Jillian Fisher: To Tank or Not to Tank: The NHL Draft Lottery There is always a way to take advantage of a system. However, why is it that teams and fans feel that tanking is key to a rebuild, and is this the only way to rebuild?

The punchline for one of my all time favourite clean jokes is...

"Tankety tankety tank".

Leafs tried to win every game last year...they just weren't good enough.

Funny thing is, I loved all the moves the Leafs made last season regardless of where they drafted. Not having to watch Kessel and Phaneuf was almost better than winning the lottery itself.

I expect to see changes in the future even though Edmonton did not win it this year.


I expect to see changes in the future because the Oilers didn't win it this year.

I don't recall 'tanking' being an issue when the Islanders, Lightning, Blackhawks, Blues, Capitals, Blue Jackets, Thrashers, Senators, Avalanche or Panthers picked 1st

I don't recall 'tanking' being an issue when the Islanders, Lightning, Blackhawks, Blues, Capitals, Blue Jackets, Thrashers, Senators, Avalanche or Panthers picked 1st
- walshyleafsfan

It started last year when generational talents became available.

Its going to happen every year, a team is going to be last. They are going to sell of everything they can for the future, and "Tank"

For some reason quotes isn't working. The Leafs management tanked, Sabres management last year tanked. It's the bottom line. The players and coaching staff however, did no such thing. Athletes are too proud to let that happen. I'm not saying it's wrong either way, because I'm my opinion, it's the smart thing to do with the prizes at the top being what they were/are this year and last. I just don't want to hear people say the Leafs "did it with dignity" because it implies the Sabres and teams before them didn't.

For some reason quotes isn't working. The Leafs management tanked, Sabres management last year tanked. It's the bottom line. The players and coaching staff however, did no such thing. Athletes are too proud to let that happen. I'm not saying it's wrong either way, because I'm my opinion, it's the smart thing to do with the prizes at the top being what they were/are this year and last. I just don't want to hear people say the Leafs "did it with dignity" because it implies the Sabres and teams before them didn't.
- BatFan88

Yay it worked!

I think it was just the Sabres goalie situation that raised a few eyebrows last year.

Leafs coaching staff - not sure. Babcock trying to impart a culture as much as teaching some kids how to play...wasn't ironic though when some Marlies proved to be better players than existing Leafs so they were sent down and replaced with "not as good" Marlies..lol.

I think the "tanking with dignity" line is just used by idiots or people trying to get under the skin of other fan bases.

I say this all the time, but the fact is that "tanking" makes the most sense, regardless of the first overall pick. If draft picks were completely random, teams would still "tank." When a team knows they won't be competitive for a few years, it makes too much sense to trade the players who will be too old to help when they are competitive again for younger talent (draft picks or prospects). It just makes sense! If you are going to finish near the bottom, it makes sense to lean into it -- again, regardless of the draft picks -- because you're going to have pieces that won't be helpful in the future.

What bothers me is that for years the Leafs were the butt of jokes never doing a proper rebuild because "the fan base would not allow it". Then they finally do it....blow up the team and accumulate draft picks.....and suddenly the Leafs tanked...shame on them! What happened to all those people screaming for the culture change? For moving out players with a sense of entitlement? Leafs finally do it and not they are tanking. What?

The funny thing is, in this year when the Leafs "tanked", they actually put up more points than the previous year, and were a far more competitive team under Babcock than they have been the past few seasons. Tanked schmanked! Too many people in here starting to sound like Garth from Buffalo!

Jillian Fisher: To Tank or Not to Tank: The NHL Draft Lottery
There is always a way to take advantage of a system. However, why is it that teams and fans feel that tanking is key to a rebuild, and is this the only way to rebuild?
- Jillian Fisher

Jillian, the problem is inherently linked to the Hard Cap the NHL & Owners have embraced. It creates parity. Parity is starting to get boring. Pertaining to tanking, it also enhances the requirement of young, cost controlled players who make an impact at 19, 20 & 21 years of age. Problem is, these type of players are only found in the top 3 of most drafts, after that & you got very lucky. & that is why teams "must" tank if they fall a little behind the parity curve. The best way to address this is to implement a softer hard cap allowing teams to exceed the Cap set each year. But at a cost(penalty).

Ugh, seriously with that first sentence "the tanking really paid off". The lottery win wasn't the point. It is a nice bonus for sure but the point to "tank" isn't to fail for the top pick (even if that is the obvious goal), it is to gather pieces so you will be good in the future.

