Flames & Losing For Higher Draft Order.

[The_People1]

If you want to be upset because our young developing core is playing to well that's a bigger fallacy.

 

Not sure where I said this in my posts. 

[darth_henning]

It doesn't need to be the #1 pick but drafting top 2 has become one of many key ingredients to winning a Cup.  Kane was #1.  Doughty was #2.  Stamkos #1 almost won it last season.  E.Staal #1, Seguin #2, Crosby #1, Malkin #2, etc.  If you don't want to concede we need a high pick, then you must at the very least concede it is not a hindrance to winning a Cup.  Can you at least do that? 

 

We HAVE high picks in Monahan and Bennett. 

 

No a high pick will never hinder you from winning a cup. Never once said that. 

 

But people are obsessed with the "we need a #1 pick to win" because the recent winners happen to have been built around them. 

 

 

You get a sure fire #1 or #2 pick of course it helps you. But it alone is not going to carry the day. 

 

Kane? Best of his draft class. 

Crosby? Best of his draft class. 

Stall? Best of his draft class. 

 

That's what matters. Not what position they're picked at. 

 

When Monahan and Gaudreau are already the best players of their respective draft classes ,we have the equivalent of two #1 picks. 

 

Would Matthews, Laine or Pulujarvi bee a great addition? Absolutely, and if we're in the running we go for them. But making a #1 pick the sole focus that "oh we can't win without one" is utter garbage. 

 

In about 3-4 years when Chicago and LA exit their window, we're going to see most winners built around teams that don't have #1/2 picks. Would be money on that. 

 

We need the best players. Not the best "number" which is utterly meaningless in the long run. 

[The_People1]

Peeps is just saying that losing out the year is more beneficial. We are always arguing about who we draft and how important it is to draft well in all rounds. He isn't saying get the highest draft pick and ignore the other rounds. He wants an elite player to compliment our top like or perhaps Bennett too.

 

Thanks rob.  That exactly.

 

Because we are Flames fans and we know the Oilers's story too well, I get the stereotype of my position no matter what I say, I will be associated with all kinds of Oiler-style tank stereotypes.  There is of course, many other examples of teams that have tanked and then made remarkable franchise turnarounds.  I speak for those.

[Carty]

My original question was why didn't winning from last season breed more winning for the Flames this season?

 

Then, you answer with the importance of goaltending personnel, coaching personnel, and injuries to personnel as examples to show how it hindered the Flames ability to win this season.

 

My point is that personnel is more important than the culture of losing, which is to say personnel is more important than the culture of winning.  My point stands and your argument supports my point.  We agree that personnel is important.

 

We do agree that personnel is important...   The importance of having the right personnel in place is obvious to us all... ...   But then you are trying to discount the fact that the culture of losing is detrimental to a team as a whole...   You also refuse to acknowledge the fact that tanking for a top pick will not "fix" the lack of success the Flames had this season...   A top pick would be fantastic, and maybe we will get one in the lottery...   But it would not fix the problems that contributed to the downhill slide the team had this season...   Those factors are separate issues...

[The_People1]

We do agree that personnel is important...   The importance of having the right personnel in place is obvious to us all... ...   But then you are trying to discount the fact that the culture of losing is detrimental to a team as a whole...   You also refuse to acknowledge the fact that tanking for a top pick will not "fix" the lack of success the Flames had this season...   A top pick would be fantastic, and maybe we will get one in the lottery...   But it would not fix the problems that contributed to the downhill slide the team had this season...   Those factors are separate issues...

 

We both agree personnel is important.  On the same note, we both agree winning culture is important (I don't disagree entirely).  I'm saying personnel is MORE important than winning culture because as evident by the examples you are showing, lacking the right personnel and having injuries to personnel prevented the Flames from carrying the winning culture from last season over to this season.

[The_People1]

We HAVE high picks in Monahan and Bennett. 

 

No a high pick will never hinder you from winning a cup. Never once said that. 

 

But people are obsessed with the "we need a #1 pick to win" because the recent winners happen to have been built around them. 

