CanucksCorner.com Forums

They should trade age for picks, and sign more age to trade for more picks. Keep the under 25s and see if some of them blossom. At this stage of the rebuild, winning is secondary to providing opportunities for youth to develop.

Picker of Cherries wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:41 pm They should trade age for picks, and sign more age to trade for more picks. Keep the under 25s and see if some of them blossom. At this stage of the rebuild, winning is secondary to providing opportunities for youth to develop.

This is true. But age will not blossom without some vets mentoring.

Ohgren was selected 4 spots after Lekkerimaki and was considered a good prospect. What separates them? Lekkerimaki is said to possess a lethal shot. Ohgren is said to be a harder player to play against with a high hockey IQ. Lekkerimaki has failed to make an impact yet in the NHL. Albeit he has suffered a number of injuries that has set him back.

Ohgren has better wheels. He plays a tougher game and is pretty good defensively. Its hard to say where he will top out at. For sure a 3rd liner but if he can unleash some offence I think he has a chance still to be in the top six.

Lekkerimaki hasn't been able to get any traction for us to see if he is a legit NHLer. He was drafted to be in the top six and so far his only game is his shot. If he is unable to get on track then I think Ohgren is a better "prospect" today. I am all for waiting to see if Lekkerimaki can put his injury woes behind him and show us why we drafted him where we did. I highly doubt he has any trade value at this time so we are better off to run with him and hope he turns out to be a top six winger. Lord knows we need em.

As for Ohgren, what's to hate? He has done more than I expected. I'd like to see the whole year to really judge. But I think he clearly makes Hoglander expendable. They are the same player but one is a lot cheeper. We don't need 2 of them so I'd rather we move on from Hoglander if we have to move on from one of them.

But I see no rush to make ANY trades this year. Stay the course on the rebuild and trade anyone really if there is a good hockey return but no panic moves just for the sake of a making a move.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:37 pm The guys who you'd want to wavie just to make space for others hold NMC's.

Good point, didn't factor in the NMC's. And just to be clear, I didn't want to waive anybody. I just agreed that some might be as a means of dumping players.

A couple of reds I would handle differently. Like Lekk shouldn't be in there as on Top's list, he's a black or a green for me. And Demmer I'd treat as a project at this point to see if you can recoup some value. Also, believe it or not I believe Meaty can still get you something. Teams will always be looking for experienced mid pairing D even though he hasn't played like it for the most part.

The tickets these guys carry are heavy but to my previous point, if you can't move them now, what is the harm in letting them take up roster spots?

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 4:59 pm Chytil ($4.4M x 1 year): Lemon. No future with the Canucks beyond this season imho, and hopefully realizes he needs to retire. Best case scenario for both him and the team is LTIR all season.

Hoglander ($3M x 2 years): Could still become a 3rd line winger, though unlikely.

I thought about buying out both these guys, but not sure it really matters anymore cuz it would be best for the team to tank again and avoid the cap penalties in future yrs. I think the team can try for the playoffs again in 2 yrs (27-28 season) when our young guys have more NHL seasoning and we'll have a ton of cap space (projected $48M) to make some significant moves. OEL buyout take a significant drop.

With Chytil, whatever. If he wants to come back to collect his pay cheque, that's fine. Just put him on LTIR when he gets injured again. Nucks should prepare for this and bank on it to happen.

They say it's best to buyout Hoggy21 now cuz his buyout is cheap this summer due to age. I don't know WTF happened to him. When he scored like 25Gs that yr mostly playing in the bottom 6, I thought that was a break out yr for him. I thought he would push those numbers regularly and that his best hockey was yet to come. EP40 takes a lot of flack for his decline in numbers, but Hoggy mostly escapes detection under the radar. Yah, the salary difference and the player profile is a big factor. Hoggy has also become a bit injury prone these days, which is a bit of a concern. However, I think he's still young enuff that he can find his game again. Maybe he won't pop 25Gs again, but I think he can push 10-15Gs.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 4:59 pm Demko ($8.5M x 3 years): Injury prone. The team spin that they think they got the root of his lower body problems figured out with this latest surgery is probably too good to be true. If it is true than the Canucks have an elite goaltender, and hopefully one that wants to go to a contender for his last season or two in return for a high pick or quality prospect.

Yah, I think we stuck with Demmer for now. I was just looking at his contract and noticed he has some big signing bonuses starting in yr 2. If he can stay healthy for like 30-40 games then, we might actually be able to move him.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:50 pm But I see no rush to make ANY trades this year. Stay the course on the rebuild and trade anyone really if there is a good hockey return but no panic moves just for the sake of a making a move.

By this year, do you mean this summer or calendar year?

I'd be looking to move both Lekkerimaki and Hoglander at the TDL for almost any pick if they don't show us anything.

Also consider moving another vet at that point.

If you can get out from the elder two Pettersson's contracts you also do that whenever the opportunity presents.

The guy you want to move is O’Conner. He is UFA after next season. He would get us at least a 2nd round pick.

Lekkerimaki has no value why not give him the season?

I get the Pettersson hate but we just disagree on the best way forward . I’d be all for trading MPette.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:37 pm

Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 7:47 pm That's fair. I'm sure a bunch of them will be waived. Successfully or not is another story.

I'm not sure how many on that list will be waived.

Sasson, Mancini, D-Pete, Tolopilo, Kudryavtsev, and Lekkerimaki?

The guys who you'd want to wavie just to make space for others hold NMC's.

The latter four of those at least are waiver exwmpt for one more year. I'm not sure about the first two.

Good OP Mëds.

Years ago I drove by a colleague’s house and noticed it was for sale. “Where are you moving?” “I’m not.” “Oh, I thought I saw your house was for sale.” “It is. Every spring I put in on the market for way more than it’s worth. If I get what I’m asking, I’ll move.”

