Jump to content

Incomplete/faulty analysis on the tank


SDS
 Share

Recommended Posts

When thoughtful people put together a plan, you just don’t look at the best case scenario and say that’s our direction. People do risk analysis. They ask “what if”.

The best case scenario for the tank was to acquire Jack Eichel and use the remaining assets to build a contender. That implies a better team drafting in the late first round.

but when sitting down in devising a plan, what was the “what if“ if I contender failed to materialize? 

One logical outcome is that we continue to draft high choices. i.e. We just continue to acquire more talent.

Dylan Cozens is as much a product of the tank as Sam and Jack. So is Casey, so is Rasmus, so is Quinn. You can extend this to those high second rounders too.

Just because option one didn’t pan out, doesn’t mean that option two still isn’t in progress.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya without an agreed upon statute of limitations it just becomes Chaos theory at some point

I think we are clearly close enough that my suggestion that Dylan Cozens is a tank asset just like Jack. We have a long way to go before someone can suggest anything about butterflies flapping their wings. 

I mean if we were bad because of the tank, and we got these players because we were bad then this is just stating the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SDS said:

I think we are clearly close enough that my suggestion that Dylan Cozens is a tank asset just like Jack. We have a long way to go before someone can suggest anything about butterflies flapping their wings. 

I mean if we were bad because of the tank, and we got these players because we were bad then this is just stating the obvious.

I disagree. It's an impossible analysis because we don't know the players we'd have instead, had we gone a different route. Or what our record would be for that matter. 6 years is an eternity nowadays in the NHL. There are countless avenues where the path may have, and did, diverge since the initial onset of the tank. 

It would be difficult to retroactively label the tank a "success", a decade down the line, because we have nothing to compare and contrast it with - success relative to what? 

If Power turns out to be Hedman and we get him, does Krueger get credit because we only finished last cause he was so terrible? IMO it just becomes a pointless exercise. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If Power turns out to be Hedman and we get him, does Krueger get credit because we only finished last cause he was so terrible? IMO it just becomes a pointless exercise. 

I think we can thank China and their laboratory that inadvertently or advertantly unleashed the pandemic that created the necessity of the divisional realignment that resulted in us being forced to play in a stacked East Division which caused the team to lose far more games than we would have compared to the standard Northeast division. 🤪

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respectively disagree.  The tank ended the day TM acquired ROR, Kane, Bogosian and Lehner spending a huge amount of the assets acquired during the tank.  After that the rebuild (or failed rebuild) had begun in earnest.  All future assets acquired during the mismanagement of the rebuild are distinct events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "tank" is for one player.  Penguins for Lemieux.  Senators for Daigle.  Colts for Luck.  You're confusing it with a rebuild.

The tank failed.  The rebuild is ongoing more than half a decade later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If Power turns out to be Hedman and we get him, does Krueger get credit because we only finished last cause he was so terrible? IMO it just becomes a pointless exercise. 

Credit: public acknowledgment or praise, typically that given or received when a person's responsibility for an action or idea becomes or is made apparent.

Technically yes. Ralph would get public acknowledgment for his responsibility. I doubt you will see this on his mantle though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I think we can thank China and their laboratory that inadvertently or advertantly unleashed the pandemic that created the necessity of the divisional realignment that resulted in us being forced to play in a stacked East Division which caused the team to lose far more games than we would have compared to the standard Northeast division. 🤪

Good point is a good point. Threads can be pulled anywhere. I think if you candidly asked the Sabres if the expected some sort of success within 5 years of the tank, they'd say "yes". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for creating this thread.

Question: What is the purpose of a rebuild, whether it be a tank or not?

If your answer is some minor variant of, "to get better players than we have now and to have a better team in the future," then your answer is incomplete.  To my mind, the tank is inextricably linked to its rebuild.  IMHO, all of the following need to be considered in a rebuild, whether it be a tank or not.

  • What do I have that is working and how do I maintain it?
  • What players can I bring in who are unheralded but who might grow if given a chance?
  • What veterans can I bring in to teach the young guys the ropes and are OK with that being perhaps their career's epitaph?
  • How do I create a positive culture for the eventual fruit of the rebuild?
  • How do I prevent the negative vibes of losing get to the team in the inevitable downturns?
  • If there is youth on this team, how can I make sure they learn good habits and become mentors for the fruit of the rebuild?
  • Can I identify the depth players who emerge from the rebuild and the early sages for my team?
  • What are my back-up plans if things go awry either in the bottoming out itself or in the rebuild?
  • How can I build an appropriate support staff for myself and the franchise (e.g.,, ANALYTICS)?

In each and everyone one of these parts, which involve keeping the best of the old when possible or creating a good foundation from which to build, the Sabres did very poorly with because it was only concerned with losing as many games as possible to get his shiny new toys.  (Notice how the rebuilding aspect impinges upon the tanking.)  This was because the ownership was convinced somewhere to go on an all-out tank and was myopic in its goals as well while the GM was not cognizant of the other facets of a successful rebuild.  The Stink of The Tank starts at the top -- and its negativity wafts down through the organisation until it contaminates everything the organisation touches.

And, as I stated in another thread, XGMTM and XGMJB acted as if they were arrogant enough to believe that all their top draft picks would hit, all their trades would be wins, and all their FA signings would work out, that they did not need analytics because their evaluations were so perfect, had no back-up plan, and had no margin for error.  That is a recipe for disaster --  and we have 10 years of bilge and dross to show for it.

