CanucksCorner.com Forums

theman wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 7:38 am What did I do?

Dude.....what didn't you do?

Isn't this the apex of his value? Do we need to watch another asset depreciate while he ages out when he could potentially bring back at mid first plus a decent add on? Or pair him with a rubbish contract like EP to stimulate the bowel movement?

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 10:24 am Isn't this the apex of his value? Do we need to watch another asset depreciate while he ages out when he could potentially bring back at mid first plus a decent add on? Or pair him with a rubbish contract like EP to stimulate the bowel movement?

I think it pretty much is which is why the Canucks should listen to any offer.

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 10:24 am Isn't this the apex of his value? Do we need to watch another asset depreciate while he ages out when he could potentially bring back at mid first plus a decent add on? Or pair him with a rubbish contract like EP to stimulate the bowel movement?

(1) Do you believe that players new to the NHL develop better surrounded by (a) some quality NHL talent, (b) NHL flotsam and jetsam, or (c) Abbotsford? The answer is (a). Is a 21 yo potential 2-3 defenseman who plays at a third pairing quality better developed with second and third pairing matchups or first pairing minutes and matchups? The answer is the former -- stress guys a rung or two above where they are, not three or four.

Point is, while the asset may depreciate, the depreciating value is being captured. All I'm saying is you have to weigh that value in any transaction. Every veteran is for sale including for draft capital in this draft, but the entire point of selling is to get quality out the young assets you have and will be part of the return.

(2) Rubbish contracts are bad for competitive teams near the cap who want to improve and be even more competitive in the immediate term. That's not the Canucks. And they are bad for the owner's wallet. That's not my concern -- heck, it cuts the other way: the worse an operating loss is for this ownership group, the more likely they sell. While it would be nice for the Canucks to have no bad contracts in order to maximize the weaponizable cap space so they can take on some bad contracts for sweeteners, it makes no sense to get rid of one and pay a sweetener (or diminish an asset coupled in a trade) only to be better placed to put yourself in a cap position to get back that sweetener by taking on a similarly bad contract. FWIW, I really don't think this is where things are with EP, but why isn't for this thread.

I agree to a point UW but the issue with the Canucks is there just is so little asset wise to even worry about development. They need to acquire assets until they need someone like Fil. Plus, is he the right fit?

Does Fil compliment Zeev? I'm not so sure...I feel a more defensive partner would be my choice. One who doesn't eat all the top power play unit icetime.

Wilander plays the same position so a lefty would be better for his development

The rest aren't worthy of discussion


As far as "the problem"...I think everyone nr in canucksland are itching to ditch that one. His launching is the #1 topic for 28 months and counting so...sorry it crept into this one too

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 12:14 pm I agree to a point UW but the issue with the Canucks is there just is so little asset wise to even worry about development. They need to acquire assets until they need someone like Fil. Plus, is he the right fit?

Does Fil compliment Zeev? I'm not so sure...I feel a more defensive partner would be my choice. One who doesn't eat all the top power play unit icetime.

Wilander plays the same position so a lefty would be better for his development

The rest aren't worthy of discussion


As far as "the problem"...I think everyone nr in canucksland are itching to ditch that one. His launching is the #1 topic for 28 months and counting so...sorry it crept into this one too

I'm not tied to any player, just trying to isolate the benefits of trades and not trades to think it through rationally. There are obvious benefits to trading Hronek; the benefits from keeping him when you don't care about wins are more subtle.

I think Hronek is a 2 way guy -- he collected pucks and got them to QH when paired with an offensive guy, and controlled the puck when paired with defensive guys. QH was more effective with Hronek than anyone else -- just as Makar is more effective with Toews. You want to pair an offensive D with a partner with some skill if you want to maximize the offensive D's offensive game. In the D zone, Hronek is a tough nut. (These are the qualities that also push up his trade value, of course). A coach can manage PP time and ensure the young guys get those chances; Hronek got very little of it when they were trying TW out in that spot. The PP was worse for it, but TW was always behind a Hutson at BU and it was good to give him a real chance to see what he had.

