I spent part of this morning doing what I usually do before writing: reading around, listening carefully, trying to figure out what other people think the story is like that before deciding whether I agree with it. In doing so, I came across a familiar brand of Canucks commentary that has been gaining popularity since Quinn Hughes left town.
Breaking down the logic of a Canucks tank
The hockey analyst described it as “if” the Canucks want to tank – but then explained the matter as if they should. It didn’t take much to read between his lines.
The argument goes something like this: The subsequent victories were a facade. Nice to see perhaps, but ultimately pointless because they cannot be sustained. The ‘hybrid reconstruction’ that Patrik Allvin talked about is not interpreted as flexibility but as confusion. The team’s surprising success following the Hughes trade is likely to be short-lived and leaves it unsure whether it will compete or collapse. From there, the conclusion comes quickly and confidently: the Canucks need to fuel.
Get rid of everything that stands in the way of the team losing. Clean slate. Go to the design. Start well again.
In this scenario, the Canucks’ two biggest problems? Demko and Sherwood!
What’s interesting is how the case is constructed. According to this line of thinking, Vancouver has two fundamental problems. These aren’t bad contracts or missing stars; they are good players who do everything in their power to avoid losing.
Thatcher Demko wins too many games. Kiefer Sherwood competes too hard because he refuses to accept nights off. In this context, both become obstacles. These players are no longer assets, but problems that need to be ‘exorcised’. Why? Because their work ethic and heart hinder losing efficiently.
That’s the part of the argument that made me believe it was wrong from the start.
A Canucks tank would not only tear down the lineup, but the culture
The problem is that Demko and Sherwood are exactly the players teams usually try to find for years. A goalkeeper who demands structure, because it would be embarrassing not to play hard for someone who puts everything on the line. A depth that drags the norms along with it, just because he doesn’t want it any other way.
And yet, in this logic, they are recast as problems, not because they have no value, but because they have too much of it—because they make it harder to be bad on purpose.
What does that teach the rest of the Canucks lineup?
And I wonder what lesson that teaches the rest of the lineup. The young players who are still trying to earn a place. The recent arrivals who are looking for something to hold on to. The kids doing their best to stay in the NHL. What does it mean when efforts become fungible and being competitive becomes uncomfortable?
Maybe refueling makes sense. In a certain world, that makes sense to many people, perhaps even necessary. But before we lay out that logic, it’s worth asking a quieter question: what habits are learned along the way, and whether “cheating to lose” is really something a team should ask its players to learn.
Call me old and stupid, but it’s not good enough for the team I want the Canucks to become.
A final note to readers about an accidental irony
It’s hard not to notice that the case for tanking — for removing players who compete too hard and win too often — was presented by a hockey analyst sponsored by Uber Canada. That detail is more than cosmetic. Because the logic applied to the Canucks only applies if you believe that performance becomes a problem when it gets in the way of a desired outcome.
If Uber were to operate this way, it would sideline its best drivers for being too reliable, miss pick-ups would lower expectations, and justify inconsistent service as a necessary step toward profits. No serious company thinks like that. They don’t dilute their core habits in pursuit of a theoretical payoff. They protect the standards that keep the business running. It’s not that different in hockey. You don’t build something better by teaching people that doing the job well is optional.
Related: The two most ignorant things hockey fans say
#embarrassing #lack #logic #Canucks #tank