As we head into the stretch run of the 2021-22 season, PHR is excited to announce a new feature aimed at encouraging discourse between reader and writer. On Friday mornings (and perhaps even more often than that), we’ll post a topic of discussion that we think will draw out varied and interesting perspectives from both our commenters and the other staff writers.
For too long there has only been a couple of outlets for our readers to interact with the PHR staff. Live chats and mailbags offer a chance at some discussion, but also run the risk of being too crowded or even outdated by the time the answer arrives. With this new feature, we’re hoping to get weekly chatter going on a topic that normally would have to be brought into the spotlight by a reader before even being discussed.
Last week, the discussion centered around the playoff structure and how it could be improved moving forward. This time, let’s discuss the idea of a “scorched earth” rebuild, and whether embracing a “tank” season to secure a higher draft position is really the best way forward.
Is it worth it to add a few points of lottery points to your chart, at the cost of playing terrible hockey in front of your fans for months (if not years)? What about the “culture of losing” which is referenced so often when a team fails to live up to expectations? Does it make a difference whether the team is a small market or classic hockey powerhouse? This will be a free-flowing discussion that doesn’t have a lot of guidelines, so make sure you chime in and check regularly to continue the conversation.
Again, unfortunately this was delayed by the death of an NHL legend. If you want to use this space to discuss the greatness that was Guy Lafleur, go right ahead.
For me, the tank isn’t at all equal for every team. There is a real difference between an established, usually-successful team leaning into a single bad season, and a team that is already struggling doing even more to finish at the bottom of the league.
I’ll use an example from another sport. The Golden State Warriors, after reaching the finals in five straight seasons, ended up going 15-50 in 2019-20, as injuries basically robbed them of any chance of competing. They leaned in though, knowing it would be short-lived, and added the second pick in the draft (though Wiseman hasn’t been what was expected). They’re back to 53-29 this year, and up 3-0 on the Nuggets.
On the other side of that, a team like Philadelphia I think is trying to do the same thing, and I don’t know if it’s going to work. The Flyers have obviously accepted that this is a bad year, sold off everything they could and hope to compete again next season. But that turnaround is a lot harder to accomplish–even mentally–than I think we sometimes understand.
Apples and oranges.
The difference here is basketball teams can be defined by 1 or 2 players. Historically adding a Lebron James (not now of course) made you a contender.
In the NHL – should the flyers have kept the core intact and added a superstar (say, Letang) they wouldn’t immediately become contenders. Just the difference in sport and ice time /floor time.
They didn’t add a superstar though, was kind of my point. Wiseman hasn’t even really played. They just increased their asset by leaning into a tank season that was caused by injuries, which seems to be the plan for Philadelphia here as well.
I guess it is kinda a tough comparison, my point was more just I think it’s a lot harder to turn things around once you embrace losing, if you weren’t already a successful organization. The Flyers have won one playoff series in a decade, and yet they seem to be expecting a quick bounce back.
I think for the Flyers it is a top down issue starting with ownership. I don’t think it has been a coincidence they have had a lack of success since Snyder passed away. He always had a vision for the organization and a demand for excellence.
The new way the team has run reminds me more of the New York Knicks if you want to stick with the basketball analogy. Any time the Knicks get a semblance of success or one good young player they always cut corners trying to be contenders again and it always ends up costing them.
The Flyers had some young prospects they never developed correctly and repeatedly changed coaching and GM philosophies. They then found one or two seasons off success and assumed a number of guys would take leaps they never did and went out and spent big in terms of cap and draft capital for Hayes, Ellis, and Risto. Farabee is nice and Konecny, Hart, and Provorov are inconsistent when it comes to meeting expectations and I like York. I still think though that they don’t have a good enough core that reminds you of contenders in the past and really need to take a year or 2 to rebuild properly.
Adding LBJ still makes you a contender. If you have even an average supporting cast.
He had a great year this year even though the team performance hid it.
His minutes per game and points per game and WS per game were all up this year as he tried to over come Pelinkas disaster.
He played so hard it may affect him next season. Certainly he’s starting to get injured a lot now.
Maybe it is because I am also a Sixers fan and loved the whole Trust The Process plan, but I never understood the problem with tanking. I think it is worse to have a high pick by accident because you planned on being competitive and are just bad at it vs long term planning. I am glad that the Flyers are finally tanking during the second half of the season as they were stuck in the middle of nowhere trying to compete with an injured team with young guys who haven’t developed.
I agree with Getting high draft picks by accident is not the best move. Most Gms have no clue what to do with the golden ticket when they get it, unless they planned on it. So the process maybe painful
But it worked in hockey ( blackhawks) and seems to be working in philly.
