Whose idea was the tank and whose decision was it?

[WildCard]

It was my idea and I made the decision. 

 

[Crusader1969]

Canucks fans get it:

 

The most hardcore and educated fans are fully on TeamTank

 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/sixpack-educated-hardcore-canucks-fans-team-tank-2018

[Randall Flagg]

Canucks fans get it:

 

The most hardcore and educated fans are fully on TeamTank

 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/sixpack-educated-hardcore-canucks-fans-team-tank-2018

"If you don't agree with me, you're stupid and a soft fan"

 

Nice post bro 

[calti]

continuous losing in both major league sports may be what Buffalonians needed to put perspective back in their lives.

[bunomatic]

Canucks fans get it:

 

The most hardcore and educated fans are fully on TeamTank

 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/sixpack-educated-hardcore-canucks-fans-team-tank-2018

The Canucks aren't tanking. They fully expected to compete this season. They are just bad. There's a difference.

[Crusader1969]

"If you don't agree with me, you're stupid and a soft fan"

 

Nice post bro

 

Hopefully you read the article. But yes, I agree with it totally.

[Randall Flagg]

Hopefully you read the article. But yes, I agree with it totally.

I don't agree with your phrase that added the words "the most" to make it seem the way it did. 

 

Especially considering, this board back in 2014-15 was probably 75% pro-tankers, and the guys and gals who didn't like it post daily still and seem to be in the majority all of a sudden. 

 

Swamp, d4rk seemed to be pretty against it with some qualifications, freeman, NS, chz, PA, We've. There are more I'm forgetting. Eleven? 

 

That probably makes up over half of the posts any given day :lol: 

 

So "hardcore" my ass. A huge chunk of "tankers" have flaked out and left a long time ago.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Weave]

So "hardcore" my ass. A huge chunk of "tankers" have flaked out and left a long time ago.

 

Go figure.  Wish losing upon the franchise and then become disinterested when it happens.

[Crusader1969]

Just because they left the board doesn't mean they left the Sabres. Maybe Tankers are just tired of being beaten down by people telling them that they were sold snake oil and that it will haunt the Sabres indefinitely.

 

Threads like this one and the "how bad did the tank fail" may feel like shots to some that supported the Tank.

 

For me, I still love the debate and doesn't bother me at all. ill also be the first to admit that my time frame for the recovery was way off but I still believe the tank was the best course of action.

 

the Sabres coming in last once again this season is probably the best result they can have at this point, IMO. Though, not nearly as imperative it was 3 years ago.

 

Hopefully, the Sabres turn it around next season - led by Eichel, Samson, Mittelstadt and this years #1 we can put the debate in the rear view mirror, where it belongs.

 

I'm also hopeful no one starts the "who deserves credit for the tank" thread.

[Randall Flagg]

Also, each and every one of those posters said that we'd be worse now for it while you were predicting a playoff run this very season, so I question the "more educated" claim as well. They were objectively right about this season while you (and me, and lots of others) were laughably wrong.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[pastajoe]

I supported the tank and I stand by it. It was the best way to assure they got a franchise player, which they did. Therefore it was successful. The players they had pre-tank weren’t getting it done, and would never become a contender. It was disappointing that GMTM didn’t succeed in the post-tank rebuild. But now we have enough of a young core to build around. It’s just going to take a couple more years to become a playoff contender as the young prospects take over for the older players who aren’t cutting it.

[Crusader1969]

Even if you told me it would take 7 years after they drafted Eichel for them to rebuild the team into a cup contender, my position wouldn't change at all.

[nfreeman]

Just because they left the board doesn't mean they left the Sabres. Maybe Tankers are just tired of being beaten down by people telling them that they were sold snake oil and that it will haunt the Sabres indefinitely.

 

Threads like this one and the "how bad did the tank fail" may feel like shots to some that supported the Tank.

 

For me, I still love the debate and doesn't bother me at all. ill also be the first to admit that my time frame for the recovery was way off but I still believe the tank was the best course of action.

 

the Sabres coming in last once again this season is probably the best result they can have at this point, IMO. Though, not nearly as imperative it was 3 years ago.

 

Hopefully, the Sabres turn it around next season - led by Eichel, Samson, Mittelstadt and this years #1 we can put the debate in the rear view mirror, where it belongs.

 

I'm also hopeful no one starts the "who deserves credit for the tank" thread.

I supported the tank and I stand by it. It was the best way to assure they got a franchise player, which they did. Therefore it was successful. The players they had pre-tank weren’t getting it done, and would never become a contender. It was disappointing that GMTM didn’t succeed in the post-tank rebuild. But now we have enough of a young core to build around. It’s just going to take a couple more years to become a playoff contender as the young prospects take over for the older players who aren’t cutting it.

 

I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Liger, which he ducked:  if they are bottom-5 again next year, will you think the tank was a bad move?  If not, what if they are bottom-5 again the following year?

[LGR4GM]

I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Liger, which he ducked: if they are bottom-5 again next year, will you think the tank was a bad move? If not, what if they are bottom-5 again the following year?

No next year. Yes the year after.

[WildCard]

I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Liger, which he ducked:  if they are bottom-5 again next year, will you think the tank was a bad move?  If not, what if they are bottom-5 again the following year?

No. They could be bottom 5 for the next 20 years and I still wouldn't classify the tank as a failure. It did exactly what it was meant to do

[Randall Flagg]

I don't get how it's possible to separate the tank from its ability to get our team to contention. The feeling was that a franchise player is needed to contend. The claim is that the tank got us our franchise player so that we could contend. 