Lets use the Leafs as an example. 3-7 years ago they accelerated their "retool" and traded for more immediate assets to build a contender. A move that clearly you would like all teams to do which is decent and makes for a more interesting race but what happens if it fails?

Like what happened to the Leafs, they traded their top picks to get more immediate pieces which didn't work. So instead of taking a 5 years full rebuild route, they tried a quicker 2-4 year retool which either would have built a playoff team who with good asset management could remain so for 5-10 years or busted forcing a reset.

Fast forward to 3 years ago where the club decided not to take shortcuts ala Clarkson, Bolland, Grabovski, etc, etc, etc, and strip the team down and rebuild. And you know what they did in less than 2 years? Turned a team with the worst prospect pool and useless unmovable contracts (which gave us no cap space for new deals) into a full cupboard of prospects, a championship caliber AHL team, and cap space that can be used for a profit (Laich's 2nd round pick return, Phaneuf without retaining salary, etc).

And we did all this WITHOUT A TOP 3 PICK. The fact that we won the lottery and will be drafting the best player Toronto has seen since Sundin is a sweet bonus but it would not under any circumstance had changed our goal should different more elaborate rules have been added to further dissuade "tanking". Our team was never going to trade youth and picks for rentals even if that meant likely drafting 10-14 instead of 1-4.

Jillian, the problem is inherently linked to the Hard Cap the NHL & Owners have embraced. It creates parity. Parity is starting to get boring. Pertaining to tanking, it also enhances the requirement of young, cost controlled players who make an impact at 19, 20 & 21 years of age. Problem is, these type of players are only found in the top 3 of most drafts, after that & you got very lucky. & that is why teams "must" tank if they fall a little behind the parity curve. The best way to address this is to implement a softer hard cap allowing teams to exceed the Cap set each year. But at a cost(penalty).
- Kevin R

I like you, Kevin.

Jillian, the problem is inherently linked to the Hard Cap the NHL & Owners have embraced. It creates parity. Parity is starting to get boring. Pertaining to tanking, it also enhances the requirement of young, cost controlled players who make an impact at 19, 20 & 21 years of age. Problem is, these type of players are only found in the top 3 of most drafts, after that & you got very lucky. & that is why teams "must" tank if they fall a little behind the parity curve. The best way to address this is to implement a softer hard cap allowing teams to exceed the Cap set each year. But at a cost(penalty).
- Kevin R

That's a good idea, I remember reading of an idea that a team can exceed the cap (up to a percentage) but doing so meant paying a hard penalty to lower market teams (like a revenue sharing model).

Meaning that teams who make more can exceed the cap (let's say by $10M) but then have to pay into a revenue sharing thing that all cash strapped teams would get a piece of (which then could be used for more cap spending and a better team). Heck you can even add a clause that any funds received MUST be used for salary (raises the cap floor for those teams) and anyone who doesn't use it returns it to next years revenue share.

Ideas like this that benefit the league and the players I think are the way to go, not ideas that would ensure worse teams stay at the bottom with no hope of improving baring some luck. I think the tanking and lottery system are solved and good enough. The teams that "tank" are no longer guaranteed a franchise player which is all you have to do.

I don't think the Leafs tanked at all.

If Jon Bernier posted a save percentage anywhere close to normal, they don't finish last.

If Nazem Kadri shot anywhere close to his normal S%, or if his linemates shot anywhere close to what should have been expected, they wouldn't have finished last.

If JVR didn't miss the second half of the season, they don't finish last.

I believe I also saw somewhere that the Leafs had the biggest differential in the NHL between expected goals and actual goals.

Lot's of evidence to show that they were in fact one of the unluckiest/luckiest (depending on how you view it) teams in the NHL this year.

I don't think it's fair to say they tanked. What Buffalo did last year was a full on tanking.

Just my thoughts. I don't even think the NHL should prevent tanking, as it comes with it's own built in risks and consequences.

Great article though.

I don't recall 'tanking' being an issue when the Islanders, Lightning, Blackhawks, Blues, Capitals, Blue Jackets, Thrashers, Senators, Avalanche or Panthers picked 1st
- walshyleafsfan

How could you forget the Pens on that list??

Teams will always tank. Point of this system is to not guarantee they get rewarded. Last year it worked. This year it did not....

I don't think the Leafs tanked at all.

If Jon Bernier posted a save percentage anywhere close to normal, they don't finish last.

If Nazem Kadri shot anywhere close to his normal S%, or if his linemates shot anywhere close to what should have been expected, they wouldn't have finished last.

If JVR didn't miss the second half of the season, they don't finish last.

I believe I also saw somewhere that the Leafs had the biggest differential in the NHL between expected goals and actual goals.

