| Tanking Rule Suggestion. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 17 2010, 11:26 AM (1,039 Views) | |
| Cap'n | Feb 17 2010, 08:58 PM Post #21 |
|
was there as much tanking before the firing rule was changed this past year? perhaps we just need to re-adopt the old firing rule but allow for commish discretion on whether to extend it to 3 firings in the case of a particular tough rebuild project that a GM inherits. Seems like most of our "tanking" GM's are fired because their boards know they should be doing better with the talent on hand. If they were fired once during the tank it would at least put the threat in them that if they didn't right the ship quickly they may not be there to enjoy the fruits of their tank job. |
![]() |
|
| Jake | Feb 17 2010, 09:03 PM Post #22 |
|
Big Time Faggot
|
London Knights 01-02. Spits are currently on a three-year high, but prior to that they were garbage for a lot of years. And they put everything into this Mem Cup run, thumbing their nose at the future. They have drafted pretty well, but now they're relying on college-bound kids to decommit and choose Windsor if they're going to be competitive past next season. Their future isn't as bright as it was three months ago (and their on-ice team hasn't improved at all either). The Spits are a well-run team though, and any fall won't last that long as long as they have Boughner and Rychel in charge. But should either of them get interest from an NHL team, the Spits are completely screwed. Still, listen to what London and Kitchener fans said after the trade deadline. They're both pissed that their GMs didn't sell at the deadline, because they all know that neither the Knights nor the Rangers can really compete in the playoffs with Windsor, Barrie or even Plymouth. Knights fans wanted Kadri and Hutch gone, and Rangers fans wanted Moore traded. Again, it's a great strategy. That's why teams do it in the CHL, the NHL and the NBHL every single year. I just did it with more vigor than most have, because I don't do anything half-assed. |
![]() |
|
| Jake | Feb 17 2010, 09:06 PM Post #23 |
|
Big Time Faggot
|
Excuse? Who needs an excuse? I implemented a strategy that was well within the rules, and I did it not because I *had* to, but because I wanted to build the best possible team that I could. |
![]() |
|
| drewst18 | Feb 17 2010, 09:09 PM Post #24 |
|
Why do people have to tank? Thats the thing I don't get. Maybe Cap is right, but I am 100% sure Thomas is gonna make the playoffs this year, after a season of tanking he was able to get a pick, and now can get back to business as usuall and avoid being fired completely. I am all for having J being completely in charge here and saying you tank your gone...but it opens the window for BS. I am starting to think as I did before that its impossible to police which is very unfortunate for the league...cause its got a domino effect. I will say that Thomas (as usual :P) proved a point. He saw a couple teams tanking, and figured if they can tank why the hell can't I. Now another team sees him tank, and says well hey it worked for him I am gonna try it. Before you know it everyone is gonna be taking their turn tanking...Can't really blame anyone for it, its just natural I guess, but it sucks that we have to bring it up... Hopefully this convo alone will stop people from doing it. It's a little unsettling that I give up 3 of my very best players for a pick, and it gets rejected, and then a team trades absolutly nothing and will end up with a top 5 pick |
![]() |
|
| drewst18 | Feb 17 2010, 09:12 PM Post #25 |
|
Ohhh trust me I know the spits history...They haven't been good for a LONG LONG LONG time. Even w/ Spezza/Ott/Gleason/Leighton they were poop. But now they are a well run team and as long as Bouhgner and Rychel are there they will compete. |
![]() |
|
| mig174 | Feb 17 2010, 09:33 PM Post #26 |
|
Leafs GM
|
There were several teams that obviously tanked last season. I don't think I need to point out any names as we all know who did it. I agree that it's fucking stupid and should be regulated. It is essentially match fixing and destroys any semblance of competition (which is, what I'm presuming we are here for). The best way to discourage tanking is to remove any incentive to do it: the reason teams tank is to push their 1st round pick higher in the draft. So if a team has been found to be tanking, one way to penalize them is to put their pick last in the round or remove it altogether. If this is too extreme, move it ten spots down. Put another way, this is a stricter approach to the problem than the draft lottery, which is in place to presumably prevent teams from tanking so that a 1st overall is not guaranteed. I believe any measure against tanking has to involve the removal of the incentive to tank. I've given one example, but I think, because many of you are much more experienced GMs than I am, you could come up with a better solution. Obviously, such a rule would not apply if the team doesn't own its first round pick. The only thing that remains is to clearly define tanking and I think this conversation has yielded the best definitions. A team is tanking if: a) they scratch their best players in favor of lesser skilled players without any plausible excuse (e.g., player's condition is low, player is about to be traded, etc.) b) willfully employ tactics that cause them to throw or lose games, such as i) pulling their goalie mid-game to surrender goals to the opposition (I have suspicions this happened last season). ii) using tactics that are obviously bad (such as all defensive + passing) - this is the most subjective of the criteria, but can be particularly damning is if the GM has been previously known to be tactically sound (i.e. a GM who has, in the past, shown that he can get 36 year old wingers scoring at PPG pace in their first full NHL season). I'm not really saying anything new here - this is what you have suggested in previous posts. I think it's a good foundation to build the definition of tanking on. And IMO, to prevent the shit that happened last season, we need a rule like that. I wouldn't like the firing rule to be reinstated, however - newer GMs can be bested by experienced GMs quite easily while they're still learning (like me and kisle). And depending on how unreasonable board demands are, we can get fired very easily. I got fired twice in 1.5 seasons with the Leafs because the board wanted playoffs every time. |
![]() |
|
| Jake | Feb 17 2010, 10:23 PM Post #27 |
|
Big Time Faggot
|
I don't know that this should in any way be a criteria for anything. There isn't much to tactics at all, there really are only two choices for each category and maybe four or five different tactical combinations that you can use and still be somewhat competitive. I'm certainly no tactical genius, and if you're talking about me with Lebeau, that was a case where I discovered a really fucking good player and he just did what he was going to do. I didn't alter his personal tactics at all, he was set to "unit" for everything - all default settings. I've never had luck with personal tactics, they usually do more harm than good. Lebeau was just a fucking awesome player, maybe one of the five best in the game. |
![]() |
|
| mig174 | Feb 17 2010, 10:26 PM Post #28 |
|
Leafs GM
|
yeah you're probably right. I have relatively good players, but never do that well, so I assume I suck at tactics, and so can't really be considered an authority on that. |
![]() |
|
| drewst18 | Feb 17 2010, 10:27 PM Post #29 |
|
exactly my tool in DM was too set all tactics to personal (easy everything) selective shooting, defensive play. Worked wonders... ![]() and I don't know who your trying to fool...or maybe your trying to make people think your an excellent scouter by finding LeBeau...but its tactics. You know tactics and its pretty obvious. Lebeau was not a star, but he fit whatever your tactics are cause they are diff than the usual crash the net. Edited by drewst18, Feb 17 2010, 10:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tran | Feb 17 2010, 11:00 PM Post #30 |
|
Hey Drew, I am against tanking, to a certain extent. I thought you knew that. I made the phrase Tank Fag. Here's the kind of tanking I support: A) Your built your team. You realize it didn't work. You sell off vets. You play your kids. But you still put your best guys in your lineup. You just lose because you've purposely decided to rebuild your team and your new lineup doesn't stack up. Here's what I don't support. A) You could compete. You decide you want a draft pick. You send your players to the AHL and OHL while you play bums in their place. You're best players are on line 3, your worst players are on line one. You dress 12 guys instead of 18 or 20 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · League Rules · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
8:27 PM Jul 10
|







8:27 PM Jul 10