Tanking. That's an interesting topic

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

We see the NHL and NBA have lotteries to try and prevent out right "tankers" from being rewarded. There is already bitching in baseball because if the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox can't have an advantage, then no one should.

But tanking. As a fan of my favorite team tanking not just saved a franchise, but changed the sports landscape of Western PA. The Pens were bad, but so were the Devils and they tried to out tank each other. And they hit a bad spell, what people don't realize while they WON the Sidney Crosby lottery, that the year before they LOST the lottery to the Capitals for Alex Ovechkin. Just so happened, the 2nd pick that year was Evgeny Malkin. The 2nd pick to Sidney Crosby was Bobby Ryan. Big dropoff.

Anyways.....how do you feel about tanking? I think the NFL and MLB will also go lottery. My god, the marketing savvy NFL, can you imagine the ratings for a draft lottery show?

Tanking. I think if you are throwing games, like bad play calls, etc....then that is effecting the integrity of the game, gambling, etc....that is wrong and should have serious consequences including forfeiture of the franchise or at least major fines and draft picks.

But....playing young guys and letting them learn on the job? I think that is acceptable. You know the goal is obviously still accumulating high draft picks, but it doesn't make sense trotting out some 35 year old journeyman who might be able to every once in awhile pull a rabbit out of his hat, vs a young guy who just makes enough mistakes to lose.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for the Pirates right now to sign a veteran pitcher and first baseman, just to win 73 games instead of 64 games. I guess what I am saying is player coach wise, playing the game to win is the right thing to do. Ownership/Management wise, providing the players, well that is different.

 

[DruidTM]

Steelers should’ve tanked… lost to Browns and Ravens… winning was meaningless… just extended an already too long drama of Ben leaving…I feel the Steelers are stuck in some middle of the road mediocrity….

 

[UPitt '89]

Steelers should’ve tanked… lost to Browns and Ravens… winning was meaningless… just extended an already too long drama of Ben leaving…I feel the Steelers are stuck in some middle of the road mediocrity….

If the Steelers lost to the Browns and Ravens, they'd be picking 16th instead of 20th.

That wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

 

[gary2]

We see the NHL and NBA have lotteries to try and prevent out right "tankers" from being rewarded. There is already bitching in baseball because if the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox can't have an advantage, then no one should.

But tanking. As a fan of my favorite team tanking not just saved a franchise, but changed the sports landscape of Western PA. The Pens were bad, but so were the Devils and they tried to out tank each other. And they hit a bad spell, what people don't realize while they WON the Sidney Crosby lottery, that the year before they LOST the lottery to the Capitals for Alex Ovechkin. Just so happened, the 2nd pick that year was Evgeny Malkin. The 2nd pick to Sidney Crosby was Bobby Ryan. Big dropoff.

Anyways.....how do you feel about tanking? I think the NFL and MLB will also go lottery. My god, the marketing savvy NFL, can you imagine the ratings for a draft lottery show?

Tanking. I think if you are throwing games, like bad play calls, etc....then that is effecting the integrity of the game, gambling, etc....that is wrong and should have serious consequences including forfeiture of the franchise or at least major fines and draft picks.

But....playing young guys and letting them learn on the job? I think that is acceptable. You know the goal is obviously still accumulating high draft picks, but it doesn't make sense trotting out some 35 year old journeyman who might be able to every once in awhile pull a rabbit out of his hat, vs a young guy who just makes enough mistakes to lose.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for the Pirates right now to sign a veteran pitcher and first baseman, just to win 73 games instead of 64 games. I guess what I am saying is player coach wise, playing the game to win is the right thing to do. Ownership/Management wise, providing the players, well that is different.

Exactly

 

[Franb]

We see the NHL and NBA have lotteries to try and prevent out right "tankers" from being rewarded. There is already bitching in baseball because if the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox can't have an advantage, then no one should.

