Tank Nation: Matthews Edition

[jdh1]

What would you do?

If the Leafs got to pick 1st for Matthews,would you trade him to the Coyotes for a boatload of their prospects that are on their team and immediately upgrade the Leafs rebuild? It has been mentioned that he is from that area and that Arizona would immediatly solve their attendance problems and virtually gaurantee they stay in that state.

Depends which prospects. Define a "boatload". Like a two man kayak kind of scenario, or rubber dinghy? I demand clarification.

I would demand their 1st plus 3 of their young guns starting with Domi plus their under 23 years old defencemen or forwards.  I can't clarify more because I can't remember or know all their players.

 

[McGarnagle]

What would you do?

If the Leafs got to pick 1st for Matthews,would you trade him to the Coyotes for a boatload of their prospects that are on their team and immediately upgrade the Leafs rebuild? It has been mentioned that he is from that area and that Arizona would immediatly solve their attendance problems and virtually gaurantee they stay in that state.

Depends which prospects. Define a "boatload". Like a two man kayak kind of scenario, or rubber dinghy? I demand clarification.

I would demand their 1st plus 3 of their young guns starting with Domi plus their under 23 years old defencemen or forwards.  I can't clarify more because I can't remember or know all their players.

I think that Phoenix would be loathe to gut their organization for a single player even if he personally sold out the building, worked the concession stands, and cured cancer at the intermissions.

 

[jdh1]

What would you do?

If the Leafs got to pick 1st for Matthews,would you trade him to the Coyotes for a boatload of their prospects that are on their team and immediately upgrade the Leafs rebuild? It has been mentioned that he is from that area and that Arizona would immediatly solve their attendance problems and virtually gaurantee they stay in that state.

Depends which prospects. Define a "boatload". Like a two man kayak kind of scenario, or rubber dinghy? I demand clarification.

I would demand their 1st plus 3 of their young guns starting with Domi plus their under 23 years old defencemen or forwards.  I can't clarify more because I can't remember or know all their players.

I think that Phoenix would be loathe to gut their organization for a single player even if he personally sold out the building, worked the concession stands, and cured cancer at the intermissions.

You never know,maybe give then one of our seconds that we have and a Gardiner to give them something back.

 

[Kin]

What would you do?

If the Leafs got to pick 1st for Matthews,would you trade him to the Coyotes for a boatload of their prospects that are on their team and immediately upgrade the Leafs rebuild? It has been mentioned that he is from that area and that Arizona would immediatly solve their attendance problems and virtually gaurantee they stay in that state.

There's no way that any player is going to single-handedly solve the Coyotes' financial problems. Having a local star is nice and might move the needle slightly but if they're still a bad team, and based on what you're saying about the deal this would be one that would definitely make them worse, they're still going to struggle to draw.   

 

[jdh1]

What would you do?

If the Leafs got to pick 1st for Matthews,would you trade him to the Coyotes for a boatload of their prospects that are on their team and immediately upgrade the Leafs rebuild? It has been mentioned that he is from that area and that Arizona would immediatly solve their attendance problems and virtually gaurantee they stay in that state.

There's no way that any player is going to single-handedly solve the Coyotes' financial problems. Having a local star is nice and might move the needle slightly but if they're still a bad team, and based on what you're saying about the deal this would be one that would definitely make them worse, they're still going to struggle to draw. 

It would make them worse for the short term,but they are doing nothing now.
NBC who handles NHL hockey broadcasts in the U.S. would probably fan this aquisition by playing it up all over their network.
Maybe my asking price is a little high,but there might be a possibility there where they benefit and the rebuild here takes a couple of years shorter.

 

[Kin]

It would make them worse for the short term,but they are doing nothing now.
NBC who handles NHL hockey broadcasts in the U.S. would probably fan this aquisition by playing it up all over their network.
Maybe my asking price is a little high,but there might be a possibility there where they benefit and the rebuild here takes a couple of years shorter.

