We just had our GM tell us that we're going to "suffer".
That's as blatant of an admission of "we're going to tank because we want a top-3 pick and that's how you do it" as you'll ever hear.
Uh...no. That's an admission of reality. Committing to the draft and the process of developing players means that the team will be bad in that transition time. He also said that he wants that process to be as short as possible and that he'd even like to keep Vanek and Miller during that time.
Tanking is spending near the cap floor and caring about profit margin only, refusing to ice a competitive team.
FWIW, here's how much "tanking" went on down the stretch...
Fla - beat Ott and NYR in the last ten games.
Col - beat Anh, Van, St.L.
TB - beat Tor and Ott
Nsh - played horribly, but against a very tough schedule
Car - beat NYI and Bos
Cal - beat Min, Anh, Det
Edm - beat Min and Van
Buf - we all know what they did to "tank"
So the only possible team you could point to is Nashville. Every other team cared about "tanking" so much that they beat several playoff teams toward the end.
I can understand the sentiment, but I think most teams still try to win games, and a a very few examples of futility cloud our thoughts.
That's not the only reason.
I think it's absurd that a team, once mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, is quite literally punished for winning.
It would also, IMO, cause #1 picks to be more spread out among the teams. A team that finishes last is probably several pieces away from competing - and they're probably in the position they are in because of incompetent roster building and/or poor coaching. And they get bailed out with the best player in a draft year. Meanwhile, a team that finishes just out of the playoffs who adds a #1 pick could very easily be a playoff team the next year. (And obviously, using a random distribution, even if you had the same 14 non-playoff teams the chance of the same team getting #1 two years in a row would be less than 10%).