But tanking. As a fan of my favorite team tanking not just saved a franchise, but changed the sports landscape of Western PA. The Pens were bad, but so were the Devils and they tried to out tank each other. And they hit a bad spell, what people don't realize while they WON the Sidney Crosby lottery, that the year before they LOST the lottery to the Capitals for Alex Ovechkin. Just so happened, the 2nd pick that year was Evgeny Malkin. The 2nd pick to Sidney Crosby was Bobby Ryan. Big dropoff.

Anyways.....how do you feel about tanking? I think the NFL and MLB will also go lottery. My god, the marketing savvy NFL, can you imagine the ratings for a draft lottery show?

Tanking. I think if you are throwing games, like bad play calls, etc....then that is effecting the integrity of the game, gambling, etc....that is wrong and should have serious consequences including forfeiture of the franchise or at least major fines and draft picks.

But....playing young guys and letting them learn on the job? I think that is acceptable. You know the goal is obviously still accumulating high draft picks, but it doesn't make sense trotting out some 35 year old journeyman who might be able to every once in awhile pull a rabbit out of his hat, vs a young guy who just makes enough mistakes to lose.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for the Pirates right now to sign a veteran pitcher and first baseman, just to win 73 games instead of 64 games. I guess what I am saying is player coach wise, playing the game to win is the right thing to do. Ownership/Management wise, providing the players, well that is different.

The Penguins actually tried to lose games at the end of the season, to insure they would get the first pick in the draft - Lemieux. The coach, Lou Angotti, admitted that is what he did. That is different from having a strategy to trade players for prospects and draft picks, knowing that your team would suffer losing seasons as a result. Many teams in all sports have, and continue to, followed this course of rebuilding.

I am not sure how you define "tanking," but to me what the Penguins did was unacceptable, while what usually happens with rebuilding is fine.

 

[HOF Coach]

The Flyers have been tanking since 1975.

 

[pbrad]

The Penguins actually tried to lose games at the end of the season, to insure they would get the first pick in the draft - Lemieux. The coach, Lou Angotti, admitted that is what he did. That is different from having a strategy to trade players for prospects and draft picks, knowing that your team would suffer losing seasons as a result. Many teams in all sports have, and continue to, followed this course of rebuilding.

I am not sure how you define "tanking," but to me what the Penguins did was unacceptable, while what usually happens with rebuilding is fine.

I too remember the Pens being accused of tanking to get Lemieux. Who cares if an owner decides the best thing for his club is to lose to improve the club, is that wrong. As far as season ticket holders doesn't it benefit them in the long run. If it works.

 

[NCanton Panther]

If the Steelers lost to the Browns and Ravens, they'd be picking 16th instead of 20th.

That wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

I’m curious why our draft position would only go from 20 to 16 if we had lost to Browns and Ravens. With those 2 losses, 8 teams would move ahead of the Steelers with a better record than there is currently?

 

[Burgh15]

Tanking got the Penguins Mario Lemieux and that's what got me to love the Penguins. I'm fine with tanking if it's to get a player who is going to change the course of your franchise. I'm not fine with a team losing because they are cheap and don't retain or acquire players.

 

[UPitt '89]

I’m curious why our draft position would only go from 20 to 16 if we had lost to Browns and Ravens. With those 2 losses, 8 teams would move ahead of the Steelers with a better record than there is currently?

Sorry, I meant if they had lost to EITHER the Browns or Ravens.

If they lost to both, they would've moved up further, correct.

 

[pittdan77]

I think the better question is, how often has tanking really paid off?

 

[UPitt '89]

I agree with Owtie in the original post.

If the NFL did a draft lottery of the 18 teams that missed the playoffs.... the ratings for that would be astronomical.

And you could weight it like the NHL does... worst team gets 18 ping-pong balls in the tube, second-worst gets 17, etc.

At the end of the year, there would be less incentive for losing teams to lose on purpose. It would only be for an extra ball or two in the lottery tube - no guarantee of the slotting.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Steelers should’ve tanked… lost to Browns and Ravens… winning was meaningless… just extended an already too long drama of Ben leaving…I feel the Steelers are stuck in some middle of the road mediocrity….