 

 

You get a sure fire #1 or #2 pick of course it helps you. But it alone is not going to carry the day. 

 

Kane? Best of his draft class. 

Crosby? Best of his draft class. 

Stall? Best of his draft class. 

 

That's what matters. Not what position they're picked at. 

 

When Monahan and Gaudreau are already the best players of their respective draft classes ,we have the equivalent of two #1 picks. 

 

Would Matthews, Laine or Pulujarvi bee a great addition? Absolutely, and if we're in the running we go for them. But making a #1 pick the sole focus that "oh we can't win without one" is utter garbage. 

 

In about 3-4 years when Chicago and LA exit their window, we're going to see most winners built around teams that don't have #1/2 picks. Would be money on that. 

 

We need the best players. Not the best "number" which is utterly meaningless in the long run. 

 

It's just math.  You can draft Mackinnon and Monahan with the #1 overall pick but you can only draft Monahan with the 6th pick.  Worse is you cannot draft either with the 7th pick.  Is it worth it to trade Monahan for 1 more win in 2013?  No man.  No way. 

 

But think of the winning culture?!?  No.  I'll take Monahan if it comes with the extra losses... which, is the comparison we are faced with when the playoffs are out of reach right now.  Do we want to keep winning for culture which we have established can be overcome by personnel?  Or do we lose games down the stretch when the playoffs are out of reach to expand our draft options?

 

You seem to be playing the hindsight is 20/20 game which, I mean, is not fair and I hope you see why before you continue down that path.  It's not fair to say we just need to draft Johnny Gaudreau's in the late rounds and abandon the importance of draft seeding in general.  We can't fast forward 5-years into the future and say, "see, Nylander was a way better pick than Pulujarvi.  We didn't need to lose those games down the stretch back in 2016."

[darth_henning]

It's just math.  You can draft Mackinnon and Monahan with the #1 overall pick but you can only draft Monahan with the 6th pick.  Worse is you cannot draft either with the 7th pick.  Is it worth it to trade Monahan for 1 more win in 2013?  No man.  No way. 

 

But think of the winning culture?!?  No.  I'll take Monahan if it comes with the extra losses... which, is the comparison we are faced with when the playoffs are out of reach right now.  Do we want to keep winning for culture which we have established can be overcome by personnel?  Or do we lose games down the stretch when the playoffs are out of reach to expand our draft options?

 

You seem to be playing the hindsight is 20/20 game which, I mean, is not fair and I hope you see why before you continue down that path.  It's not fair to say we just need to draft Johnny Gaudreau's in the late rounds and abandon the importance of draft seeding in general.  We can't fast forward 5-years into the future and say, "see, Nylander was a way better pick than Pulujarvi.  We didn't need to lose those games down the stretch back in 2016."

 

And you're looking at the situation as if we hadn't started the rebuild yet. 

 

Yes, we can look at something in hindsight when its ALREADY HAPPENED.

 

We aren't in a position where we have no guarunteed youth who are going to produce. We already have 3. Now we need to train them to win. Training them to lose isn't going to help. 

 

 

I'd rather have a Monahan/Gaudreau/Bennett who have fire in them to win every game, then draft Matthews and have three dispirited picks who are used to an edmonton-style culture any day of the week. 

 

 

You can overcome a losing culture with fresh, new personnel. But if you train your young core to lose on purpose, you're not going to get that out of them. 

 

We can still tank. Just put Hiller in net the rest of the season. 

[The_People1]

And you're looking at the situation as if we hadn't started the rebuild yet. 

 

Yes, we can look at something in hindsight when its ALREADY HAPPENED.

 

Okay then, just a general question to you.  If we hadn't started the rebuild yet, or if this is the first year of a rebuild, then would you be for losing for a higher pick?

[cccsberg]

Okay then, just a general question to you.  If we hadn't started the rebuild yet, or if this is the first year of a rebuild, then would you be for losing for a higher pick?

