The Wild won a game Sunday, which, oddly, probably made a segment of its fan base groan. A miserable start to the season already has some calling for a full-fledged tanking campaign.
Apparently, reasonable people who love hockey and make an emotional investment in the Wild would cheer an 0-82 season if the tradeoff was the No. 1 draft pick as cornerstone to a rebuild.
This isn't a straw man argument, either. You hear it in conversations and read it on social media. The idea of tanking and what it might produce is seductive to those bored with the Wild's good-but-not-good-enough spin cycle.
Can we give the season more than 15 minutes before turning the page?
To be sure, the team's warts have been exposed in plain view. An aging roster looks slow. The team lacks scoring punch. The Wild just doesn't look equipped to hang with the best teams in the Western Conference over the long haul.
Maybe that ultimately will be the conclusion, that the Wild is one of the worst teams in the NHL. Or maybe it will finish middle of the pack. Or perhaps the Wild will shock everyone and regroup enough to contend for a playoff spot, as unrealistic as that option looks right now.
Let it happen organically, as it will. Heck, an obvious tank job might not be necessary to accomplish the same end game. But this trend of tanking in sports reeks of rotten eggs.
I get it, the premise is baked in logic. If your team is going to be bad, it might as well be embarrassingly bad to ensure a payoff in the form of a high draft pick.