2026 NHL Draft

[donlever]

Agreed.

We have a 3 and a 24 in a decent draft and need bodies.

We are also likely to hit top 5 next year in a really good draft.

Also our neophyte front office group will likely as not get bent over
or poorly guided by AIG in any trade with our draft pics heading south.

I mean we're not talking Kelly McCrimmon here.

You want more pics bang on the Sharks door centering a commencement chat about Hronek & their second.

[2Fingers]

Agreed.

We have a 3 and a 24 in a decent draft and need bodies.

We are also likely to hit top 5 next year in a really good draft.

Also our neophyte front office group will likely as not get bent over
Or poorly guided by AIG in any trade with our draft pics heading south.

I mean we're not talking Kelly McCrimmon here.

You want more pics bang on the Sharks door centering a commencement chat about Hronek & their second.

Do you believe Hronek is worth that? I would love that deal but what does SJ really get out of it and Hronek turns 29 this year.

[Ronning's Ghost]

No way i'd be trading down based on this data

These are statistical averages, which are very useful when considering the value of an Xth position pick in a future draft for trade purposes, for example, but on draft day, it comes down to which players are actually there, and what their abilities are.

For example, I don't think that, given a broader range of options, Brian "Truculence" Burke would have chosen to base the future of the Canucks on two slow-skating Swedes who did not play a physical game, and whose value as players was based on telepathic play-making and an insane cycle game. But in the draft year where the Canucks selected high enough to pick up core pieces, they were far away the best players available and the only future stars, so he made sure that he maximized the value of each by getting both.

It is possible to wind up with non-core players even at #1 OA (my own suspicion is that McKenna has a low floor, and the team that picks him is accepting a significant risk of getting burned). Whether or not trading down makes sense for the Canucks in 2026 depends on how good the available players are, and how the curve drops off by draft position in that specific draft. For example, I think that had the Canucks held the #3 OA in 2003, it would have been advantageous to them to trade down even a dozen places for another top 20 pick in 2004. The same move would have been terrible in 2006.

The Canucks' scouting department no doubt has their opinions, just as UWSaint does. We probably won't know whether any of them are right for at least 5 years. I think for a team that, as Aaron 18 points out, needs pretty much everything, it's at least possible that it could be a good idea, but I agree that it's unlikely that they have the necessary conviction to make such a move.

[Hockey Widow]

Agreed.

We have a 3 and a 24 in a decent draft and need bodies.

We are also likely to hit top 5 next year in a really good draft.

Also our neophyte front office group will likely as not get bent over
Or poorly guided by AIG in any trade with our draft pics heading south.

I mean we're not talking Kelly McCrimmon here.

You want more pics bang on the Sharks door centering a commencement chat about Hronek & their second.

Do you believe Hronek is worth that? I would love that deal but what does SJ really get out of it and Hronek turns 29 this year.

I guess it depends up where SJS believe they are in their window to compete. NJD also have a pretty good RHD available who is only 23. I do think we could land the 2nd OA with Hronek as part of the package. But is that enough for us at this point in our rebuild? Perhaps Hronek can land us 2 1sts albeit much lower picks than the 2nd OA.

We could throw in the brother who is also a RHD. But it is the what else that scares me.

I wonder if NJD would take the 24OA for their RHD? That would make losing Hronek easier to swallow.

[donlever]

No..

I did not say he was worth that.

But San Jose needs an experienced vet D man.

RSD are a rarity.

Hroneks stock has never been higher...so you start the conversation.

That's my point....

[Aaronp18]

I am completely fine with keeping our pics, especially with the unknown of who’s going 1 and 2. We could still get the best player in the draft at 3.

Definitely ok with moving assets for high pics and younger prospects!

SJ is a great target, Hronek would be invaluable to them. CHI could use a RSD as well and they need to have a better back end for Bedard and Frondell as they get more competitive.

[BoS]

Interesting point about Chi and SJS. Both need to take a big step next year.

Fil could be packaged for another top 5, but I’d rather see a player come back, one who can slide right into the new core. Fil would leave a huge void, after all.

Not sure there’s too many teams that couldn’t use a 2/3 defender, in his prime, at that salary.

Including Vancouver.

[donlever]

Yep...I'm totally fine keeping Hronek...he's a solid vet and player for us on a good contract.

Arguably as important a player as we have in our lineup.

BUT.

If the discussion is about gathering more consequential picks in this and/or the next draft Fil is your Ace of Spades.

[dangler]

Trading your #1 RHD is pretty risky.
Remember how long they tried before they were able to finally get Hronek?
I think they'd be better served drafting his possible replacement and have him developed by the time Fils contract expires.

[Picker of Cherries]

They can trade Hronek once they have secured the first overall next year.
With the first pick they draft DuPont to replace Hronek, and use the first rounder they get for Hronek to draft a centre in next year’s centre heavy draft.

[donlever]

Sure theman...and again, I am not advocating here, just shooting the shit along with the tenor of the thread.

