robrob1974 Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 There is no guarantee that losing will get you a bluechip long term impact player either. We missed the playoffs for 7 years in a row and our highest pick ever has been 6. We've never tanked purposefully, yet those teams fought as hard as they could to win as many as they could, but never seemed to get any better. We've always been a mediocre team after a certain point. Drafting anywhere from 6-14 was a huge part of that. That means our scouts were horrible, our drafting was horrible. Maybe it's better now, maybe we were lucky for a few years there. I just might be a bit jaded but our long term history hasn't really given me much faith. Here's hoping Burke and Co. can right the ship. Feaster did a decent job starting it, but that was just a few years. Until it becomes a norm, I am still holding out judgement on this matter. I mean changing my mind on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 For those who are in favor of tanking obviously don't run a business or supervise employee's. You can all say Burke is making the correct political statements in his interview, but he expects his employee's to have a winning attitude and work ethic, as do I, as should anybody in a supervisor role. A rebuild starts with a good foundation. I think we all can agree we are starting to see a progression of advancement in the play of the prospects in Abbey as well as the prospects we have coming in. Yes our past record has been dismal, but I believe we have moved past that right now. We missed the playoffs for 7 years in a row and our highest pick ever has been 6. We've never tanked purposefully, yet those teams fought as hard as they could to win as many as they could, but never seemed to get any better. We've always been a mediocre team after a certain point. Drafting anywhere from 6-14 was a huge part of that. That means our scouts were horrible, our drafting was horrible. Maybe it's better now, maybe we were lucky for a few years there. I just might be a bit jaded but our long term history hasn't really given me much faith. Here's hoping Burke and Co. can right the ship. Feaster did a decent job starting it, but that was just a few years. Until it becomes a norm, I am still holding out judgement on this matter. I mean changing my mind on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordxan Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 For those who are in favor of tanking obviously don't run a business or supervise employee's. You can all say Burke is making the correct political statements in his interview, but he expects his employee's to have a winning attitude and work ethic, as do I, as should anybody in a supervisor role. A rebuild starts with a good foundation. I think we all can agree we are starting to see a progression of advancement in the play of the prospects in Abbey as well as the prospects we have coming in. Yes our past record has been dismal, but I believe we have moved past that right now. I agree, our drafting has been very good over the past 3 years, Feaster did fix this poor yet key component to our team, I give him tons of credit for realizing it and fixing it despite the lack of interest by ownership and higher Mgt (looking at you King), as they have always been a clear the cupboards and get as many vest as you can type of Mgt. Moreover, this year's draft seems more fluid than last, top prospect has shifted from Reinhart (now sitting in 4th overall) to Bennett, to Ekblad, to now Draisaitl. So who knows who will be available at 5th, 6th or 7th. Judging from the more recent scouting reports, the top 10 are all very good above average prospects with the top 5 being just slightly better. What I take from that is it really doesn't matter where you draft this year as long as it's in the top 10, which we should be in. Again, this gets me more of the mind set to trade down for some extra assets (this year or next) and take Hayden Fleury. I keep reading how he keeps improving on a deceivingly solid all round game, which is apparently NHL ready?! Perfect fit, could even be a top 2 D man, again just what we need. The only thing I have read which is a bit disconcerting, is our prospect pool is rated lower than expected; however, when our young guys play they have been very good to dominant so I put little faith in the scouting "experts" opinion of our prospects, hell, they have Grandlund rated 8th in our depth chart but he has been very solid at the NHL level so far. Reason I bring this up is they have Gaudreau as our #1 prospect ranked 29th over all, followed by Beartchi at 35th over all and get this, Poirier at 48th over all which in my opinion is way lower, he's probably our top prospect even ahead of Gaudreau, kid just seems to have the complete package and just needs to learn how to play all 3 zones a bit better but he's definitely a top power forward prospect. Point of my rant is I believe Cgy will draft in the top 10 but the way they are playing they are going to be well out of the top 5, mostly because Cgy is trending up and all the other fringe and out of the playoff race teams are still trending downward. But with our current prospect pool, and the potential in this year and next year's draft, I believe, pending on if we see a few more of our younger guys in the main club next year and they transition to the pro NHL level well (and many of them should), Cgy could even just make the playoff next season, though