When I think of tanking, I think of teams putting rosters a lot worse than ours together. It happens at the end of the year, not the beginning.
I don't think they're trying to win or sacrifice anything it takes to get better because there is no point right now but that doesn't mean they're tanking. Tanking means losing on purpose and they haven't played a game yet. They will be bad because by the looks of it, they have a worse team than last year but last year some would have said they were tanking and they turned out to be one of the hardest teams to play against and it was great hockey.
They're going to lose but I don't think it'll be intentional.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
The team is doing what is best for the prospects with thier development. To facilitate that you need vetern players to fill roles until they are ready. The additions of Bolig, Hiller, Engeland, and Raymond prove that. There is no tanking going on.
Yep along with Setoguchi the Flames have added secondary role players that they can lose with.
as a group this is an incredibly weak augmentation to a 27th place team.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
Even without the possibility of McDavid next year I don't think they'd changed anything so No. Spending to the cap on a bunch of aging players is how we got to this point. How about we don't do that.
I guess some fans got used to the way things went for a long time...try and buy a playoff spot because anything can happen! Sacrifice picks and prospects for vets that might push us into 8th and spend spend spend on free agents!
The Flames finally changed their mentality after a few years of doing that and they now how a bunch of good prospects. This is a rebuild and they're taking things slowly and doing it right. You may not agree about some players being sent down and some making the team but this is a hobby to you. There are guys in charge that make a lot of money to think these things through. They may not be doing the "popular" thing but it's up to them, they haven't shown that they're "tanking" and with 0 games played it's kind of a silly notion.
If you were to ask if the oilers are tanking, the answer would still be no. They're going to finish near the bottom of the league but that's just because they're run by a bunch of idiots, not because they want to.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
tank
verb 2 • [with obj.] N. Amer informal (in sport) deliberately lose or fail to finish (a match).
No, the Flames are not tanking. That would mean that their players and coaches were deliberately throwing games that they had the ability to win.
What the Flames are doing is building for the future. That means that each prospect is placed on a team – NHL, AHL, college, or junior – based on what is best for his development, not on what might produce a tiny improvement in the team's results this year. You can argue with the decisions that they are making, but it's pretty clear what they are trying to do.
They have chosen not to sell out their future in a desperate attempt to achieve mediocrity now. This is exactly the change that their fans were demanding after watching them fritter away their assets for seven years chasing an illusion of instant success.
If Bob Hartley stops driving his players to compete hard every game, or if he scratches his best players to put scrubs in the lineup, or (easiest of all) starts an incompetent goalie night after night, then yes, the team will be tanking. That didn't happen last season, and there is no evidence that it will happen this season. There could not possibly be any such evidence, because no games haev been played yet.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
I think the word tanking is to many people a negative. Deliberately losing. But when you barely spend to the cap and you add nothing of significance to your lineup what are you doing? Now yes you can say they are rebuilding and why waste money. Fill the roster with place holders and let the youth development in the minors for the most part. But what have you just described? A team that isn't trying to win. So deliberately losing or not trying to win?
The coach is doing his best. Those above him are being very calculated in their approach. Are they blatantly tanking in the worst sense of the word? No. But they aren't trying to win either.
Semi-tanking?
The Following User Says Thank You to St. Pats For This Useful Post:
It's not tanking, it's just not trying very hard to win.
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
I don't think they are but I hope they do under the current circumstances. If you are looking at a Yakupov/Murray or Ekblad/Reinhart type draft then it's a different story, but when you have a chance to get a possible Stamkos/Tavares+ level player at 1-2 in the draft and your team is already near the bottom then I have no problem with some creative tanking. I'm just not sure I agree with how the Flames are doing it right now.
I would rather tank with youth getting the bulk of the playing time than marginal vets while the youth play in the minors.
If Treliving added Setoguchi, Raymond, Hiller, Bollig and Engellend in a genuine effort to improve as a team, I'd be seriously questioning his abilities as a GM. I don't think he did though, which is pretty much my definition of tanking.
In the sense of not putting your team in the best position to win on any given night (like the Avalanche a few years ago), no, I don't think Hartley would ever stand for that.
Raymond is a poor man's replacement for Cammallari but in our situation, we aren't going to attract top UFAs, so Raymond is decent. Minor loss.
Hiller is a big upgrade over what we had last season. Win.
Bollig is the replacement for Westgarth, maybe not as tough but a better hockey player. Win.
Engelland replaces Butler, he's a better defenceman and he's bigger and a whole lot tougher which helps fix one of our biggest weaknesses. Win.
Setoguchi, I just don't understand this signing when we could have promoted a rookie or just left the spot open. Anyways a don't matter signing.
The thing is we made three improvements that addressed our weaknesses, so I can't see how anyone can say we are tanking.
If we were the Oilers or Sabres we would be calling ourselves tankers. Most will try to justify or defend it in some way but I don't see how were any different than Buffalo and probably worse. At the end of the day I'm fine with it. I think the crowd who love to rag on other teams for tanking are the ones with an issue.
Right now, Setoguchi is the only part of this lineup that makes me raise an eyebrow. Fine, he's a right handed shot. He barely looks capable of flipping burgers at McDonalds.
I like the rest of the lineup considering there aren't too many big signings that are going to hinder the team in a few years when it comes time to sign some of these talented, young players.
This is not the best lineup in the NHL, but I wouldn't call it tanking, either.
I like the rest of the lineup considering there aren't too many big signings that are going to hinder the team in a few years when it comes time to sign some of these talented, young players.
That's a factor that the 'Yes, we're tanking' side seems to overlook. If you want to improve in the short run by signing high-priced UFAs, you have to give them term as well. The best UFAs can get 5 to 7-year contracts for big money. Why would they sign a short-term deal with a losing team? But if you sign them for the long term, you are taking away roster spots from your own prospects down the road.
If you want to plug short-term holes with free agents on short-term deals, you wind up signing guys like Devin Setoguchi.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
That's a factor that the 'Yes, we're tanking' side seems to overlook. If you want to improve in the short run by signing high-priced UFAs, you have to give them term as well. The best UFAs can get 5 to 7-year contracts for big money. Why would they sign a short-term deal with a losing team? But if you sign them for the long term, you are taking away roster spots from your own prospects down the road.
If you want to plug short-term holes with free agents on short-term deals, you wind up signing guys like Devin Setoguchi.
I agree. This tanking question wouldn't even be asked if 2015 was an average draft year. People would just say that the Flames are just managing their assets so there are spots available when some of our primo prospects are ready to step up to the NHL.
To be honest, Setoguchi, Bollig, and Jones are just placeholders.
