TrueBlueGED

Maybe, maybe not. I bet there's significant overlap between teams that have decided to tank and teams that have been naturally bad in the years leading up to the tank. Given that, I doubt too much marketing opportunity is lost, as the league tries to avoid marketing bad teams.

To be fair, similar questions can be asked of all these guys. We're all just trying to piece this stuff together with no knowledge of each team's internal dynamics. For instance, you've made it known you want someone from a team with playoff success, but how much credit should assistants get for that? We can look at Pittsburgh's acquisitions of Kessel, Hagelin, and Daley as helping put them over the top last year, but we have no clue how much of a role Botterill or Guerin played in those decisions being made.

Upon further review, there may actually be a God. Praise be!!!

I can't believe it. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

Oh how soon we forget the dude who repairs airplane tails :p

Well, maybe. Moulson was actually more effective last year than Ennis (insert low bar joke here), but I think most of us would be more hopeful for Ennis going forward. Anyway, I'd still probably prefer they take Bogosian because of the extra year on his deal.

Nobody knows anything. Though I do find it amusing how many media people are tripping over themselves to "inform" on hopes they can pat themselves on the back later.

Good thing they can supplement it with the #6 pick in the draft.

Correct. I don't think anyone would argue year two post-tank was anything other than bitterly disappointing. But declaring the tank a failure really shouldn't be done yet.

Some words need not be spoken :nana:

We don't have the assets to make both the ROR and Kane trades without the tank; the ROR trade, in particular, directly used tank-acquired assets (Zadorov, Compher, pick), and Risto was drafted when we started tanking with the Pominville trade.

Just think, the offseason is only another 5 months long :p

Declaring the tank a failure is premature. For instance, if Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, O'Reilly, Kane, and Nylander are the core of a championship team...those guys are all here because of the tank. Just sayin.

Screw it, let's just go full Bachelor, but instead of a rose, Pegula gives the winner a $2 pair of Sabres sunglasses he can throw out. Oh wait, sorry, I'm cofusing the GM search for fan appreciation day.

As if there weren't enough signs of the apocalypse already :lol: I'm fully in believe it when I see it mode.

One does not simply drink with an anti-tanker :p Honestly, it's just the time of my class is obnoxious for during the week. But if you don't mind starting at 9, I'm in.

Larsson with some all-world defense there :nana:

I do indeed dislike you. And Flagg. And now We've.

Correction: it will come down to who exudes the most obviously Christian character. Hey, you can't troll me on the Hall-Larsson trade and not expect any reciprocity ;)

I'm not, but when you start proposing restrictions on the types of traded teams can make for a teeny on-ice effect, the slope had already been slipped down. Seriously, how much worse would the Sabres really have been of they had moved Franson, Kulikov, and Gionta? How much better would Arizona have been with an extra 20 games of Hanzal? Meanwhile, I think such a policy would have very real negative consequences for the ability of teams to re-tool, both in the near and long terms.

How far down this particular rabbit hole are you willing to go? Should the NHL have veto power over trades they feel are unfair to both teams with respect to the current on-ice product? Should prospects be restricted similarly to draft picks? Forced free agency spending? How far should the league go to force teams to ice the best possible roster at every moment?

Sorta. They certainly started to tank when their season went south, but they didn't enter the year with that as the plan. Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that a lottery doesn't change the tanking incentives much. As long as the talent distribution of the NHL draft is so strongly skewed towards the top, teams will have am incentive to go after it when rebuilding.

Sounds like we'll have our guy this week.

My fear remains that they'll be unwilling to move on for Tyrod for anythjng other than a sure-fire upgrade, which they are highly unlikely to be in a position to acquire. A coach calling the shots makes me feel this is even more likely. FWIW, I'm not in favor of tanking in the NFL either. But I am in favor of taking a chance on a prospect with questions, which is something I don't see the team doing as long as they have Tyrod in place. I don't want them to tank, I want them to take a chance on upside from a flawed QB. Just don't see it happening as long as they have an average starter.

It's certainly possible, though it would seem to defy belief...or at the very least, the notion that Whaley had eyes. His playing time at the end of the year had to be the nail on that particular coffin. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to going 8-8 and using both of next year's 1sts on position players because McDermott had bought the Tyrod kool-aid. Not.