I'd be for cleaning the cupboards bare.  Unfortunately (fortunately) for the Flames, they had some top-level D already and so we never were in that Buffalo/Arizona type position to go all-in.  Each rebuild is different and if we went all-in by not only trading out Bouwmeester and Iginla like we did, but also dumped Backlund, Brodie, Giordano and others we'd be looking like TML even now and hoping against hope some of our picks turned into something at the NHL level.  

[darth_henning]

Okay then, just a general question to you.  If we hadn't started the rebuild yet, or if this is the first year of a rebuild, then would you be for losing for a higher pick?

 

If our cupboards were bare, we'd just traded Iggy/Reggie/Bowmiester and Kipper was retiring? 

 

Firstly I don't think we'd have to try to tank, we would by default. 

 

If you clean the cupboards bare in preparation for a rebuild, you lose because you don't have anything. Not because you deliberately TRY to lose. That's the difference in my mind.

[The_People1]

If our cupboards were bare, we'd just traded Iggy/Reggie/Bowmiester and Kipper was retiring? 

 

Firstly I don't think we'd have to try to tank, we would by default. 

 

If you clean the cupboards bare in preparation for a rebuild, you lose because you don't have anything. Not because you deliberately TRY to lose. That's the difference in my mind.

 

Okay, so by your definition of those actions (trading Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper, etc) we would be tanking by default and therefore would not have to try to tank.

 

And just because you deliberately leave yourself with nothing, you can't be blamed for deliberately trying to lose.

 

In other words, you would support managerial actions that are consistent with tanking.  You just wouldn't support trying to lose. 

[phoenix66]

Okay, so by your definition of those actions (trading Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper, etc) we would be tanking by default and therefore would not have to try to tank.

And just because you deliberately leave yourself with nothing, you can't be blamed for deliberately trying to lose.

In other words, you would support managerial actions that are consistent with tanking. You just wouldn't support trying to lose.

I believe there is a total difference between rebuilding and accepting you may not he good for awhile.. And tanking on purpose, even at the managerial level.

Case in point..buffalo trading 3 starting goaltenders in a row because they went on winning streaks is tanking.

Leaving players on the farm when they are clearly better than players on the big club is tanking

Trading a solid player because he doesn't fit into your long term plans,or he's a Depreciating asset..and replacing him with a young player but accepting the fact that you may sacrifice some games because of it is not tanking

Giving your goalie prospect some much much needed big game experience when you have nothing to lose is not tanking

Giving your younger players PK and PP experience is not tanking

Playing Hiller every game would be tanking

Putting out Bollig, Smid, and Hathaway as your top powerplay would be tanking

Basically there's a difference between doing what needs to be done and accepting you'll sacrifice wins for awhile and literally trying to be the worst you can be

[Da4RealDeal]

I am 100% against a tank for higher picks.

 

I do have to say that losing at this point of our teams year will only help us if we as a team are still trying to win. It's like a parent telling there child that they don't need to worry about being the best as long as they try. Yes at some point the kid gets older and better or decides he is no good and gives up. So as our young team get's older do we tell it to lose? NO we encourage it to practice and get better. If the team is not winning we change the training or support and players and hope that helps.

 

You cannot ask a player like Johny or Mony or Gio or Brodie or ect..... to lose, for me to think about guys with that kind of character to lose on purpose is just a joke.

 

At this point in the year a team in our position should not be thinking of wins but instead using the time to experiment and evaluate up coming RFA players, or people in a position we have multiple options for depth and make some adjustments for on going success.

 

For all the people who think we should be playing Hiller to just get a lose you are just wrong in so many ways. We all know he is not going to be here next season so why not just waive him or at the least just stop dressing him at all. Ortio has played better then Hiller but I do not believe he is the answer maybe not even an NHLer at all. Look how good the team played with Backstrom in net, this team is so close to be a competing team all we need is the goaltending dealt with. We have a very good core and some very high talent. 

 

I for one liked seeing Backstrom in net he has not played in over a year and looked better than anyone Calgary has dressed all year. I would be happy to see him work out and even sign a one year 2-3 mil contract and play 30-35 games as a number 1b-2a as a stop gap to allow us time to get the right guy for the future. I know we still need the 1a but the off season is were that will get done.

