The Tank Responsibility Thread

[LGR4GM]

Please move all of the talk from the Dahlin thread about the tank and the Pegulas and Darcy to this thread. 

I know I missed some posts but I tried to get the majority of things between PA and Nfreeman on this topic. 

 

The bolded is, to coin a phrase, nonsense. At his Suffering Presser, Darcy said it was Terry who made the decision about rebuilding. I actually hadn't remembered him saying that until Vogl's excellent breakdown of the presser on its recent fifth anniversary. All I had in my arsenal was that Darcy had said on the radio sometime before the presser that Terry would decide the "extent of the rebuild." So, right off the top, we have a pretty good source that shows that the owner launched the so-called tank. The extent of the rebuild was: fracking deep. There's so much more. Terry called into WGR once and said the spending spree of summer 2011 was "my decision." Your penance is to re-read the Trial Thread.

 

Excellent. You're touching on something I've actually been afraid to bring up, because I get jumped on when I say ANYTHING, and this one is a doozy. Towit: don't we have to project Dahlin's future in the context of where he's ending up? Namely, arguably the most dysfunctional franchise in the NHL, maybe in all of sports. Housley is unproven, and so is Botterill. How will they handle him? Will Dahlin be happy in Buffalo? People in Sweden apparently think the city is one that God forgot. And, heavens, just look at this thread and think of the pressure and expectations the fan base are putting on him, and he's not even on the team yet.

No evidence of what he'll be as a Sabre. I think you all know what I meant.

 

 

That's not what Darcy said.  He said that TP has been very clear that the Cup is the goal, not just making the playoffs.

 

Here is the link:  http://buffalonews.com/2018/04/28/inside-the-sabres-day-of-suffering-lingers-five-years-later/

 

It's impossible to have a conversation if one side is so obsessed with sticking to a narrative that it bends the facts.

 

 

Your correction is fair. It wasn't the direct quote that I recalled. But I think you're bending the facts if you think the decision Terry made was merely to try and win a Cup instead of just trying to make the playoffs (the Sabres have nailed part two of that master plan). Darcy said the owner would decide the extent of the rebuild. The presser is full of hints. "Terry wants to try many things." "Terry has been consistent." "What Terry is asking us to do..." If the decision was all Darcy, someone's going to have to explain why he got fired later that same year.

 

 

I have no doubt that TP signed off on the tank, as this would be required by pretty much any owner of any pro sports team.  But that is a far cry from TP ordering a certain course of action.  This of course goes back to my original point, which is that no one here has any idea how much or how little TP has been involved in the various decisions that have been made since he's been on the scene -- and thus our information in that regard is far scantier than our information on Dahlin's likelihood of success in the NHL.

 

 

He's barred so many holds, if they ever started to get out, he couldn't hold them back. I'm guessing there's some NDA that prevents him from talking.

If we believe Darcy, Terry didn't just sign off on the tank, he determined what kind of tank it would be. It's not that important to my point — that we know a lot about how he has run the team. Just the fact that Terry decided on a certain direction (forget icing a one-off playoff team that might catch fire in the postseason, we're going to seek top-end talent and try to be a perennial powerhouse) is something. A lot, actually. He didn't leave that decision to his hockey people. And, really, what was Darcy supposed to do with that edict other than sell, go to (or near) the bottom and get high draft picks. As Darcy pointed out in that infamous presser, free agency was no longer a viable way of building a contender quickly.

We also know, because Terry told us in one of his rare public appearances to talk about the Sabres, that he didn't get overly involved in the Murray hiring.

 

 

I think you mean "If we believe PAFan..."

 

Again:  Darcy didn't say any of this in the Vogl article.  If you have facts that support this narrative, please post links and quotes.  Otherwise you're just repeating your theories.

 

 

It was an appearance on GR with The Gambler and The Game Hen toward the end of the 2012-13 season. It's findable, I think.

