Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun Feb 15, 2026 12:45 pm
The concept of embracing tanking is essentially becoming comfortable with being celebrated losers and I agree with Tops that this is shame worthy
I think it's more embarrassing to be a delusional fan who believes their perennial mid-team has a shot at winning. That's what this team became under Benning and the franchise and Canucks fans became a laughing stock of the league. Management was constantly 're-tooling' a barren toolbox and a minority of fans bought into it. While I think most fans could see through it, it was still a really bad look on the franchise that will take time to recover from.
I think this whole topic of tanking is a bit moot - I understand the parallel with the NBA but how many NHL teams have truly tanked? There are obvious examples (Oilers, Sabres, Pens in generational years) but I think it's far more common that teams just flat out suck. This year I don't see a single team tanking - yes the bottom feeders will rightfully unload their vets if they can but that's only after they are long out of it. The Canucks, Blues, Flames and Rangers all came into this season with reasons to believe the would be better.
Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 15, 2026 12:43 pm
His problem is the sell job on it.
Lipstick on a pig and all that rot.
What does he expect them to do? Fess up to being incompetent and outright say they misread the whole situation? Fat chance. Perhaps Rutherford is singing his swan song, but the others will be looking for employment in the future.
That would like Tops whining about the quality of posting here, and actually stop posting, instead of just whining about it and continuing.
Mëds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 15, 2026 12:43 pm
His problem is the sell job on it and fans (and some media) who are buying the sell job.
Lipstick on a pig and all that rot.
What does he expect them to do? Fess up to being incompetent and outright say they misread the whole situation? Fat chance. Perhaps Rutherford is singing his swan song, but the others will be looking for employment in the future.
That would like Tops whining about the quality of posting here, and actually stop posting, instead of just whining about it and continuing.
Sorry. Should have included the italics part in my OP.
Every team that hits this point has to sell the rebuild to fans. However, it’s usually a new management group that has to do that, not the group that got the bus stuck in the mud all while saying they don’t need 4-wheel drive.
Nobody should be excited about a rebuild in Vancouver if said rebuild doesn’t include a full rebuild of the front office.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
dbr wrote: ↑Sun Feb 15, 2026 11:21 am
Relegation has to mean the end of the draft and lots of other changes as well, it's a complete pipe dream.
A tempting one, though: imagine a league where probably, the 7 Canadian teams (whose national broadcast deal brings in approximately the same amount as 25 US team's national deal does even accounting for exchange rates) compete with 9-13 US teams with another 20 team league underneath it that would be AHL/NHL tweener quality, and another league below that of AHL/ECHL tweener quality. Probably no more half billion dollar expansion fees, though. Certainly no more farm teams, although players could be loaned to any other team for development purposes.
Also, what do you do about a farm system?
Currently the AHL is the second best men’s hockey league in North America. It happens to be the NHL farm system.
Do you contract the NHL back to 24 teams and add the cast off players to the AHL to increase the talent in that league in hopes that it generates a few teams that could battle with NHL squads facing relegation? You could end up having an AHL team playing its own NHL affiliate. Imagine the hilarity if the Abbotsford Canucks became the NHL team and the Vancouver Canucks were relegated. Do they then become the farm or do they get to pull players down to the AHL in order to compete harder to earn their relegation opportunity? Or do the just swap rosters and Boeser, Hronek, Garland, and Rossi, all start next season in Abby with the rest of the current Canucks?
It would be such a mess (which I get that you are aware of and pointing out when you say end of draft and pipe dreams.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
I don't see any possible future timelines where the NHL agrees to relegation. The owners won't stand for it, the NHLPA wouldn't take the loss in jobs.
I don't see a need for it, anyways.
To make the lottery fairer to the bottom teams, I can imagine that they could even out the odds - but more importantly, I would reduce the odds each year that a team is in the lottery, or in the bottom 5 - or something like that.
Cornuck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 15, 2026 3:53 pm
To make the lottery fairer to the bottom teams, I can imagine that they could even out the odds - but more importantly, I would reduce the odds each year that a team is in the lottery, or in the bottom 5 - or something like that.
Still think every non-playoff team should get two picks in a snaked draft before the playoff teams make their first.
