we "developed prospects". We have had several playoff misses and our longest consecutive playoff streak is only 5 years (2009-2013). We also had a run of 7 drafts between 2005 and 2011 where we only drafted 3 NHL regulars - Mason Raymond, Michael Grabner, and Cody Hodgson. That is the furthest thing from "developing prospects". Things look a bit better recently (2012-2015) however that has largely been aided by the dealing of two vets (Schneider, Kesler) to acquire picks used for Horvat and McCann. Of course dealing vets is something that us "tankers" want, so if you approve those moves then you are, to a large degree, agreeing with our "tank" methods.

And what exactly is the point of bringing up Detroit in this conversation? We are not Detroit. We do not have Detroit's track record of drafting and development excellence (see above for our recent draft drought). If we *were* Detroit, then we wouldn't have the second fewest regulation wins in the league and a core of players that is over 30 years of age. If we *were* Detroit, we would have a nice mix of vets, peak age players, and young developing players on our team.

So if I wake up tomorrow and we suddenly walk, talk, and act like the Detroit Red Wings organization, then by all means I will concede there is absolutely no need for this team to tank to acquire elite talent. But until then, citing Detroit as a reason we shouldn't tank is about as relevant as citing Bill Gates as a reason why I shouldn't need to go into work tomorrow.

great post Cana Fan

 

[CherryToke]

Assuming we get full value, trading Edler would be the best deadline move I could hope for. he's our best chance at accelerating this rebuild.

 

[CherryToke]

Like Arizona did with Yandle.

 

[Zombotron]

Assuming we get full value, trading Edler would be the best deadline move I could hope for. he's our best chance at accelerating this rebuild.

Do want. Too bad he's locked into another NTC-special, making things ten times more difficult. ****'s sake.

 

[SillyRabbit]

I don't see the NTC's being a big deal.

Step 1:

We tell the players we are starting a rebuild.

Step 2:

Almost none of them will be on board with this, and will be happy to be traded to a contender.

Step 3:

???

Step 4:

Profit.


IMO it will be harder to convince Benning to sell then it would be to convince the players to waive and be traded to a contender.

 

[me2]

Just don't spring it on them mid-season when they are settled and may not be ready.

 

[Horse McHindu]

First of all I think you are mis-reading which teams are "perenially good". Vancouver missed playoffs from 1997-2000, 2006, 2008, 2014, and likely 2016.

Actually, my sample size was "10-15 years." Therefore, 1997-2000 is irrelevant to the conversation.

Interestingly, the nucleus of the 2006-2012 teams were acquired with picks #2 and #3 in the 1999 draft ... a year we missed the playoffs and our worst season in the last 20 years. Hmmmm, interesting that.

I get it. Teams that eventually become great, usually have atleast 1-2 high end draft picks. But since we're on the subject of drafting, we should at least be cognisant of the fact that not all high end first round picks are 'home runs."

You mention the Canucks time period between 1997-2000. Who did we draft during those years? Brad Ference, Bryan Allen, the twins (we traded McCabe and a 1st btw), and Nathan Smith. In 1996, we drafted Josh Holden. In 2001, we drafted R.J. Umberger. Now granted - the Canucks drafting record has been historically dreadful, but most teams do not consistently hit home-runs with high end first round picks.

And that's the biggest point I want to make. If the Canucks are going to deliberately 'tank' via selling off all/most vets at this year's deadline (as many posters on here would like to see), it's not like the Canucks will automatically start landing franchise players that can lead the next core.

And even if you do land 1-2 franchise players, it could be YEARS before you reap the benefits (i.e. case in point - the twins being drafted in 1999, and not becoming great players until 2005-2006).

People point to teams like Chicago, LA, Pittsburgh, etc., as wonderful examples of teams that "made it" via tanking, but how many years did these teams struggle before they hit their home-runs?

And again - even if you do struggle for 6-10 years with little to no post-season appearances, what guarantees are there that you don't just become a middle-of-the-road team again a la St. Louis/Minnesota?

We have not "consistently fielded competitive teams" nor have we "developed prospects". We have had several playoff misses and our longest consecutive playoff streak is only 5 years (2009-2013).

Again, my sample size was 15 years. Another way of looking at is this: Between 2000 and 2013, we only missed the playoffs twice. 2006 and 2008.

We also had a run of 7 drafts between 2005 and 2011 where we only drafted 3 NHL regulars - Mason Raymond, Michael Grabner, and Cody Hodgson. That is the furthest thing from "developing prospects".