[darth_henning]

Okay, so by your definition of those actions (trading Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper, etc) we would be tanking by default and therefore would not have to try to tank.

 

And just because you deliberately leave yourself with nothing, you can't be blamed for deliberately trying to lose.

 

In other words, you would support managerial actions that are consistent with tanking.  You just wouldn't support trying to lose. 

 

Depends on the managerial actions. 

 

Trading core players that are past their prime and entering the declinining years of their career? yes. 

 

Getting pick for replaceable assets to start stocking the cupboards for future? yes. 

 

By contrast,

 

Trading good young players for more picks? No. 

 

Trading guys entering the prime of their career for the sake of losses? No.

 

Forcing the team to play in front of horrible tenders (Hiller) when the team has shown itself competitive? No.

 

I believe there is a total difference between rebuilding and accepting you may not he good for awhile.. And tanking on purpose, even at the managerial level.

Case in point..buffalo trading 3 starting goaltenders in a row because they went on winning streaks is tanking.

Leaving players on the farm when they are clearly better than players on the big club is tanking

Trading a solid player because he doesn't fit into your long term plans,or he's a Depreciating asset..and replacing him with a young player but accepting the fact that you may sacrifice some games because of it is not tanking

Giving your goalie prospect some much much needed big game experience when you have nothing to lose is not tanking

Giving your younger players PK and PP experience is not tanking

Playing Hiller every game would be tanking

Putting out Bollig, Smid, and Hathaway as your top powerplay would be tanking

Basically there's a difference between doing what needs to be done and accepting you'll sacrifice wins for awhile and literally trying to be the worst you can be

 

THIS. 

[redfire11]

It is still ALL about entertainment.

So are you more excited about next year because we won a handful of meaningless games at the end of the season.

Or will you be more excited about next season with a top 3 pick pressing for a spot.

[The_People1]

Case in point..buffalo trading 3 starting goaltenders in a row because they went on winning streaks is tanking.

Trading a solid player because he doesn't fit into your long term plans... is not tanking

 

If Buffalo traded 3 starting goaltenders in a row because they went on winning streaks AND didn't fit into their long term plans?  What would that be considered?

 

Playing Hiller every game would be tanking

Giving your goalie prospect some much much needed big game experience when you have nothing to lose is not tanking

 

What if Hiller went on a winning streak and we benched him for Ortio who is clearly on a cold streak?  What would that be considered?

 

I believe there is a total difference between rebuilding and accepting you may not he good for awhile.. And tanking on purpose, even at the managerial level.

 

What if a GM is committing actions that are consistent with tanking but the team wins despite of these actions?  What would that be considered?

 

Trading guys entering the prime of their career for the sake of losses? No. 

Getting pick for replaceable assets to start stocking the cupboards for future? yes. 

 

What if you trade a guy entering his prime for the sake of losses but he's a replaceable asset and it helps you stock the cupboards for the future?  What would that be considered?

 

Depends on the managerial actions. 

 

You guys are just blurring the lines between definitions and then applying the blur to mask your subjective interpretation of actions at your convenience.  There's nothing objective about your application of the terms and it cannot be universally accepted for any valid argument for or against tanking.  By your definitions, nothing can be considered tanking and at the same time, everything can be considered tanking.

[DirtyDeeds]

At this point of my thread, I want to inject a couple of thoughts.

 

1. This thread would not be 48 pages long and bring out near as much passion or conversation if Peoples was not adamant on his thoughts about a higher pick. Ty Peoples and this thread thanks you. It is still a compelling read because of your input.

 

2. If we don't look beyond our team and only look at the successes that the Flames have had, then one could seriously argue that the 6th round is most important for this team and not the 1st round. After all 2 of our core were drafted in the 6th by us and developed by us. Gio undrafted, Mony is the only core right now representing a high 1st round pick and he wasn't a top 5 pick. I suppose Hamilton will shortly become a 1st round representation from our core, but I don't think he is there yet.

[Flyerfan52]

Judging by some of the posts I'm surprised that the poll still comes across as an adamant no.