Yes the Steelers can take a page out of the Browns game plan.

 

[Dan1911]

I believe in rebuilding and gutting a bad team. Sell off the good players for picks and pass on aging, expensive veterans and get a “core” of young, cheap players you build around with other young, inexpensive talent. the Steelers should have gutted their team and drafted big uglies. I wish they traded off their excellent skill players that couldn’t be maximized by a ridiculously expensive aging vet with a shot arm.

Intentionally losing I don’t agree with.

 

[President Stache]

We see the NHL and NBA have lotteries to try and prevent out right "tankers" from being rewarded. There is already bitching in baseball because if the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox can't have an advantage, then no one should.

But tanking. As a fan of my favorite team tanking not just saved a franchise, but changed the sports landscape of Western PA. The Pens were bad, but so were the Devils and they tried to out tank each other. And they hit a bad spell, what people don't realize while they WON the Sidney Crosby lottery, that the year before they LOST the lottery to the Capitals for Alex Ovechkin. Just so happened, the 2nd pick that year was Evgeny Malkin. The 2nd pick to Sidney Crosby was Bobby Ryan. Big dropoff.

Anyways.....how do you feel about tanking? I think the NFL and MLB will also go lottery. My god, the marketing savvy NFL, can you imagine the ratings for a draft lottery show?

Tanking. I think if you are throwing games, like bad play calls, etc....then that is effecting the integrity of the game, gambling, etc....that is wrong and should have serious consequences including forfeiture of the franchise or at least major fines and draft picks.

But....playing young guys and letting them learn on the job? I think that is acceptable. You know the goal is obviously still accumulating high draft picks, but it doesn't make sense trotting out some 35 year old journeyman who might be able to every once in awhile pull a rabbit out of his hat, vs a young guy who just makes enough mistakes to lose.

For instance, it doesn't make sense for the Pirates right now to sign a veteran pitcher and first baseman, just to win 73 games instead of 64 games. I guess what I am saying is player coach wise, playing the game to win is the right thing to do. Ownership/Management wise, providing the players, well that is different.

First off, good post. Well thought out! Getting Lemiuex and Crosby were expert tank jobs. the Nats did the same to get Strasburg and Harper. Absolutely I think your latter tanking of playing all young guys is not only acceptable, but absolutely smart. You risk them actually being good... and then youd have to resort to the bad play calling and paying your coach 100k per loss
I think it falls apart when you ask successful players to tank. That would not happen. Watt, Micah, and those guys arent tanking. Also, when you do what the Jets did and run an all out blitz on a hail mary scenario and leave the receiver uncovered is too obvious of tanking. The Steelers will have a tough schedule next year, it shouldnt be too tough. Maybe we bring in Nate Peterman??? No, but no doubt this is a good play for the steelers next year.

 

[Burgh15]

First off, good post. Well thought out! Getting Lemiuex and Crosby were expert tank jobs. the Nats did the same to get Strasburg and Harper. Absolutely I think your latter tanking of playing all young guys is not only acceptable, but absolutely smart. You risk them actually being good... and then youd have to resort to the bad play calling and paying your coach 100k per loss

This is why I'm fine with the Pirates actively (and being relatively transparent) tanking for a few years. The only chance is to actually draft top talent and hope it all arrives at once before they trade them away.

 

[DruidTM]

Sorry, I meant if they had lost to EITHER the Browns or Ravens.

If they lost to both, they would've moved up further, correct.

As I said earlier tank em both… meaningless wins … then they got boat raced by the Chiefs and have a shitty draft spot…

 

[NCanton Panther]

Sorry, I meant if they had lost to EITHER the Browns or Ravens.

If they lost to both, they would've moved up further, correct.

Yeah, after I made my post I then figured that’s what you were thinking, had they lost 1 more not 2.