 

But what's the point? Even the direct quote from Darcy's presser "Terry made the decision" doesn't seem to mean anything to nfreeman. It's fake news. Decision? What decision?

 

 

As I said earlier, “the decision” would refer to signing off on the tank after it was proposed by Darcy — which is qualitatively different from TP deciding to tank and instructing Darcy to implement it. IMHO the former is much more likely than the latter.

More to the point — no one here knows, despite PA’s dogged attempts to turn theory into fact.

 

 

That's not what PA said, though, and that's not the point anyway.

 

He said nothing of who proposed it, but pretty much implied that it was Darcy.

 

I remember the GR interview as well.

I also find it hard to believe that after slogging along for almost 15 years trying the same thing over and over to build a team, that a group from Pittsburgh and saw how that team was built, had absolutely no influence on Darcy's approach completely changing (ie. tank). Darcy always took his cue from what ownership wanted (just break even.)

[SwampD]

How about we just have a Tank forgiveness thread instead?

 

be tired.

 

At this point, I don't care if the tank was Mike Weber's idea.

Although, that would be pretty interesting.

[Sabel79]

 

 

At this point, I don't care if the tank was Mike Weber's idea.

Although, that would be pretty interesting.

 

Whether it was his idea or not, he definitely stepped up at the 11th hour and got it over the line almost singlehandedly.  Good on him.  

[bob_sauve28]

An anti-tank gun 

 

  

[Doohickie]

I think JBot and HCPH were jointly responsible for this past season's tank, and unlike earlier versions, this one was fully successful.  HCPH was allowed to muck around for half a season to "develop his system" which was actually almost workable by the end of the year.  The additional of Dahlin at the draft, added to a team that was just mastering said system, may actually get us to the playoffs this year.

[LGR4GM]

I think JBot and HCPH were jointly responsible for this past season's tank, and unlike earlier versions, this one was fully successful.  HCPH was allowed to muck around for half a season to "develop his system" which was actually almost workable by the end of the year.  The additional of Dahlin at the draft, added to a team that was just mastering said system, may actually get us to the playoffs this year.

The 2015 tank was fully successful. 

[Neo]

The 2015 tank was fully successful.

 

I like the distinction or point you’re making, assuming I’m understanding it correctly.

 

The tank was successful. It achieved its goal (McEichel). There can be debate around whether the goal was appropriate or not viewed against its cost.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Neo

[LGR4GM]

I like the distinction or point you’re making, assuming I’m understanding it correctly.

 

The tank was successful. It achieved its goal (McEichel). There can be debate around whether the goal was appropriate or not viewed against its cost.

The point is a tank is designed so you finish last. With the NHL lottery that gives you the best odds of 1st overall. Therefore the tank itself was successful. 

[Doohickie]

Fully successful == McDavid.

[LGR4GM]

Fully successful == McDavid.

There was absolutely no way to guarantee this. If a tank is a deliberate action that it has to have a goal you control. The goal was to finish last. Therefore we accomplished the goal of the tank. 

[Doohickie]

The goal was always McDavid.  The Sabres were entirely successful in achieving the best odds of acquiring him, but ultimately failed to secure him.

[Sabre Dance]

The tank may be considered "successful", but the end game was always to build a Cup contender.  To date, this has not occurred.  Kind of like saying that the surgery was a success, but the patient died.  Harrumph.

[LGR4GM]

The goal was always McDavid. The Sabres were entirely successful in achieving the best odds of acquiring him, but ultimately failed to secure him.

We're not going to agree. Edited May 29, 2018 by Skurk Liger

[Crusader1969]

The tank may be considered "successful", but the end game was always to build a Cup contender.  To date, this has not occurred.  Kind of like saying that the surgery was a success, but the patient died.  Harrumph.

 

Until Eichel retires, the patient is still alive.

[Doohickie]

We're not going agree.

 

A badge of honor for me.

[LGR4GM]

A badge of honor for me.