I think if teams add an ageing veteran chasing a milestone (ie 500 goals) or trying to pad a hall of fame resume, knowing he will be flipped to a contender at the deadline for additional picks. Then fans won’t care because there is something to watch and talk about other then the win/loss record. Another thing this does is it shelters young players from playing harder minutes until they are ready. Best example I can think of his when the Islanders signed Doug Weight and Bill Guerin. The fans get upset when teams sign a marginal player to a 3 year deal just so the team can pretend they are doing something in free agency.
Ultimately, there is no one right way to build a team. A franchise will try something, and if it works, other franchises will try it to varying levels of success. We’ve seen this in all of sports. What separates a team with consistent success from a team that fails? It’s smart people, with a well-formulated plan that they stick too. It’s less than about the plan itself, whatever that is, than the people who are pulling it off.
Look at the Oilers. They have two of the top 3-5 best players in the league but haven’t been able to make it happen. Why? What are they not doing that teams like the Blues or Bruins do to stay contenders year after year?
My point is that there are many ways to build a team, and tanking is one of them. If you have a smart front office with a consistent plan, then it will usually lead to some level of success. I don’t have an issue with tanking in and of itself.
That being said, I don’t think it’s the best way to build a team with a lottery system. It leaves too much up to chance and luck. There is a level of luck to all championships, of course, but a smart front office probably doesn’t pin their entire hopes upon something as fickle as a lottery. Unless you’re the Sabres….
Does tanking even work in the NHL in the salary cap era? I think there’s substantial evidence to suggest that it doesn’t. One player, however good, does not make a team in the NHL and with the death of the bridge deal they’re not likely to provide years of cap relief either to boost other parts of the roster, like an NFL QB locked into a five-year rookie deal. The Edmonton Oilers tried and failed over and over to use top picks alone to build their team. Even with two all-world players on the roster now as a result, they are still a fringe contender at best.
Here are the bottom third teams in points percentage in the salary cap era:
T-30. Arizona Coyotes
T-30. Edmonton Oilers
28. Buffalo Sabres
27. Columbus Blue Jackets
26. New York Islanders
25. Ottawa Senators
24. New Jersey Devils
23. Los Angeles Kings
22. Winnipeg Jets (Atlanta Thrashers)
Seven of these nine teams are missing the playoffs this year and the other two play in the weakest division. If tanking worked, would the worst teams of the past 16 years still largely be the worst teams of today?
The Kings never tanked. In fact they tried to pretend they were contending for two consecutive seasons when they were clearly not.
The rebuild has been impressive. And a lot of the value came from smart acquisitions other than early draft picks.
Turcotte is still in the AHL and Byfield has been a 3-4 liner at best so far.
If those two can eventually justify their draft slots the Kings will be right back in the Cup mix.
I have been thinking about this a lot with the Oilers and somewhat with the Maple Leafs. Back when the Crosby Penguins dynasty was built and even when the Kane and Toews Blackhawks were built it seemed high end talent all drafted together seemed the best plan for prolonged contending success. Now with team building it is almost like you get punished for drafting McDavid and Draisaitl. They take up too much cap and it would be almost better to have a lot of top 50-100 players instead of 2-3 top 10-25 players.
I know that they have all the financial issues, but this is why I wish there was a better way to reward teams for drafting and developing players well by letting home grown stars either exceed the cap or have it so their contacts have smaller cap hits.
The Kings have won two Stanley Cups in the last ten years, and have made the playoffs more than they missed, so they are an odd example to use. On top of that, arguably their two best players during that stretch, and even now (when healthy) were high draft picks taken during lean years (Kopitar and Doughty.)
Those around the team would tell you they did not tank, but they were not trying to compete, so what’s your definition of ‘tanking?’ Ultimately, the team has turned the corner and is flirting with a 100 point season even with those high draft picks not contributing yet.
Some of the most successful teams of the last ten years or so (Kings, Blackhawks, Penguins) all have won led by high draft picks after multiple bad seasons, whether they called it tanking or not.
I’m not sure that tanking’s worked all that well in ANY era. Quebec/Colorado didn’t turn into a champion by having several wretched seasons. It turned into a champion by trading Eric Lindros for an obscene package.
I have an issue with the Senators who traded everyone, every season. That appears to be a sign of cheap ownership. When the Sens won, it was more a sign of luck, than quality of play.
I like how teams in the NHL are not afraid to take on bad contracts with an asset with the hopes of turning a player around. This is one of the strengths of the league.
Anyone complaining about the Kings is off point. They are in trouble because they paid their players from the Cup runs. Brown and Quick were/are locked in long term contracts.
So much depends on a teams situation and their history. Case in point- I’m a Columbus Blue Jackets fan and full season ticket holder. An all out tank would not work here because the fanbase has waited a long time to be competitive and an all out teardown would create an extremely cynical fanbase. I heard Steve Yzerman say to do an all out teardown and rebuild takes at least 7 years and maybe as much as 10. That might be acceptable in Detroit or Pittsburgh where they have won a lot and the fans might have more faith in the system and the management’s ability to return them to past glory, but at this stage of the game, that wouldn’t work in Columbus or Buffalo.