Get rid of tanking completely. Have an equal odds lottery for all non-playoff teams. First lottery ball picked gets picks 1&32, next gets picks 2&31…until the last lottery ball gets picks 16&17. After the 32nd pick the playoff teams get their first picks.
There’d be no tanking because the odds would be the same no matter where the non-playoff teams finished.
After pick 48 the second round would start in the normal way by order of finish.
“Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room.”
- President Merkin Muffley
Picker of Cherries wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 9:14 pm
Still think every non-playoff team should get two picks in a snaked draft before the playoff teams make their first.
Get rid of tanking completely. Have an equal odds lottery for all non-playoff teams. First lottery ball picked gets picks 1&32, next gets picks 2&31…until the last lottery ball gets picks 16&17. After the 32nd pick the playoff teams get their first picks.
There’d be no tanking because the odds would be the same no matter where the non-playoff teams finished.
After pick 48 the second round would start in the normal way by order of finish.
What an incentive to not make the playoffs as a wild card don't you think? Would tanking just change? In other words teams that could just squeak into the playoffs may find it more advantageous to miss the playoff for a year or two to get 2 1sts in each year. While teams that do make the playoffs get punished for doing so by not getting any first round picks.
It would make trades interesting because you may not know what round your picks are in until the season ends. It may actually kill off trades if no high picks are available.
Would you eliminate trading for picks that are lottery protected?
Interesting concept, one I like if we miss the playoffs.
You don’t have to like it. I don’t like fighting or unsportsmanlike conduct but those are weapons too. A smart team uses all the opportunities given by the system to maximize victories. It allows for intimidation and for cheap shot rats, so, might as well use it.
The draft is how you get the elite players needed to win it all. Might as well embrace losing.
That’s not to say to embrace bad play or poor players, but to have a low ceiling, budget squad that accepts the results for a reason: to stack up talent.
This is what has to happen now.
We can dream of a better world, sure, but in this one I hope to see a team that tries hard but drafts high for a few more years.
Picker of Cherries wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 9:14 pm
Still think every non-playoff team should get two picks in a snaked draft before the playoff teams make their first.
Get rid of tanking completely. Have an equal odds lottery for all non-playoff teams. First lottery ball picked gets picks 1&32, next gets picks 2&31…until the last lottery ball gets picks 16&17. After the 32nd pick the playoff teams get their first picks.
There’d be no tanking because the odds would be the same no matter where the non-playoff teams finished.
After pick 48 the second round would start in the normal way by order of finish.
What an incentive to not make the playoffs as a wild card don't you think? Would tanking just change? In other words teams that could just squeak into the playoffs may find it more advantageous to miss the playoff for a year or two to get 2 1sts in each year. While teams that do make the playoffs get punished for doing so by not getting any first round picks.
It would make trades interesting because you may not know what round your picks are in until the season ends. It may actually kill off trades if no high picks are available.
Would you eliminate trading for picks that are lottery protected?
Interesting concept, one I like if we miss the playoffs.
I don’t think any teams would skip a chance at the playoffs when they get it. Playoff revenue is one incentive, but all teams want a chance at a miracle run and possible cup. Injuries may take a toll on top teams during the playoffs and upsets happen, so runs like the 82 Canucks become a thing. I think the snake lottery I laid out would eliminate tanking.
I agree the teams could still trade their one guaranteed first round pick - the second pick of the snake, but not the first pick of the snake until the season is over to see who is part of the snake and after the lottery has decided who gets which pick. The lottery could happen as soon as the season ends.
As far as tanking being a tool. It is, but I think most people feel it is a tool that should be taken away for the entertainment value of the sport. There should never be incentive to lose.
“Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room.”
- President Merkin Muffley
I actually think players don't tank. I highly doubt a lot of coaches would intentionally tank. Now a GM is really the only one who can organize a tank and then only byu successfully acquiring the right players and mix of players. That takes time. I agree that we never set out to tank, ever.
This season I think that we just decided this was the time to trade Hughes, for a ton of reasons. Then it was ok, no more pressure to win and make the playoffs and a high draft pick is critical. But actually land in last place. I dont think anyone in management thought we were that bad. In fact they kept talking about when we are healthy.....What has management done that is suggestive of a deliberate tank?