Again, I think you're drastically overestimating the effect he has on the audience. NBC cares about national ratings. They advertise to get people from everywhere watching the game. Why would a hockey fan in Boston or Minnesota care where the best player on a bad Arizona team is from?

Also, there really isn't a talent fit. Strome and Domi are the two obvious pieces that would have to be included but there really isn't a good third piece. The Coyotes don't have any high end goaltending or defensive prospects. The Leafs already have prospects that are on Strome and Domi's level. What they don't have is an elite Center to build around. Matthews would be that guy. If you want the Leafs to hasten the rebuild, you want them to draft Matthews. 

 

[Peter D.]

An excellent article on the "tank". Lots more to read other than what I've quoted.

The GM then went on to imagine an alternate scenario that would most assuredly eliminate tanking: Teams that didn?t make the playoffs would be awarded picks based on how many points they could accumulate after being eliminated from playoff contention.

I could have sworn Nick Kypreos first came up with this suggestion. 

Which was silly then and is still silly now.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

An excellent article on the "tank". Lots more to read other than what I've quoted.

The GM then went on to imagine an alternate scenario that would most assuredly eliminate tanking: Teams that didn?t make the playoffs would be awarded picks based on how many points they could accumulate after being eliminated from playoff contention.

I could have sworn Nick Kypreos first came up with this suggestion. 

Which was silly then and is still silly now.

Particularly considering that teams are occasionally eliminated after having played their final regular season game.

 

[Kin]

Particularly considering that teams are occasionally eliminated after having played their final regular season game.

But those teams are already the ones drafting 13th or 14th now. This would leave them in the exact same position. The aim here, and it would achieve it, is to eliminate games like last year's Sabres/Coyotes game near the end of the year where neither team had an incentive to win and the crowd cheered on the visitors.

The problem with it is that it doesn't really work. None of the teams right now are technically eliminated. Realistically it won't happen until there are only 12 or so games left for most teams. So all you're doing is saving a few games a year. Worse still, it could encourage even more naked tanking to get yourself eliminated earlier.

If you just want the #1 pick to be a reward for success instead of failure Bill Simmons had a good idea a few years back. Do a tournament for the #1 pick. Single elimination, bottom two teams get a bye. 1-6 on one side of the bracket, 7-14 on the other. 

 

[lamajama]

An excellent article on the "tank". Lots more to read other than what I've quoted.

For the past couple of seasons a standard narrative has cropped up around this time of year, and it has to do with teams allegedly tanking in order to secure the first pick in the June NHL Entry Draft.

Last year it was the epically bad Buffalo Sabres and almost-as-bad Arizona Coyotes. This year it?s supposedly the Toronto Maple Leafs.

A week before the trade deadline, The Hockey News?s Ken Campbell wrote a blog piece on the subject. Campbell even found an authority?a nameless GM whose complaints about the Leafs were expressed thus:  ?It?s bullsh? ? It drives me nuts.?

The GM then went on to imagine an alternate scenario that would most assuredly eliminate tanking: Teams that didn?t make the playoffs would be awarded picks based on how many points they could accumulate after being eliminated from playoff contention.

Campbell decided to one-up the GM by imagining a scenario in which draft position was based on a team?s winning percentage after elimination.

Since last July the Leafs have shipped out veterans Phil Kessel, Dion Phaneuf, Shawn Matthias, Nick Spaling, Roman Polak, James Reimer and Daniel Winnik. That fire sale arguably has made them a worse team in the short run and might improve their position for this year?s draft, but what?s at work is more complicated than simply tanking in the hopes of picking first.

The Leafs have been consistently bad all season. So while it?s fair to expect that their current four-game losing streak will continue, it?s also possible their current roster, which includes some promising prospects getting their first taste of NHL play, just might find its footing and actually put together a winning streak.

Nevertheless, let?s concede a point to Campbell and our nameless GM and assume the Leafs are in fact a worse team than they were a few weeks ago and do finish dead last.