I won't change my vote but am making the rest of you aware you can delete your original vote. I'm not sure if you can re-vote but just removing your no changes your stand if that's what you want.

[phoenix66]

If Buffalo traded 3 starting goaltenders in a row because they went on winning streaks AND didn't fit into their long term plans? What would that be considered?

What if Hiller went on a winning streak and we benched him for Ortio who is clearly on a cold streak? What would that be considered?

What if a GM is committing actions that are consistent with tanking but the team wins despite of these actions? What would that be considered?

What if you trade a guy entering his prime for the sake of losses but he's a replaceable asset and it helps you stock the cupboards for the future? What would that be considered?

You guys are just blurring the lines between definitions and then applying the blur to mask your subjective interpretation of actions at your convenience. There's nothing objective about your application of the terms and it cannot be universally accepted for any valid argument for or against tanking. By your definitions, nothing can be considered tanking and at the same time, everything can be considered tanking.

Considering Buffalo was on record as trying to get Enroth back..that makes it pretty apparent that was a tank

If Hiller goes on a winning streak then you give him his regular starts and probably don't give Ortio 8 straight starts

At the time Randy Carlyle was not replaceable and they got virtually nothing for him

Basically if the personell moves you make are for the betterment of the team and it's current players then that's progress.

If the moves you make are for the sole purpose of stagnating the team or to purposely generate losses then no, that's tanking.

There was absolutely no need to trade Reimer for something so low if at all. The scenarios are pretty easy to seperate

[The_People1]

At this point of my thread, I want to inject a couple of thoughts.

 

1. This thread would not be 48 pages long and bring out near as much passion or conversation if Peoples was not adamant on his thoughts about a higher pick. Ty Peoples and this thread thanks you. It is still a compelling read because of your input.

 

I agree.  It has been a compelling read and I thank everyone who has and will continue to contribute to this thread.

 

One reason it's been a great read for me is because virtually every Flames fan I know in real life wants the Flames to tank for a high pick once the playoffs are not reachable.  It's so interesting to find that once I'm on the message boards, the ideologies are nearly 180 degrees the other way.  There is overwhelming support against tanking on the message boards. 

 

I've continued the conversation because I know there are Flames fans out there that share the same opinions as I do and I'll do my best to make those ideas heard.

 

Tanking is immoral, unethical, and when done wrong, could be disastrous.  These are true.  Despite this, when tanking is done right, it is one of many ingredients found in "most of the recent" Cup Champs and that's what warrants my support for tanking.

 

2. If we don't look beyond our team and only look at the successes that the Flames have had, then one could seriously argue that the 6th round is most important for this team and not the 1st round. After all 2 of our core were drafted in the 6th by us and developed by us. Gio undrafted, Mony is the only core right now representing a high 1st round pick and he wasn't a top 5 pick. I suppose Hamilton will shortly become a 1st round representation from our core, but I don't think he is there yet.

 

I've found for the entirety of this thread, one of the greatest logical fallacies against tanking is the wrongful patented use of late round drafting.  I've argued for tanking in combination with an emphasis towards late round drafting but it's always wrongly assumed that tanking means only focusing on the #1 overall pick.  Of course it is possible to tank AND draft well in all other rounds.  They are not mutually exclusive events.

 

Judging by some of the posts I'm surprised that the poll still comes across as an adamant no.

I won't change my vote but am making the rest of you aware you can delete your original vote. I'm not sure if you can re-vote but just removing your no changes your stand if that's what you want.

 

As someone who is adamant about the tank, I'm also adamant about a non-weighted lottery for all teams that miss the playoffs.  That's the ultimate end to tanking.  Zero incentives at all.

 

The league means well by rewarding the worst team in the league with the #1 pick for the sake of creating parity and helping the bad teams get better faster.  That said, desperate GMs do desperate things and setting a course towards the #1 pick when they aren't genuinely the worst team has become an art form.  It's not worth jeopardizing the integrity of the league to reward losing anymore because losing has become mostly intentional.

[jjgallow]

The only reason I never went nuts on this thread was because Peeps already had it so well handled.

 

Also, it was created with a huge slant.   "Tanking" isn't the right word, and is slanted in opinion.