I agree with you on that, but that is not what I was talking about. What I was alluding to, was the fact that guys like Naslund, Bertuzzi, Sedin twins, Kesler, and Schneider weren't "rushed" or thrown to the wolves. They were put in roles where they could slowly grow their games, and were also put in roles that complemented their respective skill-sets. Messier's presence and mentorship helped mold Naslund.

The presence of the WCE allowed the Sedins' to play secondary roles. Even in 2005/2006 when the twins had overtaken the WCE as the teams' most efficient line, Crawford made sure that they weren't being over-exerted (i.e. WCE still had as much ice-time, if not more, than the Sedin time despite the twins being significantly superior at that point).

Same thing with Kesler a few years later, and Corey Schneider a few years after that. Schneider for instance, was likely ready to be a starting goalie at the start of the 2010/2011 season but the Canucks made sure that he wasn't "thrusted" into that role.

If Naslund had been a 1st line winger in 1997, he would've flopped. Same as Bertuzzi in 1999. Ditto for the twins as 1st liners in 2003, Kesler as a 2nd line C in 2007, and Schneider as a starting goalie in 2009/2010.

The reason why I used those as examples, is because I see too many people on here wanting to trade all/most vets (tanking), which would then throw many of our current prospects/young players into roles that they aren't ready for yet. They fail to acknowledge the mentorship aspect of prospect development, along with playing kids in roles that they are comfortable with.

-I do not want to see Bo Horvat anywhere the first line center position........yet
-I do not want to see Ben Hutton anywhere near our top pairing...........yet
-I do not want to see guys like Sven Baertschi on our top line.......yet
-I do not want to see guys like Emerson Etem, Jake Virtanen, Jared McCann, etc. being counted on to score in Top 6 roles........yet.

However - if we tank via veteran sell-off, this is exactly what we'd be doing if injuries inevitably occurred.

Things look a bit better recently (2012-2015) however that has largely been aided by the dealing of two vets (Schneider, Kesler) to acquire picks used for Horvat and McCann. Of course dealing vets is something that us "tankers" want, so if you approve those moves then you are, to a large degree, agreeing with our "tank" methods.

I am all for trading vets, but not all at once via fire sale. My stance is that we should trade vets in the final year of their contracts, IF the position can be successfully filled by a young guy/prospect in our system (or if said young guy/prospect has shown major signs of being able to fill the void). For instance - at the start of this season, I wanted to move Chris Higgins due to what Sven Baertschi displayed in Utica.

For this season, I want to see Vrbata moved. I have reservations about Hamhuis because I think our defense moving forward would be too weak (which could actually hurt the rebuilding process), but I'm willing to move Hammer for a 1st with an oral agreement that we re-sign Hammer in the off-season.

Next season - focus on moving Burrows and Miller. 2018 = Sedins' and Hansen, 2020 = Edler.

And what exactly is the point of bringing up Detroit in this conversation? We are not Detroit. We do not have Detroit's track record of drafting and development excellence (see above for our recent draft drought). If we *were* Detroit, then we wouldn't have the second fewest regulation wins in the league and a core of players that is over 30 years of age. If we *were* Detroit, we would have a nice mix of vets, peak age players, and young developing players on our team.

My only point in bringing up Detroit was to show that an organization doesn't necessarily need to tank to succeed. Even a non-cup winner like San Jose, has done a good job of fielding consistently competitive teams. I like the Detroit/San Jose model. I don't like the idea of possibly missing the playoffs for 6-10 years, and *maybe* striking oil like Chicago did. Teams like St. Louis, Minnesota, etc., also had a long stretch of missing the playoffs in the last decade, and are just a upper middle-of-the-road after all that tanking.

 

[banme*]

I don't see the NTC's being a big deal.

Step 1:

We tell the players we are starting a rebuild.

Step 2:

Almost none of them will be on board with this, and will be happy to be traded to a contender.

Step 3:

???

Step 4:

Profit.


IMO it will be harder to convince Benning to sell then it would be to convince the players to waive and be traded to a contender.

Ahhh YES it's so simplE!

God damn your posts are intellectually dishonest.

 

[clunk]

If this team doesn't sell imma be so pissed

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Good luck with that because that is exactly where the Canucks are heading with the loss of so much trade value and subsequent futures. The Canucks are the oilers plus the Sedins minus the young stars. When the Sedins fade this team will be Edmonton minus McDavid or draisaitl or Hall.

doomsday! Why get up in the morning?