There?s still a massive impediment to the realization of their allegedly diabolical scheme, and that?s the draft lottery.

"Nameless GM"....probably Buffalo.

 

[Peter D.]

Worse still, it could encourage even more naked tanking to get yourself eliminated earlier.

That's just it.  It's not going to disencourage tanking, it's going to encourage it.  Teams like the Leafs and Sabres with no playoff aspirations this year aren't going to try and wait until they're eliminated with 12 games left.  They'll go out of their way to do so with 20+ games left to give them a greater chance to accumulate points.

If you just want the #1 pick to be a reward for success instead of failure Bill Simmons had a good idea a few years back. Do a tournament for the #1 pick. Single elimination, bottom two teams get a bye. 1-6 on one side of the bracket, 7-14 on the other.

No chance the PA ever agrees to anything like this.  More games without extra pay?  Not going to happen.  Try hard so the team can draft a guy who could eventually replace me?  No thanks.

 

[ZBBM]

There is no system that will "fix" this -- because it doesn't need to be fixed.  If you believe that it's necessary to give bad teams some kind of preferential shot at the best players coming into the league each year -- which seems to me to be absolutely necessary to encourage parity, or at least cyclical success -- then the draft is an award for failure, no matter how you massage the preference.

If, OTOH, you really want to reward success, then you give the Cup champion the first pick each year, and then on down the list.

 

[Kin]

No chance the PA ever agrees to anything like this.  More games without extra pay?  Not going to happen.  Try hard so the team can draft a guy who could eventually replace me?  No thanks.

This would generate HRR. HRR reduces the amount players have to pay in Escrow. Think players are tired of giving back 15-20% of their paychecks every year? The World Cup is a perfect example of just how willing the players are to play extra hockey to generate more revenue.

And it seems like a stretch to me to suggest that any NHL player has that little confidence in their position on a team outside of the occasional 4th rounder. 

 

[Kin]

There is no system that will "fix" this -- because it doesn't need to be fixed.  If you believe that it's necessary to give bad teams some kind of preferential shot at the best players coming into the league each year -- which seems to me to be absolutely necessary to encourage parity, or at least cyclical success -- then the draft is an award for failure, no matter how you massage the preference.

If, OTOH, you really want to reward success, then you give the Cup champion the first pick each year, and then on down the list.

It's not an either/or. You can have a system that distributes talent without outright encouraging failure.

 

[hockeyfan1]

An excellent article on the "tank". Lots more to read other than what I've quoted.

For the past couple of seasons a standard narrative has cropped up around this time of year, and it has to do with teams allegedly tanking in order to secure the first pick in the June NHL Entry Draft.

Last year it was the epically bad Buffalo Sabres and almost-as-bad Arizona Coyotes. This year it?s supposedly the Toronto Maple Leafs.

A week before the trade deadline, The Hockey News?s Ken Campbell wrote a blog piece on the subject. Campbell even found an authority?a nameless GM whose complaints about the Leafs were expressed thus:  ?It?s bullsh? ? It drives me nuts.?

The GM then went on to imagine an alternate scenario that would most assuredly eliminate tanking: Teams that didn?t make the playoffs would be awarded picks based on how many points they could accumulate after being eliminated from playoff contention.

Campbell decided to one-up the GM by imagining a scenario in which draft position was based on a team?s winning percentage after elimination.

Since last July the Leafs have shipped out veterans Phil Kessel, Dion Phaneuf, Shawn Matthias, Nick Spaling, Roman Polak, James Reimer and Daniel Winnik. That fire sale arguably has made them a worse team in the short run and might improve their position for this year?s draft, but what?s at work is more complicated than simply tanking in the hopes of picking first.

The Leafs have been consistently bad all season. So while it?s fair to expect that their current four-game losing streak will continue, it?s also possible their current roster, which includes some promising prospects getting their first taste of NHL play, just might find its footing and actually put together a winning streak.