This is why I don't favour all-out tanks -- it is too easy to lose sight of the other facets of a rebuild and far too easy to stay in the mentality of a tank.  If my tanking team finds chemistry and great goaltending, the answer is not to trade the goaltenders; it should be to find some pieces to help out.  If my team suddenly wins 10 games in a row, but then starts to fade, the answer is not to denigrate it and do nothing; the answer includes identifying its most glaring weaknesses and trying to address them immediately.  The Sabres are acting as if they were tanking before now because each GM gets a reset to mould the team properly.  If you never accept losing, GMs will be less tempted to blow things up.

Edited by Marvin, Sabres Fan
forgot a few things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SDS said:

Credit: public acknowledgment or praise, typically that given or received when a person's responsibility for an action or idea becomes or is made apparent.

Technically yes. Ralph would get public acknowledgment for his responsibility. I doubt you will see this on his mantle though.

The tank is really only the product of the desire to acquire a true 1C which we lost on Black Sunday. So really, whoever caused us to lose Briere and Drury is responsible for said success. 

But actually, it's the lockout in 04-05 that set the pebbles in motion which caused an avalanche - we were only as good as we were in 05-06 (and therefore enamored by the idea of getting that top-end talent back) because of the extra seasoning the young players were able to do in rochester than year, building their confidence, allowing them to arrive on the scene the following season ready and raring to go. 

There are any number of instigating events - to me a statute of limitations is necessary. If the tank achieved no success in a reasonable timeframe, I think it's fair to say it failed. How many people have to be fired in the wake of it for that to be true?

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some say the tank worked, but the rebuild failed. What if the tank's success ensured the rebuild's failure? What was left for Jack to enter into?

Not that the Pens tanked for Crosby or the Hawks tanked for Kane using a common definition of tanking, but compare to the talent Sid and Patrick had around them when they arrived.

The Penguins of the 80s stunk, but they stunk just a little more, maybe on purpose for a short time, to get 66. They didn't tank, either.

What the Sabres did was Tanking to the Max and it was urged on by Pittsburgh people who knew Terry was a Pittsburgh guy and at the least a Crosby fan if not a Penguins fan; they all should have known better.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SDS said:

When thoughtful people put together a plan, you just don’t look at the best case scenario and say that’s our direction. People do risk analysis. They ask “what if”.

The best case scenario for the tank was to acquire Jack Eichel and use the remaining assets to build a contender. That implies a better team drafting in the late first round.

but when sitting down in devising a plan, what was the “what if“ if I contender failed to materialize? 

One logical outcome is that we continue to draft high choices. i.e. We just continue to acquire more talent.

Dylan Cozens is as much a product of the tank as Sam and Jack. So is Casey, so is Rasmus, so is Quinn. You can extend this to those high second rounders too.

Just because option one didn’t pan out, doesn’t mean that option two still isn’t in progress.

Sam Reinhart is the product of being bad.

Jack Eichel is the product of the tank.

Dylan Cozens and the other names you mentioned are the products of a rebuild.

They are all very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The Penguins of the 80s stunk, but they stunk just a little more, maybe on purpose for a short time, to get 66. They didn't tank, either.

Oh yes they did.  I think it was the Pens and Devils in a chase to the bottom.  Paging @Taro T

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also argue at this point it's irrelevant. If the strategy "succeeds" in spite of it not working, at all, in the way intended (this is obvious, come on) does it matter if it was successful? It was by chance. Non-replicable. If it's not a certified, replicable strategy who cares. The people who did it already got fired. We know they failed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

Hey, at least we're still not talking about whether Lewis had the authority to make the call he did, and how the call was actually fair and just.

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Oh yes they did.  I think it was the Pens and Devils in a chase to the bottom.  Paging @Taro T

Yeah, that'll solve it.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMMSMC at a critical moment the Pens made a curious goaltending decision. That might be microtanking at most. Let's look at the Pens' record for a few years before Mario. I could be convinced otherwise (just not by T-Square), but the Pens taking for Mario is apocryphal.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a solid retrospective, by a respected NHL writer. It supports the idea of a mini-tank.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100201133510/http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09351/1021485-125.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

IMMSMC at a critical moment the Pens made a curious goaltending decision. That might be microtanking at most. Let's look at the Pens' record for a few years before Mario. I could be convinced otherwise (just not by T-Square), but the Pens taking for Mario is apocryphal.

Correct.  I was the last game for sure and some other personnel decisions after the TDL.  But before then, no one there really thought so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

IMMSMC at a critical moment the Pens made a curious goaltending decision. That might be microtanking at most. Let's look at the Pens' record for a few years before Mario. I could be convinced otherwise (just not by T-Square), but the Pens taking for Mario is apocryphal.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/04088/292486.stm

Coach admits it:

"If Pittsburgh hadn't gotten Mario Lemieux that year, I think the franchise would've folded," Angotti said. The plan was hatched over a midseason lunch between him and E.J. Forget gold, they were going for the mold. "We didn't actually try to throw games. But, you know, we went in there with the understanding ... we weren't going to be upset if we lost."

Hell of a chart, too, at the top - showing how their performance changed in season.

To your point, perhaps the Sabres tank stinks more because it was planned from the outset, for 2 damn years. It's definitely worse. 

2 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Correct.  I was the last game for sure and some other personnel decisions after the TDL.  But before then, no one there really thought so.

Not according to their coach! ^

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

So, say Eichel, Reinhart, and Risto are all gone next year, and the Sabres are really good.

Do we say that it’s because of the tank, or in spite of it? 

Neither.  If that happens, I'd say it's because Adams pulled off some amazing trades.  The tank is 7 years ago now.

Edited by Eleven
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...