i would doubt they have any type of a deep run, just too young. All and all, I hope to see the likes of Poirier, Selioff, Gillies and Klimchuck make the team or at least start in Abby with possible and probable call up to Cgy where they impress and stay. Best part of this is there are still some talented young guys to come in Gaudreau, Jankowski and whoever we pick up this year and next (deep draft in 2015 apparently) and there is still Granlund, Arnold, and Augistino (who has been quietly developing into a solid top 6 potential Pwr forward). So yeha, I gotta agree with Burke, promote a winning attitude because we have a ton of solid talent coming up, best way to win is to promote a winning attitude and only a winning attitude. The Oil situation is quite simply ridiculous, to a point they need to make drastic moves starting with their front office Mgt and coaching staff and seriously consider a full tear-down of their "elite" top prospects to get some winning attitude. I assure you if they move Yak's and RNH or something (which would probably get a very good return) that would wake the rest of them up, also they need to look at more Ctr's like Cgy has done in short order, we have a ton of decent Ctr prospects which I really think is making a difference in our rebuild vice the Oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 For those who are in favor of tanking obviously don't run a business or supervise employee's. Um, it's not as "obvious" as it may seem when only weeks ago, this report came out, http://nba.si.com/2014/02/28/bryan-colangelo-toronto-raptors-tanking/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just remember all of those times drafting in the middle of the pack we only got mediocre players and always stuck to the middle of the pack and always drafting the same players, mediocre. Now we win our way back to that same spot, medium level picks... No mater where you draft, drafting is a lottery, but your odds get better the higher you draft. I think if these players play right from the start of the year, we would be in the same spot. It is easy to be excited about being in the NHL and raise your game. But to do it over an 82 game season is different than 5 games or so, which is why Backlund took so long to develop. This little bit of success just brings us back to that spot... Are we ok with having 3 Backlunds as our Top3 centers on the team? Just saying that is the possibility if we constantly draft in the middle of the pack? It is all hypothetical of course. Although, three Backlunds might be ok... I get winning is what we want to create culturally, give kids a taste and develop, and so on... I don't agree we are one year away from the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Um, it's not as "obvious" as it may seem when only weeks ago, this report came out, http://nba.si.com/2014/02/28/bryan-colangelo-toronto-raptors-tanking/ That may be one of the reasons why I don't watch Basket Ball. Here is BB's take on tanking. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=446131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymo Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/03/report-nhl-considering-changes-to-draft-lottery-sabres-rebuild-plan-could-take-hit.html?ref=bmh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/03/report-nhl-considering-changes-to-draft-lottery-sabres-rebuild-plan-could-take-hit.html?ref=bmh It's about time that the league corrected this... I still believe that their saying "the first three or five picks may be subject to the lottery system" is not going far enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/03/report-nhl-considering-changes-to-draft-lottery-sabres-rebuild-plan-could-take-hit.html?ref=bmh It's about time that the league corrected this... I still believe that their saying "the first three or five picks may be subject to the lottery system" is not going far enough... I'm absolutely on board with this. No more cheering for loses in order to draft these rare/generational "franchise altering talents". We can cheer for wins AND still draft them. It's fair. It promotes competitive integrity. It's the right thing to do in today's NHL environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/2014/03/report-nhl-considering-changes-to-draft-lottery-sabres-rebuild-plan-could-take-hit.html?ref=bmh This link is discussing the Elliot Frieman blog which goes into a bit more detail of the changes being considered. http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2014/03/30-thoughts-changing-odds-in-nhl-draft-lottery.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 This link is discussing the Elliot Frieman blog which goes into a bit more detail of the changes being considered. http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2014/03/30-thoughts-changing-odds-in-nhl-draft-lottery.html The details sound kind of confusing but if implemented, would help curb tanking, especially sudden/drastic tanking. It would help bad teams who sucked over a five year period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 And he is where now....pretty sure he isn't offered a job anytime soon, so was it worth it in the end? So what did he prove in the end. Um, it's not as "obvious" as it may seem when only weeks ago, this report came out, http://nba.si.com/2014/02/28/bryan-colangelo-toronto-raptors-tanking/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm for anything that eliminates the reward for being the