Lot's of evidence to show that they were in fact one of the unluckiest/luckiest (depending on how you view it) teams in the NHL this year.

I don't think it's fair to say they tanked. What Buffalo did last year was a full on tanking.

Just my thoughts. I don't even think the NHL should prevent tanking, as it comes with it's own built in risks and consequences.

Great article though.
- James_Tanner

How could you forget the Pens on that list??

Teams will always tank. Point of this system is to not guarantee they get rewarded. Last year it worked. This year it did not....
- Iggysbff

The way they did the lottery system will prevent teams from full out bottoming TO GET A FRANCHISE PLAYER. Buffalo did this last year guaranteeing Eichel but now that cannot be done. Tanking for a full rebuild is and should always be allowed as forcing teams to be crap for years without getting top picks will only cause them to fail (Atlanta and Phoenix).

- Iggysbff

They didn't "tank" in the sense that they just sucked. They tried to ice the best team they could but did so sticking to the plan of selling assets that would be with us in 3+ years and freeing up cap space.

They are tanking but that is a by-product of the full rebuild. As Tanner put it, with more luck and fewer injuries they would never have finished last.

The Leafs absolutely did not truly Tank the season.

1) Leafs' 69pts is the most points by a 30th place team since '07-'08.(NYI, TB 71pts). In fact, year over year, the Leafs IMPROVED by one point from their 68pts that got them 27th. 69 points is way better than last seasons 30th place BUF(54pts) and 29th place ARI(56pts) and way better than the year before's 30th place BUF(52pts). In each of the previous two seasons Toronto's 69 points puts them at 27th.

2) The Leafs did not trade away all of their best players. Kessel has talent but he doesn't contribute very much to winning - as evidenced by Toronto finishing with a better record without Kessel than they did with Kessel last season.

3) The Leafs did not bring in a bunch of rookies before they were ready at the start of the season. Instead they signed guys like Parenteau, Winnik, Hunwick, etc. to help them be competitive.

4) The Leafs were very competitive finishing 11th in Corsi. If not for Bernier's horrible start of the season the Leafs would never have finished last.(Same can be said for Talbot in EDM and 29th place).

5) Leafs had gotten their record back to .500 after an abysmal start and then JVR went out with injury. JVR happens to be the only 1st line forward the Leafs had. Losing Bozak for almost 1/2 a season was a huge loss as well.(Same can be said for EDM and their numerous injuries and 29th place.

This season - nobody tanked because this new system greatly reduces the reward for tanking. It works well and the NHL needs to give it 5 years to prove that. In that time you will see some of those 10th-14th last place teams get into the top 3. The last place team will fall out of the top three almost 50% of the time. In fact the last place team should win 1 in 5 times. In the next four years it would be very unlikely to see last place win it more than once.

They didn't "tank" in the sense that they just sucked. They tried to ice the best team they could but did so sticking to the plan of selling assets that would be with us in 3+ years and freeing up cap space.

They are tanking but that is a by-product of the full rebuild. As Tanner put it, with more luck and fewer injuries they would never have finished last.
- Steven_Dean

Every single non playoff team can use this excuse. That's all it is. An excuse.

Every single non playoff team can use this excuse. That's all it is. An excuse.
- Iggysbff

Thread killer.

If anyone should be pissed about not tanking, still finishing last and not getting the first overall pick, it should be the Flyers. Perennial contenders, with the 2nd best regular season winning percentage of any NHL team in the history of the league, means you'll never pick in the top few, unless you trade up. 2006-07 they finished dead last and were awarded the 2nd overall pick. Huge drop off between Patrick Kane and JVR...to tell me that the Flyers don't win the Cup in 2010 with Kane on the team and not JVR is simply nonsense.

The original tank was Pittsburgh for Mario. That was epic, yet no one ever mentions it.

I don't think the Leafs tanked at all.

If Jon Bernier posted a save percentage anywhere close to normal, they don't finish last.

If Nazem Kadri shot anywhere close to his normal S%, or if his linemates shot anywhere close to what should have been expected, they wouldn't have finished last.

If JVR didn't miss the second half of the season, they don't finish last.

I believe I also saw somewhere that the Leafs had the biggest differential in the NHL between expected goals and actual goals.

Lot's of evidence to show that they were in fact one of the unluckiest/luckiest (depending on how you view it) teams in the NHL this year.

I don't think it's fair to say they tanked. What Buffalo did last year was a full on tanking.

Just my thoughts. I don't even think the NHL should prevent tanking, as it comes with it's own built in risks and consequences.

Great article though.
- James_Tanner