Ranking Jim Rutherford's top 5 most crippling untradeable rebuild stifling boat anchors

[Cousin Strawberry]

Self explanatory.

My rankings

1- with a bullet Brick foot Boeser (I didn't think he even had a step to lose but here we are lol)

2- EP40 (he's working himself down the list)

3- Jake DeBrusk (he would've been purged long ago if anyone wanted him I'm sure)

4- Thatcher Demko (obvious reasons)

5- Fil Hronek (you may be surprised but I'm seeing a regression this year. With him flexing that no trade clause his presence has now entered rebuild stifling status)


Let's hear your rankings and why

[theman]

I would combine Demko and Lankinen and put them at #1. 13 mil and both having NMCs, that is disastrous. Only good news is that the team is still rebuilding and those contracts should ensure another top 5 draft pick, I would say top 3 but we know the draft result already.

[donlever]

I'm with theman on the goalie comment....any degradation of Rutherford decision conversations have to include Lankinen.

And I've made my opinion clear on the Demko signing....ludicrous....every day he's not on the ice his asset value continues to diminish....I can not imagine a GM taking a risk on him without minimal value back and a good deal of retention. I mean there are only so many Rutherfords and Allvin's out there.

I don't agree on Hronek....I think he remains a tradeable entity (also his deal alters to a 15 team NMC in '28) and at a mere 7.25 his value beyond on the ice (to guys like Buium and Willander) appears under appreciated.

I also think EP (as discussed to the ad nauseum level) was a terrible signing at the time but with the ever altering/evolving financial status of the NHL do believe he is eminently movable.

As discussed earlier this week if I am Ken Holland I am taking a serious look at Pettersson.

The worst part of all this is JR is still involved with the team and being reported as quite loyal to the Canuck cause.

On the potentially bright side there is chatter I have happened by (and not paid much attention to nor researched) in the socialz media, take it for what it's worth, world whereby some feel this team may be sold within the next half decade.

[Cornuck]

I'm with Lever on this one - though mostly the Lankinen signing. Demko? Can be somewhat understood with his near-Vezina history. Lankinen? A mediocre career backup getting that deal?

We can work around Demko being out, but Lankinen is the boat anchor sinking our goalie depth.

Brock? Yeah, he's not getting any faster, but we're kinda short on scorers these days.

Pettersen? If... IF... he turns it around like he's teasing this year, then that's going to be an acceptable deal moving forward.

DeBrusk? Meh - he is what he is - he'll put a few in for us - but 7 years... yeah, that will come back on us, but with a rising cap, we can fit him in.

Hronek? Put the bowl down, Cuz - he's the anchor of our D, and will be for another year or two.

[Cousin Strawberry]

I actually forgot about Lanky lol

Regarding Hronek though...there are concerning early signs of decline there. He's losing battles and races that he hasn't before. His contract is fantastic but we really need to recoup assets BEFORE a decline and if I'm right....

[donlever]

I wanted to trade Hronek for assets pre draft pre FA last year as I figured he was at peak value and the return would be high (i.e. Sharks) and maybe we would end up with Malhotra, Verhoeff, Novotny in the 1st round.

I believe I was shot down in Flames by the site...

[Lancer]

Lankinen has got to be at or next to the top of the list in terms of crippling and untradeable. Overpaid as a backup (which he truly is) and not good enough to be a starter.

Then again, having Lankinen as your starter when you're entering a rebuild does the opposite of stifle a rebuild. He sucks but, unlike having a healthy Vezina-form Demko papering over the warts on the rest of the roster and giving folks hope that they're better than they are, Lankinen lays bare all those warts with the appropriate results to follow. He sucks, but we need him to suck right now.

I don't put Boeser on the list. He is what he is - a veteran scoring forward whose best years are likely behind him but who can still fill top-6 minutes on a rebuilding team. The contract is not untradeable, but I don't think management sees him that way either. Boeser seems like one of those veteran/mentor types to the young forwards. He's a pro; he's the longest-tenured Canuck in the room so he knows the organization, its recent history and the market; he has a good attitude; and he can handle the minutes until the youngsters are ready to take them from him. A weird place for him now, considering his history with the club, but he's a lifer and not the worst person to have in the room during a rebuild.