worst. No reward for tanking (or trying to give a team a lesser chance of competing) takes away the carrot. I forget which talking head/blogger proposed it but I still like the idea of the team with the best record after being numerically eliminated getting the best odds of winning the lottery. To tank you'd have to alienate fans early but you'd have to add talent rather then sell them off as the year goes on to get that late winning record. & the team that gets the high pick has a base for the next year so it's less likely to see a repeat or three-peat as the 1st to the podium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_incendiarse Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Um, it's not as "obvious" as it may seem when only weeks ago, this report came out, http://nba.si.com/2014/02/28/bryan-colangelo-toronto-raptors-tanking/ Keep in mind this is the same guy who maybe got this frame of mind cause he completely messed up previously when he had the pick. Sure from a management standpoint there are teams that are put together on a low budget, with a young roster, with the hopes it will grow while having low expectations from fans and media alike. That is about as far as tanking goes imo, coaches care about their record, list every successful rebuild and there is a fired coach along the way. Players don't want to lose, they should get more for performance, with the odd exception of being for potential. Another note with Edmonton, they caved early to their youngsters Eberle good 2nd season so he gets the big bucks, but then they got Hall who was deemed the franchise, so they had to pay him the same. And not to disappoint the other number 1 he gets the same deal despite a very weak 2nd season. Most young stars that gained the steep raise from the elc had at least achieved some team success. Not these 3, right off the bat they were given the keys to the city without having to accomplish anything, and the rewards kept coming to them despite the team success. I still say Edmonton is not and never has been tanking, they have just been that bad and they are guilty of treating a prospect like a god before they suit up, and then reward them by giving them a sense of entitlement despite doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 And he is where now....pretty sure he isn't offered a job anytime soon, so was it worth it in the end? So what did he prove in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Colangelo Bryan Colangelo is a two time NBA Executive Of The Year Award winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Colangelo Bryan Colangelo is a two time NBA Executive Of The Year Award winner. So Colangelo went from two time NBA Executive Of The Year Award winner to the basement of the NBA... I have to wonder just how many years he planned on staying there to try and make his tank theory work... "MLSE placed its faith in Colangelo—as GM of the Phoenix Suns, he had built one of the most successful teams in the NBA, led by the great Steve Nash—and lured him to Toronto with a five-year deal worth an estimated $4 million (U.S.) a year. It was an exorbitant contract for an NBA general manager, four times what he had been making in Phoenix. Colangelo was thought to be worth the price tag, and then some. He was a visionary, a brilliant strategist. Everything he touched turned to gold." "Six seasons later, the Raptors are near the bottom of the NBA rankings, dispirited and maligned by fans, but Colangelo, standing alone in his tunnel, isn’t troubled. To hear him describe it, the descent was all part of a new plan to rebuild the team with stars in the making like Kyle Lowry" From http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/11/16/dunkonomics-bryan-colangelo-raptors/#more-176114 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 So Colangelo went from two time NBA Executive Of The Year Award winner to the basement of the NBA... I have to wonder just how many years he planned on staying there to try and make his tank theory work... "MLSE placed its faith in Colangelo—as GM of the Phoenix Suns, he had built one of the most successful teams in the NBA, led by the great Steve Nash—and lured him to Toronto with a five-year deal worth an estimated $4 million (U.S.) a year. It was an exorbitant contract for an NBA general manager, four times what he had been making in Phoenix. Colangelo was thought to be worth the price tag, and then some. He was a visionary, a brilliant strategist. Everything he touched turned to gold." "Six seasons later, the Raptors are near the bottom of the NBA rankings, dispirited and maligned by fans, but Colangelo, standing alone in his tunnel, isn’t troubled. To hear him describe it, the descent was all part of a new plan to rebuild the team with stars in the making like Kyle Lowry" From http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/11/16/dunkonomics-bryan-colangelo-raptors/#more-176114 I'm sure Colangelo didn't want to do it. But it's the product of the NBA draft system. In the article Colangelo states he never literally told the coaches and players to lose but he did what he could on his end of things and that's set the roster with the most inexperienced and young group he could. It's like in the NHL. The Sabres traded away all their top stars for high draft picks. Managerially speaking, they are tanking. I'm sure Ted Nolan and his players are still playing to win despite knowing what's up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I