The Blue Jackets were run by Doug McLean their first nine years and he did not do a good job. I get tired of hearing McLean blame the Jackets ownership for his failure. The fact is, since McLean was shown the door, no other team seems anxious to give him a GM position, which Tells you what the rest of the league thinks of McLean. McLean was followed by Scott Howson, who had things going in the right direction as the club made their first playoff appearance. Howson then doomed himself with the horrible trade of Jakub Voracek to Philadelphia, along with two draft picks the Flyers turned in to Sean Couturier and Nick Cousins. Carter threw a fit. The first of two guys to actually ask to get out of Columbus (DuBois being the other) and the Jackets were forced to move him for Jack Johnson and a pick that became future Hall of Famer Marko Dano. By hall of famer , I’m talking about the hall of fame of bad draft picks. That fiasco cost Howson his job.
Enter Jarmo. Under Jarmo the Jackets have 5 playoff appearances, including four in a row. The team Jarmo is currently putting together will be the first one where every player on the team was one he brought in rather have to make do with a player he was stuck with that might not have fit his vision for the team he’d like to have. Boone Jenner is the only player on this year’s team not brought in by the current administration. The Jackets have over achieved this year. Improvement next year is not an assurance, there will have to be more re-tooling. I’d rather go down the road they are going down now, then to be in an Arizona type situation where you risk losing the fanbase for good.
As for those who want to argue my previous comment about Carter and DuBois being the only ones to beg out of Columbus, be advised, Bobrovsky wanted to be the highest paid goalie in the league at 10 million per. The Jackets said “No”. Florida gave him the contract. It cost the GM his job. Panarin told both Chicago and Columbus he was headed to New York at the end of his contract. It’s funny how people think he was dying to leave Columbus, but not Chicago. In the end, we found out his girlfriend was a model in Russia and was hoping to jumpstart her career in North America, but didn’t think she could do it in Chicago or Columbus. So off to new York they went. She hasn’t done it in New York either. Matt Duchene was interested in staying until Nashville overpaid him. His first two years he was making 10 million to underperform. This year, he’s having a career year, but at no time did he disrespect Columbus. Dzingel? Dzingel? C’mon, no one wants him. He couldn’t make it in the Jamaican league. That leaves DuBois, who was an RFA and many suspect Montreal was trying to acquire him without having to dole out the draft pick compensation required to sign him away from Columbus. It didn’t work. At this point I’d rather have Laine and Roslovic. At least they don’t need their diapers changed in between periods.
In the mid-2010’s baseball fans became convinced that tanking was better than winning the World Series (of particular note, the Red Sox fans who hated Dombrowski for winning a WS because he depleted the farm system…just absurdly backwards thinking) and hockey started following suit.
But, it’s so hard to rebuild a culture of winning after losing rots the structure of your organization. It’s like water damage.
You have to be surgical (have a plan to minimize the rebuild time) and still get lucky.
The Pens acquired Whitney, MAF and Geno through a precise and remorseless rebuild and still needed a little luck to add Sid.
The Rangers are a good recent example. They had a plan, did it fast and got lucky along the way (winning the lottery twice, though neither guy has broken out yet).
I think the tank has its place, but in the cap era, with a draft lottery, it’s not really the most useful tool. I’ll use a comparison here.
Think of some of the more notorious tank-teams the past 5 or so years: Ottawa, Buffalo, Detroit, Arizona come to mind. I’d say Ottawa and Detroit’s build is coming together nicely, though both builds took some time. Arizona has seemed to be a “tank for four years, have a chance for one, repeat” team, and some of it can just be blamed on failure to keep the talent they grow. Buffalo has been in a tank much longer with little to no results besides Jack Eichel until now.
Now flip the switch to the New York Rangers. In February of 2018, their management actually wrote an open letter to fans telling them this kind of tank was coming. This was well after the tanks mentioned above had begun. The Rangers look like they have a legitimate shot at their division and maybe even the Cup this year. The difference? The Rangers actually didn’t tank. They developed the talent they had, looked to add more, and used the pieces they sold off to keep the development up.
“Well, they basically won two draft lotteries, getting Kakko and Lafreniere!” That they did, and while both have been decent and a part of this team, they haven’t lived up to their billing yet. Even if they had, the Rangers didn’t tank for these guys, they just went out, played hockey, and got lucky after missing the playoffs, akin to the Flyers securing the second overall pick in 2017.
My overall point here, is there’s nothing wrong with the tank, if that’s how you want it to go, but it isn’t the one and only if you’re looking to rebuild. But, buyer-beware, because (i) you may never get the superstar prospect you think you’ll get (McDavid, Matthews, etc.) if you never win that lottery, and (ii) the year you win the lottery, you may get your no-doubt, can’t miss prospect, who doesn’t pan out.