[News] Nathan Horton's career may be in jeopardy

[Grimbl420]

To say the 2002-03 Panthers tanked to get a draft pick is an extreme stretch at best.

To use Hortons injury as an example as to further your argument as to why teams shouldn't tank for daft picks is extremely distasteful.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

You don't have to act defensive when you're explaining. It wasn't immediately obvious what point you were trying to make in the first place and while the first response was rude, the follow up questions weren't made by the same person.

Maybe. I interpreted his comments as piling on with the thoughts and prayers brigade that demand appropriate deference and solemnity for any marginally sensitive situation. If that's not his position, I apologize, but his comments since lead me to believe my assumption wasn't far off the mark.

In any case, if my first comment's relevance was unclear, it's more appropriate to ask for clarification than to say "what an incredibly stupid comment" in order to get your experience points for expressing outrage at someone else's lack of sensitivity.

[Kolbe31]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Yet another reason why you shouldn't tank for draft picks. You never know...

Best of luck to Nathan.

Couldn't that logic be applied to trades too? Free agent signings? Anything in life?

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Kolbe31

Couldn't that logic be applied to trades too? Free agent signings? Anything in life?

That you should adequately assess the downside as well as the upside? Yes, yes it could. And should be.

Which is my argument. People don't gauge the downsides and risks of top picks and what it takes to get them, as the stars in their eyes only see the stat lines of Sidney Crosby.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

was never the same after that hit

Ya, definitely. That hit is what sparked the bruins and why they won the cup IMO. It completely changed the series after that. Suck it Canucks!!

Anyway, hopefully he can pull a Roberts and come back and play in a couple years. Good luck Nathan.

[Phanuthier]

OK I didn't think I'd have to explain it, but since I do.... a player who has moved onto his 3rd team, drafted 11 years ago and signed as a UFA for a team he was not drafted with, gets a serious injury, and somehow this is an example about tanking (not that there is any actual proof of this at all) and so we can get starry eyes about drafting Crosby?

are you serious?

[Huntingwhale]

Nathan Horton single-handedly won me a hockey pool after his first 30 goal season with FLA. A shame injuries have derailed him so much as I honestly thought he could turn into the best goal scorer from that draft. Hope he recovers fully and can make a comeback.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Nathan Horton single-handedly won me a hockey pool after his first 30 goal season with FLA. A shame injuries have derailed him so much as I honestly thought he could turn into the best goal scorer from that draft. Hope he recovers fully and can make a comeback.

How did you do last year in your hockey pool?

Are you leading this year?

Details!

[saskflames69]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

What?

I'm saying that tanking for draft picks is a bad plan because injuries may derail a promising career, as they did with Nathan. You just can't hope that one guy you pick becomes the savior of your franchise.

What's wrong with that?

Are you actually arguing that Florida tanked the 2002-03 season so they could draft Horton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2...anthers_season

[Five-hole]

Allow me to quote myself:

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Who is saying anybody tanked?

There's a lot of conversation around here about drafting high this year. Heard of these McDavid and Eichel guys? A lot of talk about them recently, and that winning hockey games is not in our best interests. A lot of suggestion that other teams, like Buffalo and Carolina, have purposely gutted their rosters this year.

I'm saying its a bad move to rely on high picks too much, in part because they could struggle with injuries their entire career, and you potentially waste a season.

Comprende?

No, Florida was awful. And I'm sure they were hoping for Horton to be more than he was during his time there, but injuries derailed his career, including during his time with Florida.

High draft picks are not a sure thing. One of the reasons is because of injury plagued careers. See: Staal, Jordan. See: Lindros, Eric. See: Tkaczuk, Daniel.

Are you going to continue to be daft? I don't see what is so complicated about this.

[Chill Cosby]

Seriously people, the pile-on of Five-hole is ridiculous.

His point is that because anything can happen (as we're seeing with Nathan Horton and as we almost saw with the dangerous health issues of Crosby and Kessel for instance) it is not wise to sacrifice everything (including a winning, hard working culture), aka "tanking," in order to get that "one player" to secure your future.

In short, tanking (or even just counting on high picks) is bad because it can cost you more than you get in return. That is certainly related to Horton, as he is amongst a handful of top picks who have had their careers threatened by serious medical issues.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

How did you do last year in your hockey pool?

Are you leading this year?

Details!

Last year I was bottom 3rd. I didn't enrol in one this season.

[Kolbe31]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

That you should adequately assess the downside as well as the upside? Yes, yes it could. And should be.

Which is my argument. People don't gauge the downsides and risks of top picks and what it takes to get them, as the stars in their eyes only see the stat lines of Sidney Crosby.

Okay, so for the sake of arguement let's adequately assess Connor McDavid. Could he suffer a career ending injury at any moment? Sure. Could he have a long, productive career? Sure.

Did Nathan Horton, as an 18 year old, have any previous injuries that would've prevented you from taking him in the draft (I actually don't know?)? If not, I don't see what assessment you could've made in 2003 that's not based on pure paranoia.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Kolbe31

Okay, so for the sake of arguement let's adequately assess Connor McDavid. Could he suffer a career ending injury at any moment? Sure. Could he have a long, productive career? Sure.

Did Nathan Horton, as an 18 year old, have any previous injuries that would've prevented you from taking him in the draft (I actually don't know?)? If not, I don't see what assessment you could've made in 2003 that's not based on pure paranoia.

actually he did have concussion problems...

but thats besides the point... I don't think this is worth any more talk. Injuries happen? Holy crap you don't say... ok since we all now know that injuries happen in hockey, even to high draft picks who may have moved teams 3x in 11 years, lets move on....

[Five-hole]

This is a masterclass in deliberately avoiding the point. Well done.

[Kolbe31]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

This is a masterclass in deliberately avoiding the point. Well done.

Your point suggests there's a downside and upside to tanking. You want to assess the downside, I'm assessing the upside which could get you a franchise player. I don't support tanking, but I understand why teams may do it.

The Penguins tanked the 1983-84 season, ended up with Mario.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

This is a masterclass in deliberately avoiding the point. Well done.

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

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.

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.

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

[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

[Phanuthier]

acknowledged

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

As an aside, Columbus cannot seem to catch a break.

Well they signed a guy who had a history of injury problems. The summer they signed Horton, Horton needed shoulder surgery and of course he had a concussion history as well. They gambled on Horton staying healthy. He didn't. Hope he plays again.