CanucksCorner.com Forums

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:40 pm McKenna
Reid
Stenberg

Yeah....this is plausible as well.

Or flipped as I suggested earlier.

Talking to rats and ap offline.

A Verhoeff & Ruck twins draft day would be solid.

donlever wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:42 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:30 pm Toronto would actually be smart to draft a defenseman.

But it all depends upon what Matthews plans to do.

Lots of he's on the move chatter out there today....media spin likely but I can see easily him heading to 'Merica like his boys Mitch and Biebs.

Yeah exactly my thoughts.

TBH, even if Matthews is on the move, they should go that route and do as Topper says - build from the net out (not that they have a goaltender).

Matthews leaving signals rebuild. Nylander has said he's not in for a rebuild.

donlever wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:43 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:40 pm McKenna
Reid
Stenberg

Yeah....this is plausible as well.

Or flipped as I suggested earlier.

Talking to rats and ap offline.

A Verhoeff & Ruck twins draft day would be solid.

Verhoeff seems to be trending own a little bit at the moment, but who knows. I actually like Stenberg at three for us, despite all the Swedes here.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 4:21 pm I am so disgusted by this whole thing. Fucking BS. So done with the nhl

This could be the basis for a lethal CCC forum drinking game.

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 4:39 pm I'm not convinced McKenna is going to be what everyone hopes he will become anyway so meh...it's fine. The kid is a lightweight winger who may or may not be able to play his game. Remember, his skating is only average

donlever wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 5:17 pm We could as easily as not get the best player at 3.

No sure things in this draft.

Agreed. Actually, I am pleased in that I think it increases the chances that the Canucks will select the player who will be the best player on the Canucks. McKenna may well wind up being the best player, but he would achieve less of his potential here.

21st century 3 OAs have included Toews, Draisaitl, Huberdeau, and Bouwmeester.

If the Canucks do that well, it will be a draft that advances the rebuild.

Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 5:26 pm Tanking's still important.

Canucks marketing should jump on selling this motto on a jersey.

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 4:41 pm I would expect the old fart to pick Malhotra regardless as a way to entice his Dad to stick around.

C.Malhotra is starting to grow on me. I thought he was just a 2-way guy like his old man and maybe a bit more skilled, but one of the Nuck Army Nerds is saying his playmaking is top notch, always a great trait in a C. He's putting up some big numbers in the junior playoffs as well, which is impressive. If he can learn the defnsive side of the game and FOs from his old man and then fill in some muscle to that frame, he could become like a Barkov.

Pretty anti-climatic, eh... completely not unexpected.

...and now we get to watch the dog n pony GM hiring show, followed by the draft pick by JR before The Fuckin' Guy takes his Ovaltine with him to his new retirement home.

There is no salvation for the followers of this religion.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 9:04 pm There is no salvation for the followers of this religion.

These be wise words.

Craig has the Canucks picking Caleb Maholtra at 3. Days he has 1C potential, that is the first time I have head of that. Craig also has Stenberg falling to 4th.

Can't remember who had the idea here, but I still think packaging the Canucks first with Peterson to get him out of here is a solid way to go. St. Louis 2x1st this year (Ruck brothers?) and their 2nd, plus their 1st next year and a player/prospect wouldn't be a bad swap.

After the inevitable result of this draft I feel like we need to do one of two things (been discussed with don and the rats as mentioned).

Take a big D at 3, prefer Verhoeff as he's a Western Canadian kid and we need to trend in that direction IMO. Then work the later first round picks and get another in the 15-25 range and take both Rucks. This is likely an easier option!

The other option I wouldn't mind seeing is trading down with the 3rd and trying to grab another top 10 pick this draft. As an example, if Calgary wants to move up and take someone specifically at 3 we move that pick for their 6th, 28th and 35th. Bundle up 24, 28, 35 (maybe more depending on who takes the bait) and see if Seattle, Winnipeg, Florida or Nashville wants a plethora of picks this draft.

Assume McKenna and Stenberg are gone, we get at least 2 of Reid, Verhoeff, Carels, Malhotra, Lawrence, Rudolph, Smits, Klepov, etc.

Pretty solid start to the rebuild! And as we won't be much improved next season we are likely in the running to potentially take DuPont, who is a much bigger prize than anyone this draft IMO.

theman wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:33 am Craig has the Canucks picking Caleb Maholtra at 3. Days he has 1C potential, that is the first time I have head of that. Craig also has Stenberg falling to 4th.

I just don’t see Malhotra being demonstrably better than his dad in the NHL. His numbers look gaudy, but this is also the first season where the talent drain from the CHL to NCAA would manifest itself. Factor in that there are no OHL goalies projected to go earlier than the 3rd round, and there’s reason to believe Malhotra’s numbers are artificially inflated compared to prospects in other leagues.

Kid’s a good character and good work ethic, but I don’t see his ceiling as being more than a reliable two-way 3C option like his dad. Those players can be found in the middle of the round, not the top. Hell, Cootes hasn’t shown that his ceiling is any higher so why load up on centres of the same ceiling and profile when we need players who can be top-6 options on a contending team.

