DA Champion... please change the thread title. 'Tank' opens up all kinds of arguments that should even happen in this thread. Everyone agrees that the team shouldn't lose on purpose and the term 'tanking' implies this.
A few more depressing games like this and I'm on board...but, we still have 47 games left to play and I am playoff hungry. I'm not giving up on this team until we're statistically no longer in the run.
DA Champion... please change the thread title. 'Tank' opens up all kinds of arguments that should even happen in this thread. Everyone agrees that the team shouldn't lose on purpose and the term 'tanking' implies this.
I've already called it a cat and it's on public record with a 40 page thread that must include a few hundred of my posts. All the forum regulars have seen the thread, it was up for several months.
If the Habs win the Stanley Cup this year I'm sure you and a few dozen other posters will regularly quote my thread following every disagreement I ever have with anybody for the next few years :-)
I've already called it a cat and it's on public record with a 40 page thread that must include a few hundred of my posts. All the forum regulars have seen the thread, it was up for several months.
If the Habs win the Stanley Cup this year I'm sure you and a few dozen other posters will regularly quote my thread following every disagreement I ever have with anybody for the next few years :-)
huh... y post was just about TANK vs REBUILD, in case you missed it
My choice of the term "surgical" is that I think a rebuild/tank/evaluation/rebuild/development can be done very "precisely" (hence, surgical, like a surgical missile strike), that this will lead to better results.
If we look at bottom-dwellers of the past decade, a point that I think needs to be made is that the worst way to rebuild is to be sucked into the sucking mode kicking and screaming trying to hold on to 8th place for dear life. When teams that should be rebuilding try to make 8th place, they often fail. Here are some examples:
- Toronto. Toronto is a team that should have rebuilt at the latest when Burke was hired, when they finally got rid of most of the Mukoska five or whatever. However, they tried to "make the playoffs", they traded two firsts for Phil Kessell, and they signed a lot of long-term contracts on the UFA market. They then proceeded to suck for years, drafting Rielly last year. They're going to suck again this year, and probably the year after that. A lot of their problems are also due to the fact they dealt away the pick that became Tuuka Rask to get Andrew Raycroft, and that they gave away a high pick (13th?) to get Vesa Toskala.
- Columbus. The Blue Jackets have also been trying to make the playoffs. A decade ago, they got Rick Nash, a player good enough to prevent them from drafting top-5, but not good enough to be the core of a championship team. They then got a hot year out of Steve Mason, and made the playoffs. Following this, they wanted to make the playoffs again. They acquired Wisniewski on the UFA market, Prospal on the UFA market, and they traded Jacub Voracek and Sean Couturier for Jeff Carter. They ended up finishing last. After a decade of mediocrity, their attempts to make the playoffs dragged them into last place, kicking and screaming.
- Edmonton. They made the Stanley Cup finals in 2006. They subsequently signed players like Sheldon Sourray and Shawn Horcoff to bad long-term contracts, and have subsequently sucked year in and year out with no way out. It was long and painful for Edmonton fans.
- Long Island. Tried to be a contender under GM Mike Millbury and traded Jokinen, Reden, Berard, Brewer, McCabe, Luongo, Spezza, Bertuzzi, and Chara. A decade of sucking followed.
I see teams like Calgary and potentially San Jose going through this process in the near future. The five year sucking jobs happen when teams that are bad try to make the polayoffs or try to make the playoffs, it's an inferior strategy to building from within with the exception of when you're very good and thus close; for example when Boston added Kelley, Horton, Kaberle and Peverley in the year leading up to their cup win.
In the subsequent thread, I proposed a novel strategy: to enter a rebuild on our own terms rather than to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. I argued that with the additional power gained from being active rather than being reactive we could complete the job quickly.
Thus far, the only argument presented against this proposed innovation is the circular counterargument that this innovative strategy has not been tried before. That is not a valid counterargument.
My choice of the term "surgical" is that I think a rebuild/tank/evaluation/rebuild/development can be done very "precisely" (hence, surgical, like a surgical missile strike), that this will lead to better results.
If we look at bottom-dwellers of the past decade, a point that I think needs to be made is that the worst way to rebuild is to be sucked into the sucking mode kicking and screaming trying to hold on to 8th place for dear life. When teams that should be rebuilding try to make 8th place, they often fail. Here are some examples:
- Toronto. Toronto is a team that should have rebuilt at the latest when Burke was hired, when they finally got rid of most of the Mukoska five or whatever. However, they tried to "make the playoffs", they traded two firsts for Phil Kessell, and they signed a lot of long-term contracts on the UFA market. They then proceeded to suck for years, drafting Rielly last year. They're going to suck again this year, and probably the year after that. A lot of their problems are also due to the fact they dealt away the pick that became Tuuka Rask to get Andrew Raycroft, and that they gave away a high pick (13th?) to get Vesa Toskala.