Ok

[Doohickie]

*poke poke*

 

:rolleyes:

[Brawndo]

The tank may be considered "successful", but the end game was always to build a Cup contender.  To date, this has not occurred.  Kind of like saying that the surgery was a success, but the patient died.  Harrumph.

The Tank and the Rebuild need to be separated.

 

The Goal of the Tank was to get in position to draft McDavid or Eichel, which was successful as there was a 20% Chance at McDavid, an 80% chance at Eichel and a 100% chance of getting one of them by finishing 30th.

 

The rebuild which was touted in the brochure about how the team had multiple draft picks in the first and second rounds over a four year period and statistics how the highest percentage of goal scoring comes from first and second round picks. Unfortunately we all how that turned out after Murray.

Until Eichel retires, the patient is still alive.

The patient is out of the hospital and is in subacute rehabilitation

[Wyldnwoody44]

Said patient, is bogo

[nfreeman]

The Tank and the Rebuild need to be separated.

 

The Goal of the Tank was to get in position to draft McDavid or Eichel, which was successful as there was a 20% Chance at McDavid, an 80% chance at Eichel and a 100% chance of getting one of them by finishing 30th.

 

The rebuild which was touted in the brochure about how the team had multiple draft picks in the first and second rounds over a four year period and statistics how the highest percentage of goal scoring comes from first and second round picks. Unfortunately we all how that turned out after Murray.

 

The patient is out of the hospital and is in subacute rehabilitation

 

Respectfully, I think this is a distinction without a difference.

 

The Sabres didn't tank, and no one would ever tank, just to get a great player.  A lousy team with a great player is no fun a-tall, as some of us have learned the hard way the past few years.

 

The sole reason to tank was the (wrong) theory that getting Eichel would enable a rebuild that would get the Sabres to a higher level than they otherwise would've achieved. 

 

The tank may be stage 1 of the project, and the rebuild stage 2, but they are very much parts of the same project.

[LGR4GM]

If stage 1 is the foundation and stage 2 is the walls and the walls fall over because of shoddy construction, I don't blame the foundation. 

[nfreeman]

A more nuanced, and accurate, view is that if your house needs some repairs, you shouldn't burn it to the ground because you think you'll ultimately be able to build a better house with a fancy cornerstone that has caught your eye -- because doing so usually ends up in you and your family sleeping under a bridge.

[Doohickie]

A more nuanced, and accurate, view is that if your house needs some repairs, you shouldn't burn it to the ground because you think you'll ultimately be able to build a better house with a fancy cornerstone that has caught your eye -- because doing so usually ends up in you and your family sleeping under a bridge.

 

I'm not sure that model applies to rebuilding a hockey team at all to be honest.  How are the Sabres "sleeping under a bridge"?

Edited May 30, 2018 by Doohickie

[SwampD]

Respectfully, I think this is a distinction without a difference.

 

The Sabres didn't tank, and no one would ever tank, just to get a great player.  A lousy team with a great player is no fun a-tall, as some of us have learned the hard way the past few years.

 

The sole reason to tank was the (wrong) theory that getting Eichel would enable a rebuild that would get the Sabres to a higher level than they otherwise would've achieved. 

 

The tank may be stage 1 of the project, and the rebuild stage 2, but they are very much parts of the same project.

 

A more nuanced, and accurate, view is that if your house needs some repairs, you shouldn't burn it to the ground because you think you'll ultimately be able to build a better house with a fancy cornerstone that has caught your eye -- because doing so usually ends up in you and your family sleeping under a bridge.

So, which is it, cuz to me, that seems like a distinction with a huge difference.

[irregularly irregular]

Wasted energy worrying about what happened and who was to blame.

 

The road ahead looks good. Look out the windshield, roll down the windows, and enjoy the ride. The biggest concerns are missing the potholes called chronic injury and team chemistry. 

 

Forget about what you can see in the rearview mirror. It's only a distraction and not worth the time and effort.