My somewhat idiosyncratic view is that championship competitive teams have a limited set of core players that you build around. What you need to build around them depends somewhat on what they are. Individual Complementary players don’t really matter so much until they have something to complement.

The Canucks have no core. That’s okay for now — they are looking into the future — 4 years minimum, I would think. But the goal now is to build assets who might become that core. They have a few prospects/young players who might become part of that future core: Buium, Willander, Cootes are probably the best bets, but Ohgren and Sushi are still not done yet. (Ohgren is a serviceable nhl player now — middle six winger is a very likely outcome, but that’s not core). Goalie prospects could always luck into it, but let’s set them aside because none are close enough to get past “speculate”. And there’s actually a world where I can see Hronek, Rossi or even a (highly unlikely) restored EP40 in the category of a core player in 4 years—but the utility of that is deeply dependent on critical mass (and the inner core) emerging from youth.

Until you have the core, every asset is on the market with one question: moving this player for this return increase the chance that we may find or develop a core asset? For players who are potentially part of a future core, it’s hard to satisfy this equation if the move doesn’t involve future assets coming back (e.g. a d prospect for a equivalently rated center prospect, that kind of thing). With everyone else—that’s the rest of the team, the equation is far easier to satisfy, but the inquiry has a slightly different angle. Because some non core players existence on a team facilitates the potential of a potential core player reaching that place; others interfere with it.

For example, Hronek. I don’t think Willander develops best playing top pairing top match up minutes. Not yet. And I think Hronek is a great model for Willander to pattern his game after. Get stronger and meaner (which Hronek has done; he wasn’t like that at 23 with the Wings).

On the other hand, the existence of other players (imo) interferes with development. Take DeBrusk. His chief attribute is playing in tight on the power play. And he’s good at it. But if you have a power forward-ish or sneaky forward developing, don’t you want them in that rotation? (And if they aren’t there yet, let’s be clear, Boeser can fill that role).

But this post isn’t about individual decisions, it’s about philosophy. The Canucks should singularly focus on maximizing the chance they develop future core players; each decision should be measured against that. Sometimes this is a two step — take bad contracts on to load up on picks or prospects because more rolls of the dice improve your odds. But have that focus.

If I lived in the GVRD, I am driving DeBrusk to the airport. Might even pick up EP40 along the way.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 7:00 am Years ago I drove by a colleague’s house and noticed it was for sale. “Where are you moving?” “I’m not.” “Oh, I thought I saw your house was for sale.” “It is. Every spring I put in on the market for way more than it’s worth. If I get what I’m asking, I’ll move.”

Great point.

Canucks aren't going anywhere with this group, but that's not really the point of the first few years of a rebuild. Point is, to draft as high as possible, with as many darts as possible and get as many valued prospects in the pipeline from trades/signings (college/Europe etc.). Either with an eye to develop a core, or as trade bait for others that could be great.

You still need a full sized roster, and to identify a few players you are going to build your "re-build" core around. Guys who want to play here, and train/commit to practice habits and with skills the team needs etc. Like Hronek, Buium, Rossi, Ohgren & Willander and I'd also throw in Bluger (get him re-signed).

Some of the unknown kids need to be given time, like Lekkerimaki (no need to throw him away for a conditional pick, or another "who knows" prospect per his current trade worth). He has had a bunch of injuries, and no real development yet. See Podkolzin. Either way, his value now vs. in a year or two isn't going to change. Some GM will always value a high 1st rd. pk. in a trade package thinking with a fresh start - they'll take off.

For the next few years, the new GM needs to target value UFAs & trades for vets with size, winning pedigree and perceived character/glue guys on reasonable contracts, with no trade protection. Then flip them at the deadline to playoff teams for picks/prospects. Fill up the pipeline as fast as possible, so when the two or three players who "hit" are ready, the rest of the prospects that will fill out the depth chart haven't aged out.

Another reason to simply keep Foote around for the remainder of his contract - with instructions to put players in a place to succeed in the place they are. With the idea of trading them at the deadline (for those vets/idiot players) or developing them (rookies/prospects). IE: Put EP40 out there for only offensive zone shifts, and on every PP to try to help inflate his numbers as much as possible, as with Boeser/DeBrusk. Put players like Willander and Ohgren on the PK as well, develop them as useful players even if they don't hit top 4/top 6 types. I think Foote might not be a great X/O's coach - but I'm sure he knows what it takes to play in the show successfully, and can at least pass a little of that on.

Rebuilding with intention is key here.

*Edit, didn't see UW's 2nd post. Exactly right.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2026 7:33 am The Canucks should singularly focus on maximizing the chance they develop future core players; each decision should be measured against that.

Looking at the list in OP, there isn't a lot to get excited about, and like Topper says, nobody is untouchable.

But there are a few in there with "core potential" - and we may see some steps this coming year. A lot of that is going to depend on coaching, who we sign to fill empty spots, and who is leading the room. A lot of variables before we start getting anything close to a core.

There's going to be a lot of losing next year, and it's going to take a few key people to keep things on track.

You don’t need to buy out Hoglander. His salary is a joke, but it’s still below the threshold and he can be waived and sent to the farm with a minimal cap hit. Given the struggles he’s had over the past two years, some time in the minors could do him some good.

As for Chytil, why pay him to get lost when you can play him to get hurt? Once he’s back on the IR, insurance will cover the rest. Having said that, with the cap floor going up, there could be a few teams will to take on his salary to get over the floor, and let insurance pay him once he gets injured.

Win win

Connecting the dots on what UW has posted and what I have posted ...

Who of the youth do you want to spend development resources on and how much effort do you put into which players with the chance to become core team members?

In short, the Sedin's only have so much time to work their development magic. Where do the spend it?