Nevertheless, let?s concede a point to Campbell and our nameless GM and assume the Leafs are in fact a worse team than they were a few weeks ago and do finish dead last.

There?s still a massive impediment to the realization of their allegedly diabolical scheme, and that?s the draft lottery.

"Nameless GM"....probably Buffalo.

i don't feel 'sorry' for the "Nameless GM" -- it's the Leafs turn to be bad!

 

[Bullfrog]

No chance the PA ever agrees to anything like this.  More games without extra pay?  Not going to happen.  Try hard so the team can draft a guy who could eventually replace me?  No thanks.

This would generate HRR. HRR reduces the amount players have to pay in Escrow. Think players are tired of giving back 15-20% of their paychecks every year? The World Cup is a perfect example of just how willing the players are to play extra hockey to generate more revenue.

And it seems like a stretch to me to suggest that any NHL player has that little confidence in their position on a team outside of the occasional 4th rounder.

I'm with Peter. This really makes little sense from a player's perspective. i understand that a little bit of extra revenue is good, but otherwise the whole premise of players competing for a draft position is ridiculous.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm with Peter. This really makes little sense from a player's perspective. i understand that a little bit of extra revenue is good, but otherwise the whole premise of players competing for a draft position is ridiculous.

Yeah I've heard this idea before and I really don't see it. I've seen suggestions that there should be a $2mil prize at the end or something, but I just can't see players who just had their Stanley Cup dreams for the season officially end care about this one bit. Most would probably rather just get their offseasons started.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm with Peter. This really makes little sense from a player's perspective. i understand that a little bit of extra revenue is good, but otherwise the whole premise of players competing for a draft position is ridiculous.

Yeah I've heard this idea before and I really don't see it. I've seen suggestions that there should be a $2mil prize at the end or something, but I just can't see players who just had their Stanley Cup dreams for the season officially end care about this one bit. Most would probably rather just get their offseasons started.

I can't even begin to imagine the crappy, uninspired hockey that would result.

 

[Frank E]

I can see someone having a problem with the Leafs icing a roster that flirts with the cap floor to try and lose...like ice an AHL team for peanuts.

Fact is that the Leafs spent more on salary this year than pretty much any other team due to picking up lousy contracts and keeping most of their heavy contracts on the roster.

I can't really understand how there'd be a problem with how the Leafs are going about acquiring young talent and rebuilding under this CBA.

 

[KGB]

And, maybe more to the point, you shouldn't punish relative success. If the draft is important for the distribution of talent, which is debatable in a hard capped league, then that goal is achieved regardless. Why should a team with 61 points get an edge over a team with 62 points? They're both terrible. That one point isn't really indicative of a greater need. Points are won and lost all the time as a matter of random chance.

So the idea that the team with the fewest points in the league is legitimately more deserving of the #1 pick than than the team with the second or third worst doesn't have much basis. All it does is encourage an all or nothing attitude towards being bad. Combine that with the all or nothing attitude towards success we have and you have this bizarre situation where for a lot of fans the two most desirable finishes a team can have are winning the championship and finishing dead last. 

It has all the basis in the world.  There's only one metric by which a team's performance can be quantitatively judged, and that's the amount of points it's earned.  Otherwise, it's all subjective and why should we even count points at all?  Somewhere there's going to be a person who would argue that the team that finished 11th from bottom is actually worse off than the team that finished last.  Maybe the last placed team already has a farm system full of prospects, while the 11th place team is aging and overpaid while the franchise cupboard is bare, thus there are those that feel that team is more deserving of a higher draft pick.  Round and round it goes. 

Should we rely on a system where everyone presents a case for drafting higher, adjudicated by some allegedly impartial body?  Or should we attach a number to it?  I happen to think it's quite a reasonable standard to use overall points as an objective measuring stick given that over the course of an 82 game season the points won and lost by happenstance are going to balance themselves for the most part.