Revisiting the TANK: Was it worth it?

[LGR4GM]

I think this debate is still about 2 years to early but since I criticized someone for bringing this up everywhere maybe it is time to start looking back at the tank.

 

Some parameters. The 2012/2013 season is not a tank year. The Sabres did not start unloading talent until the trade deadline which is normal for teams outside the playoffs looking in. The committed to the tank in the summer of 2013 where other players left and we knew about suffering. So the tank years are 2014 and 2015. We drafted Reinhart and Eichel those years and made no attempts to improve the rosters. 2016 and 2017 are not tank years.

 

Tank: to deliberately devoid your team of talent by trading the talent you have away to stockpile draft picks and draft as high as possible in the draft. Tanking is a deliberate action. Note the 3 parts of a tank. 1, trade away talent for picks. 2, do not do anything to improve the team with immediate talent through trades or UFA. 3, trying to get the highest draft pick possible. You need all three to be in a tank.

 

Feel free to argue that the tank started in early 2013 if you so choose.

 

 

 

So was it worth it?

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Doohickie]

I think it's a case of coulda-woulda-shoulda second guessing.  If we win a couple lotteries where we were the front runner, maybe things turn out differently.

 

I don't know that the tank was the problem though.  I think the problem was that in his zeal to speed the rebuild up, XGMTM expended too many of the assets that Darcy accumulated in the selloff for pieces that didn't have the impact we all hoped they would.  He traded futures for the present (which is quickly becoming the past) and it's becoming apparent that the present team still has some holes to be filled... and because of the trading of those futures, help is going to be more difficult to come by.

[Swedesessed]

The Eichel tank was worth it one million percent. Perhaps where the Sabres went wrong was ANOTHER tank for the Matthews/Laine lottery should have been done. Imagine Eichel and Laine on this team as an example. And in addition, imagine this roster with better contracts and not ones that are saddling them down and will continue to for awhile.

[North Buffalo]

If it was done well yes but TM screwed it up by giving away too many picks for Lehner, drafting Nylander because he doesnt have the drive of his older brother and not drafting a high end D... Or finding some diamonds in the rough. Some may still turn out and the new regime seems to get the difference between hockey motivation and hockey determination. So it may still work out but is gonna take longer than originally thought. So Overall imo it sucks but probably needed to happen.

[Scottysabres]

For me, the tank began June 22nd, 2012. From that day forward trades were made primarily for picks as a steady stream of players were shipped out. Many of those draft picks were flipped, at least high end ones, in deals for building block players. The ROR deal was worth it. The Kane/Bogosain deal is still playing out, but Kane is an impact player to be sure.

 

To me, it comes down to the draft picks themselves. Outside of Reinhart, Risto and Eichel, not seeing a lot of impact there. Of course, I consider last year as the last year of the tank and there are players still in the juniors and AHL that have yet to have an opportunity maturity wise to show if they can contribute.

 

Tim Murray was a mixed bag, the now famous "2 seasons of the Disco" is what brought his regime down imo.

But we do have a cornerstone franchise player in Eichel, we appear to have some youth with speed in the pipe line.

 

Yes, I believe it was worth it, long term.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

No.

[Sabel79]

You know what they say about the best-laid plans of mice...

[woods-racer]

We went from from Reigier to Murray.

 

Ruff to Blasma.

 

They are the polar opposites of each other and we are saddled with the good and bad that each brought to the Sabres. Ideally, the tank would have been done by a very good gm/coach combo for it to be effective and as short possible. The Sabres didn't have that. Lets hope they do now.

 

Was it worth it. I can only answer that in 10 years after a lot of winning in the playoffs. The only thing worse than tanking is 9th place mediocre.

[Weave]

Disagree with the parameters in the OP.

 

Still disagree with the tank. Haven’t seen any evidence yet that we improved our championship chances by tanking.

 

And we are now into the 5th season of watching poor hockey.

[LGR4GM]

Disagree with the parameters in the OP.

 

Still disagree with the tank. Haven’t seen any evidence yet that we improved our championship chances by tanking.

 

And we are now into the 5th season of watching poor hockey.

which one?

[Weave]

which one?

The start of the tank.

[LGR4GM]

The start of the tank.

It started in 2013. Up until that point there was no concerted effort to rid the team of talent. 

[Scottysabres]

It started in 2013. Up until that point there was no concerted effort to rid the team of talent.

 

June 22nd, 2012. On this date the trade for the Girgensons pick occurred. Prior to this, they picked up players, following this date they picked up primarily dump contracts and picks.

 

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Buffalo_Sabres/2

[Weave]

It started in 2013. Up until that point there was no concerted effort to rid the team of talent.

Disagree. The shedding of talent in non-hockey trades started as these guys hit the end of their contracts and were moved for picks with no concern for the current on ice product. That effort became obvious with Paul Gaustad.

