View Poll Results: Should the Canucks tank next season for John Tavares?

**gordfish** · 04-20-2008, 07:47 PM

Pretty straight forward question. Let Morrison and Naslund walk, bring in a bunch of scrubs from the Moose and let them decide who stays and who goes over the next few seasons, and tank the year for a shot at Tavares.

So, should they do it? Could you live with another year of no playoffs to finally get a crack at that young franchise centre? Can the Canucks afford a season like that, knowing they risk alienating their franchise goalie?

**hockeyboy14** · 04-20-2008, 09:38 PM

As long as Vancouver has the Twins and Luongo they will never finish last.

There's a few problems with tanking.
According to many GMs, there a 'code' of always trying to win.
Futhermore, there's never 100% certainty that you will get the first overall pick even if you finish last. Heck, you dont even have a 50% chance.

Canucks fan 1141 · 04-20-2008, 10:27 PM

i think that they should do tank it and if they dont finish last then they should try and trade for the 1st pick.

**datsun260z** · 04-21-2008, 07:47 AM

You mean tanking it next year will be a choice?

sorry, couldn't resist that one.

RB

**flyerfan2** · 04-21-2008, 09:13 AM

Um no thanks gord.!!

Thats to much like quiting and i can;t stand quiters.!!

If they wanted to tank another season then they would have kept nonis.

Paul · 04-21-2008, 11:12 AM

naw, if they tank just like flyerman said, it's like quitting

They wont finish last, as long as they keep healthy, they will make the playoffs

Canuck · 04-22-2008, 01:46 PM

So your saying tank next years season and just waste away another year of Luongos contract? And Tavares isnt even the heavy favourite anymore. Victor Hedman is a Swedish defenseman that is a sensational talent standing at 6'6 220 lbs.He is the guy that could go before Tavares. The whole first round of next years draft could bring out potential first line stars in the NHL. The 2009 draft might be even deeper than 2003

**gordfish** · 04-22-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfan2

Um no thanks gord.!!

Thats to much like quiting and i can;t stand quiters.!!

If they wanted to tank another season then they would have kept nonis.

I hear ya, man. I'm just getting tired of being like the Leafs and the Flyers (no offense intended) and missing the playoffs for no damn reason at all.

Personally, the idea of tanking a year on purpose revolts me. But so does the idea of spending a whole year watching them spin their wheels for nothing, AGAIN. The madness has to stop somehow.

Maple Leaf · 04-22-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gordfish

Pretty straight forward question. Let Morrison and Naslund walk, bring in a bunch of scrubs from the Moose and let them decide who stays and who goes over the next few seasons, and tank the year for a shot at Tavares.

So, should they do it? Could you live with another year of no playoffs to finally get a crack at that young franchise centre? Can the Canucks afford a season like that, knowing they risk alienating their franchise goalie?

No, they can't. If their defence aren't all injured, I don't see how they won't make the playoffs.

**gordfish** · 04-22-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

No, they can't. If their defence aren't all injured, I don't see how they won't make the playoffs.

Well, before people make this argument, there is something I'd like you to consider.

Even with Luongo having what was by his standards an average season AND never having their top 6 defenders in the lineup at the same time, the Canucks still finished as the 7th best defensive team in the league.

Their problem wasn't defense, it was offense. Injuries or no injuries.