[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I guess since you really want to turn even non-relevent threads into the tanking, sure I'll give you a reply.

I don't know what you mean by "turn even non-relevent (sic) threads into the tanking (sic)" unless you're insinuating I'm peppering the board with thoughts on tanking (I'm not). I posted an offhand comment that seems to have upset you greatly, which is surprising, but I'm bored, so here we are.

First off, I think tanking is stupid. I also think nobody does it. I don't think any coach tells their team to lose on purpose, I don't think any goaltender doesn't try to make a save so they can get a higher draft pick, I don't think any scorer will try to miss the net so they get a higher draft pick. I think teams always try to win when they are on the ice. So from that standpoint, the term "tanking" is crap because nobody does it. Not for any reason.

I agree with most of the above, except your apparent definition of tanking. Tanking, if it occurs, occurs at the management level. Stripping your rosters of talent, moving veterans for futures, operating at or near the cap floor, and playing a great deal of rookies in prominent roles is evidence that management is not trying to win as many games as possible and is rather taking a "long view" (to be extremely euphemistic). Is this unconscionable? Not by any means -- it's the manager's job to assess short-term gain versus long-term pain, and vice versa, in making their decisions.

But if you're suggesting that all 30 managers have iced the best team they could this season, I have to strongly disagree.

But you want to argue the risks of a player with a permanent injury tha tends his career as a reason a top pick is less deseriable? That is stupid. It is a even bigger reason why you want to acculumlate as many assets as possible to build your team from. Maybe injuries will derail Sam Bennet's career, maybe Johhny won't be able to amount to any more then a PP specialist because of his size, maybe Sven's career gets lost in the woods. Maybe Monahan decides to give up his hockey career for modelling. Yes, anything can happen - and why you don't put all your eggs into a basket, and you want to amass as many high quality assets to build a strong foundation as possible. Does that mean advocate losing? No. But, in relation to the 300 post thread about this already (which I guess wasn't enough for you, so you chose to make this thread about tanking too) do I see value in getting a loser point in a 2-1 OT loss, or getting points in a game we should not have won? Not really. I still believe in hard work, a solid character team that works every night, and improvement, wins just aren't something that I see a lot of value in right now.

This is where your missing the point becomes legendary. If you can find me any statement I made where I suggest that a top pick is undesirable as a consequence of the mere fact of the possibility of injuries, I will happily retract everything. I think I've made it pretty clear that making a top pick your objective is a poor long-term strategy as a strategy in and of itself. Sometimes abject failure is the inevitable consequence of the cycle of success/failure that nearly every franchise endures, other times it's pretty clear that management guts the team and relies on a top pick to be the savior.

Happy? Or should we keep talking about tanking, because its the only fun thing to talk about on CP?

If you want to have a long talk about Nathan Horton's injury, go right ahead. I fail to see how I've impeded that conversation. But "tanking", and to a greater extent the plenitude of talent at the top end of this year's draft, is a nearly ubiquitous conversation. I, apparently, exceeded your tolerance threshold for it and I sincerely* apologize.

* Not sincere