In my view, the Canucks actually have a fair amount asset wise in D prospects, they aren't starting from zero, and many are now developing in the NHL so who's part of that group matters. And that's a good thing given they will take longer to develop than forwards. I agree that TW and Buium are the only ones who could become core players, but EP25, KK, and even Mancini have more than a prayer's chance to be decent complementary players and their development now will make the difference whether they end up in Europe, as journeymen, or guys who earn longer term deals. Any player that makes it to 4-5 D level is an asset to either the Canucks next core or another team. Mynio might be in that club, too, but I didn't watch enough Abby games to know.

I actually forgot about Mynio. He apparently had a terrific year for a rookie in the AHL and was a bright spot for them.

I will add his potential to the mix....I wanna see that cannon from the point one day for the big club

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 12:14 pm I agree to a point UW but the issue with the Canucks is there just is so little asset wise to even worry about development. They need to acquire assets until they need someone like Fil. Plus, is he the right fit?

Does Fil compliment Zeev? I'm not so sure...I feel a more defensive partner would be my choice. One who doesn't eat all the top power play unit icetime.

Wilander plays the same position so a lefty would be better for his development

In keeping with what UW said about stressing guys appropriately.....

I don't think Hronek should be paired with either of them.

The Canucks should acquire someone to play with Hronek this year on the top pairing.....he can be middle pairing guy, but he needs to be mature as a player.

Buium should be on the 2nd pair.

Willander should be on the 3rd pair.

Both of them should be partnered with a vet who helps cover their mistakes.

Hronek mentors them in practice and off the ice.

If Fil doesn't wanna do that, then his value is greater elsewhere.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 12:36 pm
In my view, the Canucks actually have a fair amount asset wise in D prospects, they aren't starting from zero, and many are now developing in the NHL so who's part of that group matters. And that's a good thing given they will take longer to develop than forwards. I agree that TW and Buium are the only ones who could become core players, but EP25, KK, and even Mancini have more than a prayer's chance to be decent complementary players and their development now will make the difference whether they end up in Europe, as journeymen, or guys who earn longer term deals. Any player that makes it to 4-5 D level is an asset to either the Canucks next core or another team. Mynio might be in that club, too, but I didn't watch enough Abby games to know.

They definitely need Hronek around to mentor these guys. If Edler and maybe Schenn are in the mix the D group should be set for some quality development.

If Hronek is traded for a first, let it be an unprotected 1st in the’27 draft. In that case, let that trade happen next season when a team is desperate to right their ship and make the trade before pulling a Toronto.

Otherwise, keep him if he wants to lead.

I'm telling you they want Byork and Stenberg to be the future pillars of Canuckledom

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2026 8:39 pm I'm telling you they want Byork and Stenberg to be the future pillars of Canuckledom

Why are you poking Mëds like this???

We are less than a month away from the NHL Draft and on today’s episode the guys deep dive into their annual GM mock, where they play general manager for every first round pick, making decisions based on their own lists and their given team’s needs. Before that, they take a look at Corey’s scouts and execs survey to get a sense of where the league is on the draft’s top 10 picks, and to close things out, they break down this year’s goalie and overager crop

NHL scouts' consensus is that leaves are taking McKenna, Sharks Reid, Canucks Malhotra, and then it gets blurry.

Scouts have Stenberg no higher than fourth, though the guys disagree here...

Stenberg outplaying Anton Frondell at the world championships.

My uneducated call has been McKenna/Stenberg (Sundin factor for the Swede) then Reid to SJ all along.

If the Canuck do not take who is left over from the Leaves sloppy seconds at 3 I no longer know what to say....

donlever wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2026 10:33 am My uneducated call has been McKenna/Stenberg (Sundin factor for the Swede) then Reid to SJ all along.

If the Canuck do not take who is left over from the Leaves sloppy seconds at 3 I no longer know what to say....

Everything I'm hearing has them taking Malhotra, Don.

And I don't wanna hate. But...