Free Agency 2026

[UWSaint]

Here's a thread for 2026 free agency discussion. I'm thinking it can house NHL wide talk, but I'll start it off with the Canucks.

The Canucks are rebuilding, why on earth would they be playing in the free agency market?

First, short term deals can be turned into deadline deal assets, even if its just a mid round pick. So the Canucks should pay attention to the kinds of players that tend to be valued more at the deadline than in the offseason. This is low hanging fruit stuff -- add shouldn't be done to the exclusion of player development or adding future assets through weaponizing cap space -- but FA is an option for this and there are open roster spots.

Second, the Canucks should be focused on player development. That means at least three things when filling out a roster: (a) ensure your roster has enough complementary skills to accent developing players, (b) ensure you aren't forced to carry a guy in the NHL who it turns out is better developed in the AHL, and (c) include on your roster guys who model the type of player/teammate you want guys to be. I think the only (a) need is to add a forward or two who is good at the PK so that the developing defensemen can develop their games with some competence in their units. But if Pettersson or Rossi are moved (and assuming Chytil is done), there could also be a need to add another playmaking profile to the group so that the Sushis of the world aren't playing with centers who have little chance to enhance their skills. For instance, it might very well be that Ohgren is a gritty, speedy, high motor counter attacking guy, and that's his best use case. Love to have guys like that. But this is a good season to find out whether there could be a more diverse offensive player in there, one that might develop into a core player.

As it stands, the Canucks have the following forwards signed who are waiver eligible:

EP40, Brock, DeBrusk, Rossi, Hoggy, O'Connor, Karlsson, Raty, Sasson, Chytil*. I'm not including Baines or the Abby RFAs who are almost surely not part of a future and who would pass waivers. Non-prospect tweeners/AHLers don't factor into plans; be indifferent to their existence. (And I am mostly indifferent to Sasson -- if the Canucks need to risk putting him through waivers, its not a big deal).

Of the players who are waiver exempt but who are or might be best developed in the NHL, we have Ohgren, Sushi, Cootes. Of these, Cootes is the most likely to benefit from some AHL time. Mueller is in a slightly different category -- almost surely better off in the AHL, but developed enough (and whose long term development is not interrupted by and if probably enhanced by) to get cups of coffee on injury call ups (and thus providing at least the minimal amount of could-stick-in-the-NHL at the position with or without Sasson).

That's 9 waiver eligible forwards plus Chytil, 2 waiver exempt forwards who default to Vancouver, and one who may play there. That means two spots are currently available to get to 14, but you might actually look at adding 3 players since there's a good chance you want to start Cootes (or maybe Sushi) in Abbotsford. Of course more bodies can come in and out before then (coming in -- if Stenberg or McKenna fall to Vancouver and are drafted by Vancouver; if the Canucks take a distressed contract for a sweetner; going out -- if the Canucks find a move for any number of players who will be there for the taking. I suspect they are actively shopping EP40 for a return, shopping Hoggy for any return, will have discussions with DeBrusk about moving him (but will want a return), and will actively shop O'Connor at the deadline (as he's the kind of player that gets a return), and will listen to all inquiries....).

On defense, the Canucks have Hronek, MP3, and Mancini as their only waiver exempt guys, Willander and Buium fully expected to start in Vancouver waiver exempt guys, EP25 as a default start-in-Vancouver waiver exempt guy, KK as if-development-is-best-in-Vancouver guy, and Mynio as a waiver exempt call up. I think there's room to add both a right and left d -- either of the 6-8 variety (can play, can pressbox) or (in the case of LD) with an aim towards moving at the deadline or simply being a near league minimum guy who allows the Canucks the flexibility to ensure that players are developing where they need to develop.

Now I don't advocate for FA activity to the exclusion of more creative weaponization of cap space or other trades, but knowing it is an available tool, here are some possible FA targets:

C: Boone Jenner, Teddy Blueger, Colton Sissons. All of these guys can PK pretty decently. Jenner would be ideal because he's a swiss army knife of a player and can slot in higher in the lineup if EP40 or DeBrusk is dealt, but its hard to see him being interested in leaving Columbus and I suspect he'd want a multiyear deal and the Canucks shouldn't sign anyone if there's any trade protection. 2 year deals aren't bad, but the older and more fungible a player is, the more a multiyear contract diminishes trade value. I don't think the Canucks should be interested in adding more than one center (unless they know they've got a landing spot for EP40, but then this list also may change), but I think Jenner might also be deployed as a wing, so he can count there. Jenner's never really been dangled at a deadline, to my knowledge, but I would think because he can fit many roles, he'd have decent value. He'll also be the most expensive of this group (open cap space trade off, owners money) and is the least likely to want to go to a team like the Canucks.

W: Michael McCarron, Jenner (see above), Joel Kiviranta. McCarron leads this group to me. Canucks have had some luck polishing off 4th liners who can do more, and McCarron fits the mold perfectly. The next Joshua, Sherwood, O'Connor. Even if he doesn't reach their Vancouver production, I can see him being quite movable at the deadline. Would bring some physicality and might just have enough talent to both play with and "protect" more skilled prospects. Kiviranta I am less sure about movability since he sometimes has trouble cracking a lineup, but I think he's underappreciated as a solid bottom 6 guy who can kill penalties (and actually do that well). I think he's more of a lineup filler in value, but the right kind of lineup filler. And here's what I'll say about him -- smart teams like him and that's something because smart teams are generally in the playoff picture at the deadline.