- Columbus. The Blue Jackets have also been trying to make the playoffs. A decade ago, they got Rick Nash, a player good enough to prevent them from drafting top-5, but not good enough to be the core of a championship team. They then got a hot year out of Steve Mason, and made the playoffs. Following this, they wanted to make the playoffs again. They acquired Wisniewski on the UFA market, Prospal on the UFA market, and they traded Jacub Voracek and Sean Couturier for Jeff Carter. They ended up finishing last. After a decade of mediocrity, their attempts to make the playoffs dragged them into last place, kicking and screaming.
- Edmonton. They made the Stanley Cup finals in 2006. They subsequently signed players like Sheldon Sourray and Shawn Horcoff to bad long-term contracts, and have subsequently sucked year in and year out with no way out. It was long and painful for Edmonton fans.
- Long Island. Tried to be a contender under GM Mike Millbury and traded Jokinen, Reden, Berard, Brewer, McCabe, Luongo, Spezza, Bertuzzi, and Chara. A decade of sucking followed.
I see teams like Calgary and potentially San Jose going through this process in the near future. The five year sucking jobs happen when teams that are bad try to make the polayoffs or try to make the playoffs, it's an inferior strategy to building from within with the exception of when you're very good and thus close; for example when Boston added Kelley, Horton, Kaberle and Peverley in the year leading up to their cup win.
In the subsequent thread, I proposed a novel strategy: to enter a rebuild on our own terms rather than to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. I argued that with the additional power gained from being active rather than being reactive we could complete the job quickly.
Thus far, the only argument presented against this proposed innovation is the circular counterargument that this innovative strategy has not been tried before. That is not a valid counterargument.
Yep. I esp love the Leaf example. A team that traded it's first rounder pretty much every year and then would go after guys like Jason Blake. Running hard to stand still and it's no wonder they haven't made the playoffs in a decade.
We're so close to building a winner... add a few elite pieces for the future and we're in amazing shape.
The REAL problem that I see is that most of the fans on this board consistently overrate our team. They did it when we had Koivu. They did it when we had Gomez and they're doing it now. No matter what moves our GM makes there are a lot of people who will defend it.
Then come the false objections on why we can't rebuild.
My choice of the term "surgical" is that I think a rebuild/tank/evaluation/rebuild/development can be done very "precisely" (hence, surgical, like a surgical missile strike), that this will lead to better results.
If we look at bottom-dwellers of the past decade, a point that I think needs to be made is that the worst way to rebuild is to be sucked into the sucking mode kicking and screaming trying to hold on to 8th place for dear life. When teams that should be rebuilding try to make 8th place, they often fail. Here are some examples:
- Toronto. Toronto is a team that should have rebuilt at the latest when Burke was hired, when they finally got rid of most of the Mukoska five or whatever. However, they tried to "make the playoffs", they traded two firsts for Phil Kessell, and they signed a lot of long-term contracts on the UFA market. They then proceeded to suck for years, drafting Rielly last year. They're going to suck again this year, and probably the year after that. A lot of their problems are also due to the fact they dealt away the pick that became Tuuka Rask to get Andrew Raycroft, and that they gave away a high pick (13th?) to get Vesa Toskala.
- Columbus. The Blue Jackets have also been trying to make the playoffs. A decade ago, they got Rick Nash, a player good enough to prevent them from drafting top-5, but not good enough to be the core of a championship team. They then got a hot year out of Steve Mason, and made the playoffs. Following this, they wanted to make the playoffs again. They acquired Wisniewski on the UFA market, Prospal on the UFA market, and they traded Jacub Voracek and Sean Couturier for Jeff Carter. They ended up finishing last. After a decade of mediocrity, their attempts to make the playoffs dragged them into last place, kicking and screaming.
- Edmonton. They made the Stanley Cup finals in 2006. They subsequently signed players like Sheldon Sourray and Shawn Horcoff to bad long-term contracts, and have subsequently sucked year in and year out with no way out. It was long and painful for Edmonton fans.
- Long Island. Tried to be a contender under GM Mike Millbury and traded Jokinen, Reden, Berard, Brewer, McCabe, Luongo, Spezza, Bertuzzi, and Chara. A decade of sucking followed.
