The Embarrassing Lack of Logic in a Canucks’ Tank

In This Scenario, the Canucks’ Two Biggest Problems? Demko and Sherwood!

What’s interesting is how the case is built. According to this line of thinking, Vancouver has two fundamental problems. These are not bad contracts or missing stars; they are good players who would do anything 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 framework, both become obstacles. These players are no longer assets, but problems to be “exorcised.” Why? Because their work ethic and heart interfere with losing efficiently.

That’s the part of the argument that made me believe it was wrong-minded from the start.

A Canucks Tank Wouldn’t Just Tear Down the Lineup, It Would Tear Down the Culture

The problem is that Demko and Sherwood are exactly the players teams usually spend years trying to find. A goaltender who demands structure in front of him, because it would be embarrassing not to play hard for someone who lays everything on the line. A depth forward who drags standards up with him just because he won’t have it any other way.

And yet in this logic, they’re recast as problems, not because they lack 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 can’t help but 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 a footing. The kids who are grinding for shifts to stay in the NHL. What does it say when effort becomes expendable, and being competitive becomes inconvenient?

Maybe tanking is logical. In some world that makes sense to a lot of people, perhaps it’s even necessary. But before laying out that logic, it’s worth asking a quieter question — what kind of habits are being taught along the way, and whether “cheating to lose” is really something a team should be asking its players to learn.

Call me old and silly, 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 being applied to the Canucks only holds if you believe performance becomes a problem when it interferes with a preferred outcome.

If Uber operated this way, it would sideline its best drivers for being too reliable, allow missed pickups to reset expectations, and justify inconsistent service as a necessary step toward profit. No serious company thinks like that. They don’t weaken their core habits in pursuit of a theoretical payoff. They protect the standards that keep the business running. Hockey isn’t so different. You don’t build toward something better by teaching people that doing the job well is optional.