 

An equally slanted thread would be:    "Bandaids for bad teams instead of rebuilding".

 

 

A rebuild starts with your goaltender, and works out from defence, to center, and finally your wingers.

 

That's a rebuild, folks.

 

 

So....to be completely honest, we haven't started the rebuild yet.  Not a proper one.

 

 

We traded away our veteran core.   That's not a rebuild.  that's a dismantling.  Which, by definition, is the exact opposite of "build".

 

 

In terms of build, we drafted mostly for centers and wingers.  And that's fine, when they were BPA.   But sometimes, we targetted them.

 

that's not a rebuild.  That's a band-aid, because forwads develop faster.   It was a cheap move by the organization to shorten the time it took to get back into the playoffs.  But it was ultimately a band-aid.   Signing veterans with bloated contracts to make us look better than we were?  Smid, Wideman.....  ALL bandaid, ZERO rebuild.  and we're paying for it now.  through the cap, and through regression of some of these veterans which is keeping this team in a twilight zone of mediocrity.  These moves were nothing more than efforts to make our core look better than it really was.

 

We didn't even Begin to address our goalie situation.  Ortio is nearly 25 and Finally just getting a "look".   

 

When our Goaltending and defence are shored up, then we can say we've started a true rebuild.  Started.

 

One could argue that Hamilton was our first true step towards a rebuild.

 

 

Why the hardcore stance?  Because we Watched Edmonton make this mistake....

 

And we did it too

 

p.s....the reason, why Peeps can maintain prominence in here, is because the "bandaid" approach, is Not working, and that's becoming painstakingly obvious.   bandaids extend mediocre performance, and delay real playoff success.  And that's becoming incredibly clear, as we watch ourselves float near the bottom of the league yet struggle to stay under cap.  Supposedly at the dawn of a new age.  And the Oilers jokes sound eerily close to home.

 

Oh..and because Peeps as an admin....that too

[phoenix66]

I agree.  It has been a compelling read and I thank everyone who has and will continue to contribute to this thread.

 

One reason it's been a great read for me is because virtually every Flames fan I know in real life wants the Flames to tank for a high pick once the playoffs are not reachable.  It's so interesting to find that once I'm on the message boards, the ideologies are nearly 180 degrees the other way.  There is overwhelming support against tanking on the message boards. 

 

I've continued the conversation because I know there are Flames fans out there that share the same opinions as I do and I'll do my best to make those ideas heard.

 

Tanking is immoral, unethical, and when done wrong, could be disastrous.  These are true.  Despite this, when tanking is done right, it is one of many ingredients found in "most of the recent" Cup Champs and that's what warrants my support for tanking.

 

 

I've found for the entirety of this thread, one of the greatest logical fallacies against tanking is the wrongful patented use of late round drafting.  I've argued for tanking in combination with an emphasis towards late round drafting but it's always wrongly assumed that tanking means only focusing on the #1 overall pick.  Of course it is possible to tank AND draft well in all other rounds.  They are not mutually exclusive events.

 

 

As someone who is adamant about the tank, I'm also adamant about a non-weighted lottery for all teams that miss the playoffs.  That's the ultimate end to tanking.  Zero incentives at all.

 

The league means well by rewarding the worst team in the league with the #1 pick for the sake of creating parity and helping the bad teams get better faster.  That said, desperate GMs do desperate things and setting a course towards the #1 pick when they aren't genuinely the worst team has become an art form.  It's not worth the integrity of the league to reward losing anymore because losing has become mostly intentional.

something that has become totally obvious, is that people have different definitions of what "tank " means. As you stated once it can be a very grey area.

Whereas on the one hand, i am all for  trying out the kids, giving the line combos an experimental overhaul, etc.in which you are obviously taking the big risk. on the other I'm totally against moves which are done soley for the purpose of losing a game, or many of them.

If we go out there every night , bust our humps trying to win and end up losing ?  i can live with that .. and not gonna lie, at this time of year i can even like it. But at the same time Hiller right now is pretty much a guaranteed loss, and I hope he never starts for us again .