 

We weren't told it was a tank yet, but it was a dismantling of talent with only future returns in mind. Semantics AFAIAC

[Doohickie]

Going from a different angle:  Do you think the Sabres would have been better off to stick with what is commonly referred to as the rotten core, with the twice annual (training camp, trade deadline) tweaks trying to catch lighting in a bottle?  We talk about how hard it is to break the team of bad losing habits currently, but hadn't they already fallen into a habit of mediocrity?  Didn't everyone agree that *something* needed to be done?

 

I'm not putting forth a position here, just asking a question.  I was against the tank before I was for it; it just seemed counter to instincts to "try* to lose.  But there's no denying the team was in a funk.

[Weave]

Going from a different angle: Do you think the Sabres would have been better off to stick with what is commonly referred to as the rotten core, with the twice annual (training camp, trade deadline) tweaks trying to catch lighting in a bottle? We talk about how hard it is to break the team of bad losing habits currently, but hadn't they already fallen into a habit of mediocrity? Didn't everyone agree that *something* needed to be done?

 

I'm not putting forth a position here, just asking a question. I was against the tank before I was for it; it just seemed counter to instincts to "try* to lose. But there's no denying the team was in a funk.

They didnt have to stick with the failed core.

 

Hockey. Trades.

 

LaFontaine for Turgeon.

Hawerchuck for Housley.

[LGR4GM]

They didnt have to stick with the failed core.

 

Hockey. Trades.

 

LaFontaine for Turgeon.

Hawerchuck for Housley.

This is something else we have to stop. Pre 2005 trades are meaningless now because of the cap and what it does.

Subban for Weber, hockey trade example

[Mustache of God]

The tank started the moment Lucic concussed Miller.

[Doohickie]

The tank started the moment Lucic concussed Miller.

 

Not sure I would say that.  It was the signal that it was coming, but it didn't start right then.

[nfreeman]

It started in 2013. Up until that point there was no concerted effort to rid the team of talent. 

 

No. 

 

During 2012-13, they fired Lindy, replaced him with a loser with zero pro experience, traded Pommer while he was still under contract for another year, traded Regehr, Leopold and Brennan, and didn't bring in a single NHL player. 

 

Then, at the year-ending presser, Darcy told everyone to get ready for some suffering. 

 

He didn't decide on that approach that day.  He decided on it during the year, probably around the same time Lindy was fired, got ownership to buy in, and announced it at the end of the year. 

 

Saying you want to evaluate the tank but that it didn't start until 2013-14 is like saying you want to evaluate the decision to match the RFA offer to Vanek but Vanek didn't score 44 goals the year before the offer.

 

 

Going from a different angle:  Do you think the Sabres would have been better off to stick with what is commonly referred to as the rotten core, with the twice annual (training camp, trade deadline) tweaks trying to catch lighting in a bottle?  We talk about how hard it is to break the team of bad losing habits currently, but hadn't they already fallen into a habit of mediocrity?  Didn't everyone agree that *something* needed to be done?

 

I'm not putting forth a position here, just asking a question.  I was against the tank before I was for it; it just seemed counter to instincts to "try* to lose.  But there's no denying the team was in a funk.

 

Absolutely, but tanking wasn't the only option, as the Bills are showing us. 

 

Darcy should've been fired at the end of 2011-12, and the new GM should've been given the choice as to whether to keep Lindy.  He should've also been given the same mandate McD and Beane have been given -- a patient rebuild that did not include bottoming out for a 1-in-5 chance at a generational player, but that did inlude We've's suggestion below.

 

 

They didnt have to stick with the failed core.

 

Hockey. Trades.

 

LaFontaine for Turgeon.

Hawerchuck for Housley.

 

Indeed.  For that matter the Roy-for-Ott trade was this type of move, although a day late and a dollar short in classic DR fashion.

 

 

The tank started the moment Lucic concussed Miller.

 

I don't exactly agree with this, but I certainly agree that the slide into oblivion began there and was not arrested as it should've been.

[LGR4GM]

I give you an entire thread to lay out your argument and you're bitching over the tank starting in March or June of 2013. Just present your case and if you wanna use March then go for it.

[Crusader1969]

not even a question. If you want to win a cup the best way is to tank and hit on a generational player. 

 

6 of the last 9 championships won by teams that tanked and if you include LA who drafted Doughty 2nd overall, if you include them that's 8 of 9.

 

I was reading through the 2014 draft talk the other day and I said "just wait for 5 years the sabres will dominate" I still think they will be a cup contender in 2019-20

[dudacek]

Getting Jack Eichel absolutely did not make the tank worth it.

The goal of the tank was to set us up for a decade of cup(s) contention.