The danger with EP40 is he actually lives up to his contract and becomes a poor man's Peter Forsberg. Lankinen will make sure they can lose any game they play, but if Pettersson continues his trend, he may cost the team some losses this year. On the one hand, having a poor man's Forsberg is a good trade chip to have. Watch Pettersson not waive his NMC in that scenario. He's on the list for what he can potentially do vice what he is doing.

DeBrusk is a boat-anchor because he add anything to a contending club that they don't already have. Contenders will always load up for redundancy's sake, but by the TDD there will be your Verhaeghes (assuming Florida stinks it up this year) and Garlands kicking around to dilute the market for DeBrusk. The nice thing is that he's not (yet) depriving a youngster of a job they deserve. Towards the end, though...

I put Hronek in the same group as Boeser. He's planted his flag in Vancouver. The organization needs someone on the blueline to provide that veteran leadership to the blueline - and he's the best of the bunch with Schenn and Oleksiak. He has value, but is more valuable to Vancouver as a veteran in the room than as a trade chip.

My list, then:

1) DeBrusk
2) EP40
3) Lankinen (*)

[Cousin Strawberry]

I wanted to trade Hronek for assets pre draft pre FA last year as I figured he was at peak value and the return would be high (i.e. Sharks) and maybe we would end up with Malhotra, Verhoeff, Novotny in the 1st round.

I believe I was shot down in Flames by the site...

I fear you were right about last summer being his peak value and it's only going to get worse from this point forward. He hasn't looked to be the same steady and solid player yet

[Cornuck]

A bit early in the season start writing Hronek off, but I'm guessing he's got a bit of weight lifted off his shoulders with other vets landing on D.

Unless he brings a high first, I'd rather have him stay.

[Cousin Strawberry]

A bit early in the season start writing Hronek off, but I'm guessing he's got a bit of weight lifted off his shoulders with other vets landing on D.

Unless he brings a high first, I'd rather have him stay.

My guess is it would've be a middling 1st at best + a half decent prospect but if he's in decline then who knows.

Sure it's early I acknowledge this but the early samples have me mildly concerned

[Aaronp18]

I think I was on board with moving Hronek for a top 5 pick this year once the draft order was determined.

Hopefully he picks it up and we can sell him for a first rounder in 2027.

[2Fingers]

just saw this, Lankinen #1.

from my GDT comment.

Honestly I could GM this team better that JR.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Then again, having Lankinen as your starter when you're entering a rebuild does the opposite of stifle a rebuild. He sucks but, unlike having a healthy Vezina-form Demko papering over the warts on the rest of the roster and giving folks hope that they're better than they are, Lankinen lays bare all those warts with the appropriate results to follow. He sucks, but we need him to suck right now.

I agree.

And his contract runs to the end of the re-building phase.

I hesitate to type this, but.... genius !

[donlever]

You keep assuming ownership is going to accept this for 4 or 5 years.

What historical evidence is there that leads you to believe as much?

[Ronning's Ghost]

You keep assuming ownership is going to accept this for 4 or 5 years.

What historical evidence is there that leads you to believe as much?

That's the genius part.

I agree that the Little Eagles are the mental weak link in a re-build. But the Lankinen contract makes any transition to winning hockey extremely difficult, and goes some way to ensuring that any such attempted transition -- like the last couple of abortive re-builds -- kneecaps how large and long the competitive window could be. AIG now has multiple examples of how short-cuts don't work, and making the short-cut path all brambly reduces their temptation.

If I were in charge of liquidating the franchise for them (as it is rumoured -- and we all pray to be the case -- they are pursuing), I'd much rather try to sell the new ownership group on a down-to-the-studs rebuild in progress than a decaying structure, or a decaying structure that was obviously hastily patched and all that repair work will just need to be re-done again properly. I will dare to hope that whoever is trying to liquidate the franchise for them has told them the same thing.