And there's no doubt in my mind that if we were heading to the playoffs right now, every single one of y'all would have posted at some point that the tank worked and was a success, evidenced by our team's success.

And I would be too, because I wouldn't have changed my mind. (I like to be on the winning side, it's in my nature and it's why i hate the sabres so much) 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[nfreeman]

No. They could be bottom 5 for the next 20 years and I still wouldn't classify the tank as a failure. It did exactly what it was meant to do

I don’t see how anyone can think this.

 

The point of the tank, as Flagg notes, was not just to get Eichel. It was to get the team to cup contender status— because drafting a superstar was thought by some to be a prerequisite for achieving that status.

 

Of course, the reason many of us correctly opposed the tank is that it almost always fails to result in cup contender status.

[dudacek]

The purpose of the tank was partly to acquire the type of franchise talent available only at the top of the draft, but it was also to collect a number of other draft picks to assemble a group of other players about the same age who would support that core.

 

The core has yet to prove to be as elite as hoped and the support system has yet to materialize.

Both are young enough that it still may happen.

 

How good will Mittelstadt Guhle Nylander Asplund Davidson Pu Borgen Nelson Rodrigues McCabe bAptiste Bailey Ristolainen Reinhart Eichel and this year’s top pick be five years from now when the oldest are still in their prime?

Edited March 29, 2018 by dudacek

[WildCard]

The point of the tank was to get a franchise player, it did exactly that. The point of the franchise player is to help it make it easier to have long term contention. Eichel does exactly that.

 

There are elements to contention. We identified one, went after it, and succeeded in getting it. The fact that we failed at every other single element does not mean that one facet was a failure; we had plenty of opportunities to replenish whatever cupboard people want to claim was bare, we had plenty of opportunities to bring in veteran leaders to not end up like Edmonton, and we had plenty of opportunities to not hire terrible head coaches who were run out of town by two HoF players, one of which is top 5 all time.

 

The point of the tank was to make it easier to contend and to sustain that success for a longer time period. 10 years of a franchise player does just that. It does not, however, hand you the playoffs if you refuse to tend to every single other aspect of running a successful franchise

The purpose of the tank was partly to acquire the type of franchise talent available only at the draft, but it was also to collect a number of other draft picks to assemble a group of other players about the same age who would support that core.

 

The core has yet to prove to be as elite as hoped and the support system has yet to materialize.

Both are young enough that it still may happen.

 

How good will Mittelstadt Guhle Nylander Asplund Davidson Pu Borgen Nelson Rodrigues McCabe bAptiste Bailey Ristolainen Reinhart Eichel and this year’s top pick be five years from now when the oldest are still in their prime?

Right. Tanking gives you assets and opportunities. Wasting those assets and opportunities is not a fault of the design, it is a fault of the implementation

I don’t see how anyone can think this.

 

The point of the tank, as Flagg notes, was not just to get Eichel. It was to get the team to cup contender status— because drafting a superstar was thought by some to be a prerequisite for achieving that status.

 

Of course, the reason many of us correctly opposed the tank is that it almost always fails to result in cup contender status.

No, it doesn't. We've been down this road a million times. Drafting is the most important aspect of building long term success. Drafting higher gives you a much higher chance of having a successful draft. Tanking gives you more picks in better positions to succeed. Kings, Hawks, Pens...all had numerous top picks. Everyone is so jealous of the Leafs right now, are we just going to forget the two years they were tanking too? Edited March 29, 2018 by Jokertecken

[pi2000]

TPegs initiated the tank. 

 

"If you want to watch the Sidney Crosbys, you have to get the Sidney Crosbys."

- Terry Pegula

[Weave]

The tank strategy required that many moving targets were hit.  The easiest target to hit was Eichel.  The success rate of hitting that many moving targets is no where near high enough to justify the process.

 

The process is high enough risk that you shouldn't expect the typical team management to successfully do it as a planned event.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Even if the Sabres are in the bottom five next season I’ll continue to believe that the rebuild was the correct long term strategy. As I’ve said before, the execution of that strategy was and is the real problem with the strategy and that is on Pegula and TM.

 

I actually don’t expect the team to turn the corner next season. I’m looking to 2019-20 for this team to begin contending for the playoffs. I’m hoping for improvement next season, say 80 pts, but not playoffs.

 

This rebuild now only works if whomever we draft this year early, the players recently signed plus Nylander, Guhle and Ullmark make an impact. Putting so much on these young guys sadly is a result of TM’s management of the assets acquired in the rebuild.

[nfreeman]

The tank strategy required that many moving targets were hit.  The easiest target to hit was Eichel.  The success rate of hitting that many moving targets is no where near high enough to justify the process.

 

The process is high enough risk that you shouldn't expect the typical team management to successfully do it as a planned event.

 

This.

[WildCard]

The tank strategy required that many moving targets were hit.  The easiest target to hit was Eichel.  The success rate of hitting that many moving targets is no where near high enough to justify the process.

 

The process is high enough risk that you shouldn't expect the typical team management to successfully do it as a planned event.

What other moving targets are there? Being successful in the draft? Hiring a good head coach? Not being an idiot in FA? Those are the same moving targets every successful team has to hit

[pastajoe]

I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Liger, which he ducked: if they are bottom-5 again next year, will you think the tank was a bad move? If not, what if they are bottom-5 again the following year?

I’ll say it again, the tank was successful, it was the post-tank rebuild that failed. I really thought that given the current roster with new players brought in by Botts and new coach that they would contend for a playoff spot this year.

 

To answer your question, I’ll continue to think the tank was a good move. What happened in the rebuild was a failure to build off the tank.