 

A repeat of 2006/2011 will not be worth it. We didn’t need the past four years plus this one to achieve that.

What we were aiming for is Pittsburgh/Chicago or a worst-case of Washington.

 

It’s too soon to call it a failure, but for it to be a success most of Kane O’Reilly Reinhart Risto Nylander Mittelstadt Lehner Eichel and a handful of our other 2013-2018 picks will have to comprise the bulk of the core of a cup contender.

Edited October 30, 2017 by dudacek

[Scottysabres]

I give you an entire thread to lay out your argument and you're bitching over the tank starting in March or June of 2013. Just present your case and if you wanna use March then go for it.

I won't make an argument, just express my opinion is all. I am in the yes column as I stated previously. And here are my reasons:

 

1. Hockey rosters are cyclical in ups and downs over the course of a couple decade window. Yes there are a few exceptions, notably the red wings, but when looked at against other organizations or becomes clear they are not the norm.

2. The organization was devoid of center depth, after the Drury/Breire departures the team relied heavily on its wingers for creativity and its goaltending to make up the difference. Not many teams find success this way post 04/05 lockout.

3. 1 playoff appearance in 5 years, assets (Pommers, Vanek, miller, etc) approaching peak years of prime and an already failed attempt to throw money at the situation contributed immensely to the final decision.

4. Removing the tenured status of Regeir/Ruff afforded the opportunity for new vision, no matter how botched that process was, it was still a further component to tearing it all down. Regeir was correct in his statement, "suffering", of that there can be no denying. However, it was "who's strategic plan" during the suffering that would determine the overall length of time, and to a large extent, what the product would look like on the back side.

5. The Pegulas, they bare ultimate responsibility for the decision. Terry dreamed of The French Connection days, and, in pursuance of his vision to relive the glory days, building it from scratch appeared to be his second choice after originally trying to spend his way to a cup.

 

The reason I list these items is specifically because they all had significant impacts on where the organization is today. I happen to agree with the Pegulas decision to do so, even while I disagree with the personell they put in place to do it.

[Doohickie]

I won't make an argument, just express my opinion is all. I am in the yes column as I stated previously. And here are my reasons:

 

1. Hockey rosters are cyclical in ups and downs over the course of a couple decade window. Yes there are a few exceptions, notably the red wings, but when looked at against other organizations or becomes clear they are not the norm.

2. The organization was devoid of center depth, after the Drury/Breire departures the team relied heavily on its wingers for creativity and its goaltending to make up the difference. Not many teams find success this way post 04/05 lockout.

3. 1 playoff appearance in 5 years, assets (Pommers, Vanek, miller, etc) approaching peak years of prime and an already failed attempt to throw money at the situation contributed immensely to the final decision.

4. Removing the tenured status of Regeir/Ruff afforded the opportunity for new vision, no matter how botched that process was, it was still a further component to tearing it all down. Regeir was correct in his statement, "suffering", of that there can be no denying. However, it was "who's strategic plan" during the suffering that would determine the overall length of time, and to a large extent, what the product would look like on the back side.

5. The Pegulas, they bare ultimate responsibility for the decision. Terry dreamed of The French Connection days, and, in pursuance of his vision to relive the glory days, building it from scratch appeared to be his second choice after originally trying to spend his way to a cup.

 

The reason I list these items is specifically because they all had significant impacts on where the organization is today. I happen to agree with the Pegulas decision to do so, even while I disagree with the personell they put in place to do it.

 

That's a tough call though, isn't it?  I mean, a lot of us were happy with the selection of XGMTM, particularly because he was the anti-Darcy who would freely wheel and deal to get the players he wanted.  We recognized that crappy coaching was necessary to secure the tank.  But when the Sabres (a) lost the McJesus lottery, then (b) lost the Babcock sweepstakes, the trajectory of the tank dipped significantly.  This was when XGMTM started to earn his money (or not).  He failed to hire a good coach who was a good fit for the team, and the fact that he'd spent a good portion of the assets Darcy had accumulated but failed to accelerate the rebuild meant that the hiring of XGMTM was a miss for TP.  I give him credit for shaking up the front offices of both the Bills and Sabres in the same year. 

 

It looks like the Bills have been successful, but I think they were starting from a more "built up" team than the Sabres, and the Bills have been more successful in filling holes on the team than the Sabres have.  But the Bills' success is a huge surprise; I'm not sure that's a negative reflection on what the Sabres are doing, just that, for a change, we got lucky (and from the standpoint of the Bills, continue to get lucky.  Face it, a good chunk of the 5-2 Bills record stems from their turnover differential, which might be equated to "puck luck" in hockey.  Can they sustain +2 takeaways per game?  Probably not.  Hopefully the rest of the elements continue to come together and they can continue their winning ways.)