W Alternative: Above assumes that the Canucks don't land a spot for DeBrusk or Boeser (I think Boeser's here to stay for awhile...), but if DeBrusk is moved, the Canucks may need to consider at least one more player who profiles offense. The demand is usually too high for these guys; they need to identify next year's Anthony Mantha. Suggestions?

D: I think the Canucks should intend to just go with the obvious six (Buium, MP3, EP25 down the left side, and Hronek, Willander, and Mancini down the right) and just fill in 7-8 type players to jump in for injury. And that list is pretty long every year, and those players look like POJ.

But if they were to look at adding a guy who will play more, recognizing that maybe EP25 would benefit from some time in Abby or if a guy is moved or if Mancini's a train wreck (and EP25 switches sides), maybe if they have an opportunity to move MP3, I think that guy is Logan Stanley. Deadline teams tend to overpay for length or toughness. Logan Stanley fits the bill. I don't really like the player, to be honest, but that's not the point. The point is will other teams think he's an answer to the bottom part of the defense at the deadline. It also gives the Canucks an "NHL option." Anyone else stand out?

[BoS]

I think the Canucks lacked experienced depth on the blueline the last couple years. It’s important to have a reliable, low maintenance 5-7 guy who can carry some PK min and help guide the kids. Bonus if he can drop the mitts.

[Cornuck]

I think the Canucks lacked experienced depth on the blueline the last couple years. It’s important to have a reliable, low maintenance 5-7 guy who can carry some PK min and help guide the kids. Bonus if he can drop the mitts.

Maybe someone like Logan Stanley? Big, can drop 'em, affordable.

List of UFA Dmen

[UWSaint]

Maybe someone like Logan Stanley? Big, can drop 'em, affordable.

Hmmmmm.

But if they were to look at adding a guy who will play more, recognizing that maybe EP25 would benefit from some time in Abby or if a guy is moved or if Mancini's a train wreck (and EP25 switches sides), maybe if they have an opportunity to move MP3, I think that guy is Logan Stanley.

Might be on to something.

[Cornuck]

Fuck - my reading comprehension is a little off today! (that'll teach me to skim posts)

[UWSaint]

Fuck - my reading comprehension is a little off today! (that'll teach me to skim posts)

It’s why I write long posts. So I can quote myself for any proposition, and no one will have read them to note any contradictions….

[BoS]

Stanley seems like an interesting option.

But there will likely be 10-15 other teams looking to add him too, so it would cost.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Second, the Canucks should be focused on player development. That means at least three things when filling out a roster: (a) ensure your roster has enough complementary skills to accent developing players, (b) ensure you aren't forced to carry a guy in the NHL who it turns out is better developed in the AHL, and (c) include on your roster guys who model the type of player/teammate you want guys to be.

I would like to add a fourth thing: a thermonuclear deterrent level goon who has every opposing coach telling his team "It's not worth it. Don't stir up any trouble; just take the two points and arrive in good shape to play the next game."

When you don't care about winning anyway, there's no harm in his being a sub-standard hockey player, and if the Canucks are trying to develop youth, they should be be developed in as protected an environment as management can provide. I suppose you could argue that it's a specialized sub-set of category (a), and there's nothing that keeps him from also being in category (c), but I thought it useful to specify that particular function.

[UWSaint]

Second, the Canucks should be focused on player development. That means at least three things when filling out a roster: (a) ensure your roster has enough complementary skills to accent developing players, (b) ensure you aren't forced to carry a guy in the NHL who it turns out is better developed in the AHL, and (c) include on your roster guys who model the type of player/teammate you want guys to be.

I would like to add a fourth thing: a thermonuclear deterrent level goon who has every opposing coach telling his team "It's not worth it. Don't stir up any trouble; just take the two points and arrive in good shape to play the next game."

When you don't care about winning anyway, there's no harm in his being a sub-standard hockey player, and if the Canucks are trying to develop youth, they should be be developed in as protected an environment as management can provide. I suppose you could argue that it's a specialized sub-set of category (a), and there's nothing that keeps him from also being in category (c), but I thought it useful to specify that particular function.

Sure could be stand alone or a subset of what’s there. Either way it’s a good point. It’s why McCarron would be my top target for wing. I can imagine them resigning Douglas, too, but it’s McCarron that would double as an attractive deadline piece. Kills penalties too.

[theman]

I would re-sign Douglas for league min and sign McCarron, that 4th line would keep teams honest. Lekkerimaki might even be able to finish a game then.

[donlever]

We need a thug in Abby too.

[Ronning's Ghost]

We need a thug in Abby too.

Maybe even more than with the big club.

And I want to re-emphasise, not just willing, but terrifying. The organization needs the predatory types to be thinking that its not worth the end of their own careers to be the end of somebody else's.

[Lancer]

They don’t need to be able to play top-6 minutes. In fact even better would be a defenceman who can make life terrifying for opposing forwards in the crease and in the corners. Someone who makes the kids play an inch or two taller.

[Hockey Widow]

If he could be had for a reasonable price I'd take a run at Goudas.

[donlever]

We would have to overpay I would imagine.

What's he worth at his age?

2 years at 2 or 2.5?

So 3 or 3.25 to come here....