I see teams like Calgary and potentially San Jose going through this process in the near future. The five year sucking jobs happen when teams that are bad try to make the polayoffs or try to make the playoffs, it's an inferior strategy to building from within with the exception of when you're very good and thus close; for example when Boston added Kelley, Horton, Kaberle and Peverley in the year leading up to their cup win.
In the subsequent thread, I proposed a novel strategy: to enter a rebuild on our own terms rather than to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. I argued that with the additional power gained from being active rather than being reactive we could complete the job quickly.
Thus far, the only argument presented against this proposed innovation is the circular counterargument that this innovative strategy has not been tried before. That is not a valid counterargument.
You know Boston traded one of their best young players the year before winning the cup right ?
Yep. I esp love the Leaf example. A team that traded it's first rounder pretty much every year and then would go after guys like Jason Blake. Running hard to stand still and it's no wonder they haven't made the playoffs in a decade.
We're so close to building a winner... add a few elite pieces for the future and we're in amazing shape.
The REAL problem that I see is that most of the fans on this board consistently overrate our team. They did it when we had Koivu. They did it when we had Gomez and they're doing it now. No matter what moves our GM makes there are a lot of people who will defend it.
Then come the false objections on why we can't rebuild.
by then, Pac, Price, Eller and co will be 30 or close to it...
arguments ? more like opinions not based on facts.
No, arguments based on facts and logical sequences.
I don't think you were even present for most of the thread so you might have not even read them. You should ask me to specify rather than jumping to conclusions.
I think 2015-2018 is a legitimate and plausible stanley cup window. It could be even longer but it's hard to project much further.
- Eller, Subban, Price, Pacioretty, Emelin, will all be in their prime;
- Galchenyuk, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Ellis, Collberg, (Jones?) will be good by then even if not yet in their primes;
At the end of the day it will depend on what UFAs we add in to take up the cap space and roster spots cleared by the departured of Gionta, etc and the trade history between now and then.
No, arguments based on facts and logical sequences.
I don't think you were even present for most of the thread so you might have not even read them. You should ask me to specify rather than jumping to conclusions.
I think 2015-2018 is a legitimate and plausible stanley cup window. It could be even longer but it's hard to project much further.
- Eller, Subban, Price, Pacioretty, Emelin, will all be in their prime;
- Galchenyuk, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Ellis, Collberg, (Jones?) will be good by then even if not yet in their primes;
At the end of the day it will depend on what UFAs we add in to take up the cap space and roster spots cleared by the departured of Gionta, etc and the trade history between now and then.
facts as in, it works and it's been proven ?
don't think so...
GOOD ? as in 3rd line and bottom pairing good or as in top line and top pair good ? you also assume all of them will be regular NHLers by then ? will Pac find the same chimestry with another C than DD ? after his contract, once he's UFA will Emelin stay a Habs or will he go elsewhere ?
GOOD ? as in 3rd line and bottom pairing good or as in top line and top pair good ? you also assume all of them will be regular NHLers by then ? will Pac find the same chimestry with another C than DD ? after his contract, once he's UFA will Emelin stay a Habs or will he go elsewhere ?
I am not assuming that all six of Galchenyuk, Ellis, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Collberg and Leblanc, etc etc etc will reach their ceilings. If that happens then we will be a perennial contender and don't need additional young players.
A fair assumption is that two of them will reach their ceilings, two will be somewhat below their ceilings, and two will bust. That is consistent with the facts of Habs recent drafting and development history. With that end result, we need some additional help: hence this thread.
I am not assuming that all six of Galchenyuk, Ellis, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Collberg and Leblanc, etc etc etc will reach their ceilings. If that happens then we will be a perennial contender and don't need additional young players.
A fair assumption is that two of them will reach their ceilings, two will be somewhat below their ceilings, and two will bust. That is consistent with the facts of Habs recent drafting and development history. With that end result, we need some additional help: hence this thread.
that's exactly the problem: it's all about assumptions.
I'll help you out, if the ones to reach their ceiling are the ones with the least potential, so to speak, SOME help will not be enough...
Losing on purpose is for losers, but if I were in this position, unless Chucky shines, send him back to the minors, hold out on Subban, and play with what we got. We may end up with quite a high draft pick under these conditions, get Subban at the price the GM wants, and give Chucky a year to get better and stronger with a taste of 5 games.
I think this could be considered tanking, even if the players do give'r!