So.

On the other hand...

We have RSD Willander already and if we have picks 2 3 we can go F with McKenna/Stenberg followed by D with Reid/Verhoeff so right handed D concern in the system is dealt with.

...and yes I get we need vets too.

Thats what FA and trades are for....

Carry on.....

[theman]

Sure theman...and again, I am not advocating here, just shooting the shit along with the tenor of the thread.

So.

On the other hand...

We have RSD Willander already and if we have picks 2 3 we can go F with McKenna/Stenberg followed by D with Reid/Verhoeff so right handed D concern in the system is dealt with.

...and yes I get we need vets too.

Thats what FA and trades are for....

Carry on.....

What did I do?

For the record, I am fine trading Hronek, plus a kid round pick, for 2OA but don’t include the 3OA or 24 OA in that package.

[Tciso]

Unless the return is an overpayment, I say we keep Hronek. His full NMC lasts til the end of the 27/28 season, at age 30. At that point, he has a 15 team no trade list. That makes trading him a lot easier. And, imho, we can really use a trade piece like Hronek in 2 years from now, once we see what these draft picks and current prospects start to look like. Hronek is the guy who we can trade to fill any other hole we have. He will return a top winger/center/goalie if we still need any one of those, and we will. In the mean time, he helps teach the 4 rookies, and keeps Marcus Petterson from being our top Dman.

[UWSaint]

They can trade Hronek once they have secured the first overall next year.
With the first pick they draft DuPont to replace Hronek, and use the first rounder they get for Hronek to draft a centre in next year’s centre heavy draft.

The *when* is a big factor when you know there's a big chance a guy isn't likely to be part of the next wave. There's nothing compelling a Hronek trade now -- his trade value *is* high (the highest on the team I would think), and so the return is going to be attractive, and the return is going to be something you seriously consider. But the question is not the value of that return vs. the value of keeping Hronek, it is the value of that return v. the value of Trading Hronek next summer, or two summers, or two seasons and a deadline, etc. + his value on the team during those seasons.

Look at that future -- sure there's an injury risk, sure there's likely to be some decline at the end of that contract. But Hronek is, today, a better player (IMO) than Justin Faulk was at 29 years old. And he's on a better relative contract to play. Faulk was traded a week or so shy of his 34th birthday in a deadline + 1 year deal in exchange for what was likely to be a mid first round pick and a third. (St. Louis also had to take on Holl's contract for the rest of the year and got the rights to a long-shot prospect playing in Russia). To be sure, Stevie Y. was bent over in that deal. But the point is, that absent injury or an unusually steep performance decline, Hronek is likely to hold considerable value for a long long time -- it might decline from where it is today, but it is still likely to be considerable and in the interim you will be getting all of the value of having a guy that is going to help the development of all of the young players simply by (1) giving them a high quality NHL player to play with and (2) taking on tough assignments that allow the prospects to work their way up the lineup in a more methodical fashion. There's other qualities, too, but those things alone are super important because many rebuild fail when there's not a good enough quality NHL presence to help the young guys develop their best. I think that was a problem with Buffalo, and why they ended up wasting the Eichel/Rinehart/Ristolaenen wave and why it took so long to hit in the Dahlin window. I think all of these factors--plus that he has a true no trade clause for two years--augurs in favor of keeping Hronek and planning development around keeping Hronek for at least the next two season (when the NTC becomes a MMNTC).

But what's unique about this summer is that at the very top of the draft (Toronto and San Jose) are teams thinking about now and near term -- that's not usually the case (though there are often teams like the Blackhawks who are getting impatient and are good candidate to jump the gun). And we know how valuable top 5 picks are (which is why they haven't been moved in forever). So if there's a chance to add a top 5 pick in this draft (which presumably is McKenna, Stenberg, Reid, Malhotra, and Carels (if you prefer Verhoff or Smits or Rudolph or Bjorck)), I just think you have to take a very close look at that opportunity. Hronek alone won't get it done, but he's not terribly far off for a team like the Sharks who needs that guy now. (And remember, the Canucks gave up what turned out to be a 17 OA and a 2d for the soon to be RFA Hronek, and Hronek is a *better* player today, a sure thing as a 2-3, with contract certainty and a good contract value to boot). And the other name I've heard being floated around (Nemec) is laughable. I don't mind Nemec, but he's not Hronek yet, he's not even quite at the level Hronek was in the Horvat trade, and there's no guarantee he's going to get to present day Hronek value (though its also possible he will be better), and San Jose is surely going to be prioritizing present value if they are trading away a Steberg or Reid or Malhotra or Carels or McKenna.

FWIW, I don't think the Sharks will trade the pick and this is all for the hockey board content.....

[donlever]

What did I do?

For the record, I am fine trading Hronek, plus a kid round pick, for 2OA but don’t include the 3OA or 24 OA in that package.

My bad.

Dangler.