Stenberg if he falls or one of the Dmen IMO.

Lancer wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 9:55 am

theman wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 8:33 am Craig has the Canucks picking Caleb Maholtra at 3. Days he has 1C potential, that is the first time I have head of that. Craig also has Stenberg falling to 4th.

I just don’t see Malhotra being demonstrably better than his dad in the NHL. His numbers look gaudy, but this is also the first season where the talent drain from the CHL to NCAA would manifest itself. Factor in that there are no OHL goalies projected to go earlier than the 3rd round, and there’s reason to believe Malhotra’s numbers are artificially inflated compared to prospects in other leagues.

Kid’s a good character and good work ethic, but I don’t see his ceiling as being more than a reliable two-way 3C option like his dad. Those players can be found in the middle of the round, not the top. Hell, Cootes hasn’t shown that his ceiling is any higher so why load up on centres of the same ceiling and profile when we need players who can be top-6 options on a contending team.

Stenberg if he falls or one of the Dmen IMO.

I agree. Fast, late, risers in a draft scare me. I see him very similar to Cootes as well. A 3C that could become a 2C. If Stenberg falls to 3rd, take him and run.

I am against drafting family or brothers.

Never hire someone you wouldn't be comfortable firing is my motto.

Did the Canucks suffer in later years by not being able to move the aging twins for youth or high picks? i would say so. Instead of moving them and entering a rebuild, there was an extended, keep winning in honour of the twins. They were untradable unless moved as a package, they would have simply retired.

Don't go that route again.

Moving the #3 pick will be an easier sell to the market than moving the 1st

During the day yesterday, I sent a text to my fantasy hockey group (who were soliciting predictions) and I said, "It will be Toronto. And if I am wrong, its the Rangers. But I'm not wrong." I wish I had posted that prediction here.

Of course, I sent this because conspiracies are fun. And you know what? Not particularly unimaginable.

And here's a thought. Not particularly wrong, either. This is an entertainment product. And while the on-ice competition is the main draw, the narratives around the product are not unimportant to its success. And the better the narrative in the bigger markets, the more attention the sport receives.

McKenna in Toronto is a great narrative, as was Matthews. As was Lafreniere in New York, had the player not turned out only so so. And you know what's also a compelling narrative? That the draft was rigged, that the deck is stacked against the provincial -- and in the metropolis, the fact the provincial believes in the narrative. To every Maple Leaf fan, there's now a new hope -- and it will be fulfilled (great story) or once again it will be another primrose path (great story). To all those who love to cheer against them? We still get to be David in this story.

Not every coin has to land in favor of the most dominant markets. Those narratives have the capacity to attract the most interest (both for and against), but some narratives can tap into other veins that enhance interest in the sport. McJesus in Edmonton is better than McJesus in Winnipeg because Gretzky. Sid in Pittsburgh better than Sid in Philly because Mario. Generational talent linking generations of hockey fans through the same sweater.

And not every coin needs to land in favor of a good narrative -- part of the good narrative is whether things are or are not rigged. Keep 'em guessing.

Did the lottery results last night help or hurt the sport for the future? On balance, I think the answer is "help." Possibly a lot compared to the alternatives. And if you were in charge of retaining and growing interest in the game, at the league level....

To be sure, rigging some aspects of the game would have a far more detrimental effect on fan interest than other aspects. We don't want game outcomes rigged, but the league knows full well that fans will tolerate "game management," and there's nothing better than sudden death playoff hockey so if there were to be more of that, great! But nudge, don't control. And we cheer on pre-arranged fights where the combatants silently agree that they've done enough for the show that they can hug until the linesmen step in.

I have no tolerance for the perspective that its "fair" if the worst team gets the first overall pick. What is the "fairness" in rewarding failure? If I had a magic wand, I'd implement a draft lottery that looks a lot more like the Crosby draft. And I'd even entertain a rule that says the 32nd team is NOT ELIGIBLE for the first overall pick. (Tanking has a greater potential to effect an "unfairness" in playoff seeding in a manner that has a cost that vastly exceeds whatever value flows from the marginal effects on parity from purely standings-based draft schemes).

Congratulations Toronto. The higher the high, the greater the fall.

Topper wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2026 10:00 am I am against drafting family or brothers.

Never hire someone you wouldn't be comfortable firing is my motto…

Did the Canucks suffer in later years by not being able to move the aging twins for youth or high picks?

I’m not sure the fact that they were brothers factored in on them. I think it was more just honouring them and letting them finish in Vancouver. I suspect that if the Canucks had wanted to move them, even if it was sending them both to the same team, a deal could have been made.

If the decision was made because they wanted to let them stay together, then that was stupid. Understandable, but unwise in the business.

I agree that trying to keep it going with them here instead of trading them hurt the team long term.

I do agree on not bringing in family that would create a superior/subordinate situation. Avoid nepotism.