Eddie Lack offers his opinion on Roberto Luongo

[Millerdraft]

So you don't see how it can negatively impact their overall psyche/mentality if they're on a tanking team? If they're losing vs winning? At critical points in their development, don't you want them being energized and trying to win? How tanking could deteriorate some of the confidence and momentum they've built through finding a bit of success?

See the comments after mine...there are two sides/opinions to this story and neither one is more valid/"correct". We are all Canucks.

No, I get that. Ten games won't kill Jensen but overall I'd prefer most of the young guys learn how to win on the farm before coming up, ideally until age 22. However, if they did come up too early, do you think that "losing psyche" will set in with the Sedin's leadership here? Edmonton hasn't had much to show the way there and unfortunately for Calgary Iginla didn't have many quality prospects to guide...

[Baka]

I will also add though it doesn't guarantee anything... 6 of the last 9 cup winning team had a minimum of at least 1 top 5 draft pick who was under 25 years old (some had multiple). (Hawks 2xWins, Kings, Penguins, Canes, Lightning)

The 3 other teams...

The Ducks. Mainly have that win credited to them signing Niedermayer and trading for Pronger.

The Red Wings. We all know about with Lidstrom, Z, and Datsyuk and that unrealistic drafting/development.

The Bruins. While they did have the big bring in with Chara and tech had 2 top 5 picks under 25 (Seguin and Horton) I didn't count them in as they weren't as relevant as the other teams picks.

Basically if you look at all of those teams it implies modern hockey cup contenders all start with top 5 picks and/or monster defensemen.

Agreed.

I don't think any self-respecting pro athlete would try to lose on purpose, but managers and owners are a different story.


Anyway, I'm glad to see Eddie is still trying to keep things light, can't be easy for him to have fans turn on him already.

I would go as far as saying being a seller at the deadline is a form of tanking. Sellers are just teams with management that are saying this season is over for us so let's trade our best players, the team gets worse, and we get pieces to better the future.

You go out fighting to the end; professionals never cower down and intentionally lose. Yes you may still fight hard and lose but you can still hold your head high with pride and dignity. You never quit.

I will say this about players who are on teams that are out of realistic contention. I do think some of them stop caring about the final scoreboard and start focusing on their own numbers/production. With some of them playing for jobs at this point on a poor team a player can be more prone to take a shot himself or be generally aggressive and take more risks.

[McBackup]

I want the team to try their hardest to win, even though we're all but technically eliminated so far.

However, considering this isn't elementary school and we don't get a ribbon for trying our best, I'm not exactly sorry to see them lose since it's increasing our chance to get a good young player in the draft.

[Millerdraft]

So you don't see how it can negatively impact their overall psyche/mentality if they're on a tanking team? If they're losing vs winning? At critical points in their development, don't you want them being energized and trying to win? Instilling that go for the throat no matter what mentality? Tanking could deteriorate some of the confidence and momentum they've built through finding a bit of success so don't we want them to keep trying? If you're asking the team to tank, they're part of that. So you want to assess their play on a tanking team? That hardly seems fair?

Or you want them sitting beside veterans who say "we've lost anyhow, we don't care"? "It's all about next year, we're throwing in the towel for picks"?

Or are you suggesting we tank, but not everyone? Some keep playing like you mean it but the rest of you don't give it all you've got? That's counter productive in the big picture?

Can't have your cake and eat it too...on this team game if you're calling for the team to tank they drag the young players with them. The impressionable guys who are still finding their groove and how to fit in with the big club.

Or you want THEM to perform but us to tank? Which one are we going for her, now I'm confused.

See the comments after mine...there are two sides/opinions to this story and neither one is more valid/"correct". We are all Canucks.

Catch phrases are just great until you dissect them and look at the big picture. If you're calling for the team to tank for the betterment of the future, you're also including our current young players in that. How they adjust to playing here.

Somehow I missed this reply.

There's two ways to tank. Voluntarily and involuntarily. I'm advocating for involuntary tanking. Anyone that is banged up should sit out at this point and the two players who would obviously help us win the most are currently out so this helps our involuntary tank. Players that are in the lineup should play the right way, on the right side of the puck but there's no sense in selling out entirely for no reward (ie, laying huge bodychecks or throwing your ankle in front of a She Weber one-timer, stuff reserved for playoff games).

Edit: I should add that involuntary "tanking" is usually orchestrated by management, NOT the players so perhaps that's where you're misunderstanding how I want the players on the ice to play. The cliche says it's the GMs job to give the coach the best players to win games. Well, the same can be said for when winning is no longer a possibility: it's the GMs job to set this team up for long term success when short term success is impossible, at which point it's only a natural reaction to "let up" even if you're the ultimate competitive type.

[-DLC-]

Somehow I missed this reply.

There's two ways to tank. Voluntarily and involuntarily. I'm advocating for involuntary tanking. Anyone that is banged up should sit out at this point and the two players who would obviously help us win the most are currently out so this helps our involuntary tank. Players that are in the lineup should play the right way, on the right side of the puck but there's no sense in selling out entirely for no reward (ie, laying huge bodychecks or throwing your ankle in front of a She Weber one-timer, stuff reserved for playoff games).

Edit: I should add that involuntary "tanking" is usually orchestrated by management, NOT the players so perhaps that's where you're misunderstanding how I want the players on the ice to play. The cliche says it's the GMs job to give the coach the best players to win games. Well, the same can be said for when winning is no longer a possibility: it's the GMs job to set this team up for long term success when short term success is impossible, at which point it's only a natural reaction to "let up" even if you're the ultimate competitive type.

OK, and I accept that answer.

It's those suggesting the guys should just pack it in as part of the gameplan that I'm addressing. Good answer and I fully get that thinking.