want to propose a draft system where the top 14 picks are seeded based off team records AFTER the NHL trade deadline. So, the team with the best record after the NHL Trade Deadline that misses the playoffs will get #1 overall pick. 2nd best 2nd overall, etc until the team with the worst record after Trade Deadline gets the 14th overall pick. This way, fans of teams who cannot make the playoffs would still be cheering for their team to win late in the season rather than cheering for losses so they can draft a franchise altering player. The only issue I see is that schedule makers have to make sure every team has the same number of games remaining to be played at the time of NHL Trade Deadline so team records are based off the same number of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfreining Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I think any change needs to start with no two consecutive #1 overall picks. A team with a #1 overall pick is removed from the next years lottery for that pick. Another Idea would be to distribute points for the standings over the past years, the more points, the higher the chances to win the lottery. Points are nullified if you got the #1 pick. So that it takes multiple years to build up the chance to win the lottery. In this case the team had a very slim chance to have consecutive #1 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm sure Colangelo didn't want to do it. But it's the product of the NBA draft system. In the article Colangelo states he never literally told the coaches and players to lose but he did what he could on his end of things and that's set the roster with the most inexperienced and young group he could. Not sure how you could possibly know for sure what his intentions were... One thing you can be sure of is that it is a cop out and easy route to take with no guarantee of success.. It's like in the NHL. The Sabres traded away all their top stars for high draft picks. Managerially speaking, they are tanking. I'm sure Ted Nolan and his players are still playing to win despite knowing what's up. Being an interem coach I don't know how you can be sure about this either. He may be the fall guy.. again.... or he may not be. Regardless, your choice of the Sabres who come into tonight's game on a big losing streak does not support your "they are playing to win" very well at all. Add to that the Sabres having rarely done anything of merit in the history of the club...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_incendiarse Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I want to propose a draft system where the top 14 picks are seeded based off team records AFTER the NHL trade deadline. So, the team with the best record after the NHL Trade Deadline that misses the playoffs will get #1 overall pick. 2nd best 2nd overall, etc until the team with the worst record after Trade Deadline gets the 14th overall pick. This way, fans of teams who cannot make the playoffs would still be cheering for their team to win late in the season rather than cheering for losses so they can draft a franchise altering player. The only issue I see is that schedule makers have to make sure every team has the same number of games remaining to be played at the time of NHL Trade Deadline so team records are based off the same number of games. I hate the idea if your the worst team in the league like Buffalo is this year, why force them into a dilemma over their pending UFA's. Would you really want to be in the position of having to keep a player that would bring you good return, in order to maybe play better down the stretch when the reality is that he wasn't helping win too many games to begin with (ex. Ryan Miller). Its simple with or without Miller and Ott they are a terrible team, and they are the team that deserves the #1 pick. I don't think people are upset with how the system is, its just envy, when we are finally in rebuild mode there are teams worse than us and it just pisses people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I don't think what buffalo is doing is tanking. Trading potential UFAs for future pieces is not tanking imo it's just smart team building and I completely agree with señor is why should buffalo be penalized for that? To be tanking is an organization deliberately trying to lose. So playing the backup more then the starter, ala the penguins in 1984, playing lesser skilled players over your better obes, or shipping off better assets for nothing. This how I define tanking and making smart now for future pieces or rebuilding trades is not IMO tanking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I hate the idea if your the worst team in the league like Buffalo is this year, why force them into a dilemma over their pending UFA's. Would you really want to be in the position of having to keep a player that would bring you good return, in order to maybe play better down the stretch when the reality is that he wasn't helping win too many games to begin with (ex. Ryan Miller). Its simple with or without Miller and Ott they are a terrible team, and they are the team that deserves the #1 pick. I don't think people are upset with how the system is, its just envy, when we are finally in rebuild mode there are teams worse than us and it just pisses people off. That's the way it's always been but the ongoing ideas to re-vamp the draft order directly challenges traditions and old-time thinking. Basically, if you