You can’t honestly say you’d rather see your team tank and finish at or near the bottom of the league for years on end, would you? I’m not really sure where that strategy ever came from because even though it “can” work (Penguins, Blackhawks), most of the time it fails. Then you end up with a crappy team for a decade followed by an over rated team with over paid players.
Put me in the camp of being competitive on a consistent basis over being terrible for a decade with the remote chance of improving.
I completely disagree with this. Since the turn of the century lockout more teams that have tanked have succeeded than not. Tampa, chicago, Pitt, Colorado, Washington, LA, all gained their stars from being at the basement of the league for a handful of seasons that won them their cups. Being a decent team every year hasn’t got anyone anywhere in recent history.