But you aren't considering that vs the opportunity cost of not playing their young players.
- James_Tanner
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's what teams do, subconsciously or not. But you also have to factor the opportunity cost of getting a higher pick being a better player in the long run. I personally think GMs don't think like that, they don't generally have 5 years to wait to see if some late 2nd round pick pans out. I realize that's a bit contradictory to what I said before, but it all points to them "doing something to make the team better". Nobody ever said the NHL was logical. So they're(coaches have even shorter leashes, again, generally speaking) going to go for the glory now rather than build for down the road regardless of where the team is in the standings.
Even when the Sabres were in full blown tank mode, Murray had to trade away all the goalies that were playing well because Ted Nolan wanted no part in tanking. No coach is going to get another job based on how well they tanked; they get another job based on how they performed with what they had available.