Would I move Engelland and Wotherspoon up to the top pairing and give them 26min a game?. absolutely not.. would i experiment with different combos for Gio and Brodie?.. absolutely .. you need to know where chemistry options are..

 

I guess, here's my question, to clarify what you think we shoudl do.. if you are BT and /or BH.. what actions, steps, would you be doing right now, to "tank" and get that higher pick?

[tmac70]

It seems regardless of who we ice the result is well below standard. The few bright spots seem to get over shadowed by the dark clouds this season. This season is over, I understand the wanting to win but for some reason we just can't.... Bring forth some prospects see how they perform and evaluate for next season.

 

This whole club needs a revaluation from top to bottom. Coaching, players scouts and upper management. It starts at the top and runs down hill. In order to change you have to willing to be uncomfortable, not sure this is what they had in mind

[MAC331]

It seems regardless of who we ice the result is well below standard. The few bright spots seem to get over shadowed by the dark clouds this season. This season is over, I understand the wanting to win but for some reason we just can't.... Bring forth some prospects see how they perform and evaluate for next season.

 

This whole club needs a revaluation from top to bottom. Coaching, players scouts and upper management. It starts at the top and runs down hill. In order to change you have to willing to be uncomfortable, not sure this is what they had in mind

I think the ones that need some evaluation for next season are here. I don't share your suggestion on a total revaluation, did you not anticipate some regression from last season's overachievement ? Rebuilds are not a steady climb upwards. There will be plenty of players going into and from this lineup over the next few years yet.

[The_People1]

something that has become totally obvious, is that people have different definitions of what "tank " means. As you stated once it can be a very grey area.

 

I believe there is some grey but I present it in the context as a clever slight of hand deployed by GMs.  It sounds like you use it in the context to confuse the crap out of yourself so that everything can be a tank but everything can also NOT be a tank simultaneously.  You have contradicting philosophies about tanking and apply the side that's convenient to your take.

 

For example,

 

There was absolutely no need to trade Reimer for something so low if at all. The scenarios are pretty easy to separate

..and replacing him with a young player but accepting the fact that you may sacrifice some games because of it is not tanking

Giving your goalie prospect some much much needed big game experience when you have nothing to lose is not tanking

 

How can these statements all be true at the same time?  They contradict each other.

 

And this,

 

Leaving players on the farm when they are clearly better than players on the big club is tanking

 

You first concluded that trading Reimer is tanking but then the Leafs called up Nylander and he's been pretty good in helping the Leafs win games down the stretch.  He's even played past his 10-game mark so he's burned a year off his contract.  

 

So, after claiming the Leafs are tanking, how can you turn right around and claim the opposite?  What are the Leafs doing overall then?  Tanking and not tanking, at the same time?   

  

And this,

 

Playing Hiller every game would be tanking

If Hiller goes on a winning streak then you give him his regular starts and probably don't give Ortio 8 straight starts

Giving your goalie prospect some much much needed big game experience when you have nothing to lose is not tanking

 

If Hiller is losing, then playing him is tanking.  If Hiller is winning, then playing him is not tanking.  How can you have it both ways?

 

And this,

 

Basically if the personell moves you make are for the betterment of the team and it's current players then that's progress.

If the moves you make are for the sole purpose of stagnating the team or to purposely generate losses then no, that's tanking.

 

Lots of moves can be for the betterment of the team in the long run but stagnates a team in the short run.  Is that progress or is that tanking?  Or would you argue that tanking IS progress?

 

I guess, here's my question, to clarify what you think we shoudl do.. if you are BT and /or BH.. what actions, steps, would you be doing right now, to "tank" and get that higher pick?

 

I've answered this question earlier in my reply to cross who asked the same question.

 

To tank, trade Johnny and Monny but I do not agree with that action at this stage of the Flames rebuild.  The TDL has also come and gone.  You can't go to your coach and tell him to lose.  You can't go to your players and tell them to lose.  No matter what, you have to ice together a 23-man roster so the team is what the team is the rest of the way.  Most of what's left to be done is simply cheer for the losses.