overly suck, then you will no longer get a free pass to the #1 pick. Like in my suggestion, the draft order is determined by team records after trade deadline where the team with the best record and still misses the playoffs gets #1 overall and the worst record gets 14th. Wow, what would that change? Let's take a closer look. 1. Teams trading away good pending UFAs at the trade deadline for draft picks risk "tanking" and getting a worser pick. 2. Teams like the Sabres would be buyers at the Trade Deadline. They will try to win down the stretch to get the #1 overall pick. This would alter the course of the universe as we know it. Who would sell at the Trade Deadline? Well, why does there have to be a barrage of trade activity anyways? Let the trades happen in the summer and prevent teams from loading up going into the playoffs. The Trade Deadline was invented in the first place to prevent late season player loading anyways. By altering the course of the universe, we completely solve this problem. We lose Trade Deadline day excitement but we gain league wide integrity. Every team will try to win until the end of the season. Way worth it. 3. What about pending UFAs of the Sabres? Simple. Instead of having no use for pending UFAs when the playoffs are out of reach, they now have a use. Use them to win games to get the #1 overall pick. Mind blowing. They can still be traded at trade deadline if the team chooses to. It's different for sure but it's hard to say it's worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Keep in mind this is the same guy who maybe got this frame of mind cause he completely messed up previously when he had the pick. Sure from a management standpoint there are teams that are put together on a low budget, with a young roster, with the hopes it will grow while having low expectations from fans and media alike. That is about as far as tanking goes imo, coaches care about their record, list every successful rebuild and there is a fired coach along the way. Players don't want to lose, they should get more for performance, with the odd exception of being for potential. Another note with Edmonton, they caved early to their youngsters Eberle good 2nd season so he gets the big bucks, but then they got Hall who was deemed the franchise, so they had to pay him the same. And not to disappoint the other number 1 he gets the same deal despite a very weak 2nd season. Most young stars that gained the steep raise from the elc had at least achieved some team success. Not these 3, right off the bat they were given the keys to the city without having to accomplish anything, and the rewards kept coming to them despite the team success. I still say Edmonton is not and never has been tanking, they have just been that bad and they are guilty of treating a prospect like a god before they suit up, and then reward them by giving them a sense of entitlement despite doing nothing. I fully agree with this. Plus, after they went to the Finals about 2 years in a row they had the worst injuries in the league. I think they just sucked. Hemsky was their top guy and their next one for the longest time, but never lived up to the billing. Talented, sure, but not what they expected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 That's the way it's always been but the ongoing ideas to re-vamp the draft order directly challenges traditions and old-time thinking. Basically, if you overly suck, then you will no longer get a free pass to the #1 pick. Like in my suggestion, the draft order is determined by team records after trade deadline where the team with the best record and still misses the playoffs gets #1 overall and the worst record gets 14th. Wow, what would that change? Let's take a closer look. 1. Teams trading away good pending UFAs at the trade deadline for draft picks risk "tanking" and getting a worser pick. 2. Teams like the Sabres would be buyers at the Trade Deadline. They will try to win down the stretch to get the #1 overall pick. This would alter the course of the universe as we know it. Who would sell at the Trade Deadline? Well, why does there have to be a barrage of trade activity anyways? Let the trades happen in the summer and prevent teams from loading up going into the playoffs. The Trade Deadline was invented in the first place to prevent late season player loading anyways. By altering the course of the universe, we completely solve this problem. We lose Trade Deadline day excitement but we gain league wide integrity. Every team will try to win until the end of the season. Way worth it. 3. What about pending UFAs of the Sabres? Simple. Instead of having no use for pending UFAs when the playoffs are out of reach, they now have a use. Use them to win games to get the #1 overall pick. Mind blowing. They can still be traded at trade deadline if the team chooses to. It's different for sure but it's hard to say it's worse. Do you mean teams should keep their pending UFA's for this reason? Because picking up pending UFAs doesn't make sense because they're going to have to give up high picks to pick them up. I like the model that Friedman suggests. Take into consideration the last 5 seasons and weigh the balls that way. Like DD says, maybe you're not allowed to pick first overall if you've already won the lotto the previous year. I think maybe you aren't allowed to pick in the top3 after winning the lottery the year before. Top 5 would be ok too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.