CanucksBanter

By Andrew Phillip Chernoff

February 8, 2026

The NHL’s roster freeze for the 2026 Winter Olympics (Feb 6–22) serves as a forced cooling-off period for the Canucks. During this time, teams are prohibited from making trades, providing Jim Rutherford and Patrik Allvin with a two-week window to finalize their approach for the final 12 days before the March 6 deadline.

As of the start of the freeze, the Canucks have only made one trade (Sherwood) since officially announcing their rebuild. This lack of activity has led to growing frustration among the fanbase, echoing Paterson’s concern about credibility. The post-break window will determine the legacy of this management team. If they fail to move a player like Evander Kane, Conor Garland, or Jake DeBrusk—all of whom have generated interest—the “rebuild” will be viewed as a failure of nerve.

The failure to move a veteran with term before the deadline would have ramifications far beyond the 2025-26 season.

First, it would signal to the remaining players that the “losing culture” is acceptable, as there are no consequences for the core that led the team to 32nd place. Second, it would likely result in the Canucks losing leverage on these players in the 2026 off-season, as teams will know Vancouver is desperate to clear cap space once the 2026-27 season approaches.

Furthermore, the retention of veterans with term complicates the transition for prospects like Jonathan Lekkerimäki and Liam Ohgren.

These players have shown chemistry in junior hockey and in their brief time together in Vancouver. However, if they are buried on the third or fourth lines behind Jake DeBrusk and Conor Garland, their offensive ceiling may be artificially lowered. The “rebuild properly” mandate is thus a call for a “clean slate”—removing the veterans who occupy the roles these prospects are destined to fill.

The ultimate consequence of a failed trade deadline is the erosion of institutional trust.

In a market as passionate and informed as Vancouver, the fanbase can distinguish between a “marketing rebuild” and a “structural rebuild. Jeff Paterson’s assertion is a warning: management is currently on the verge of losing the “consent of the governed”. If the organization cannot look the fans in the eye because they haven’t made the hard decisions, the ensuing apathy will be more damaging to the franchise’s bottom line than any buyout or retained salary.

Based on the evidence from the 2025-26 season, Jeff Paterson is essentially 100% correct in his assessment. The Vancouver Canucks are at a statistical and organizational lowest point. The Hughes trade proved they can move high-end assets, but the refusal to address the secondary veteran core creates a strategic half-measure that satisfies neither the requirements of contention nor the requirements of a rebuild.

The Canucks’ roster is currently constructed with “foundational pieces” that have formed the foundation of the worst team in hockey.

To maintain that these players are “untouchable” is a logical fallacy that management must resolve before March 6. Whether it is Conor Garland, Brock Boeser, or the seismic trade of Elias Pettersson, a move involving term is the only way to validate the “rebuild” and begin the long process of rebuilding trust with a fanbase that has been promised a “new direction” for far too long.
The failure to do so will leave the organization in a state of “distressed asset” purgatory, where it is too bad to compete and too rigid to change.

The Olympic break represents the final silence before what must be a transformative period of activity. If the deadline passes without a significant veteran departure, the 2025-26 season will not be remembered as the start of a rebuild, but as the final gasp of a management philosophy that was too fearful to truly start over. Management has the assets, the prospects, and the cap motivation to act. All that remains is the execution.

As the March 6, 2026, trade deadline approaches, the “trigger” has to be pulled on several veteran pieces to clear cap space and accumulate “lottery tickets.”

The UFA Clearance: Players like Teddy Blueger and David Kämpf are essentially locks to be moved.
The Evander Kane Situation: Management is actively trying to move Kane to purge the locker room of “unsuccessful roster additions,” though his performance has made a trade difficult even with salary retention.
The Garland/Boeser Question: Conor Garland is the name to watch. With his $6M extension (and full NTC) kicking in on July 1, management must decide in the next few weeks if he is part of the future or the next big asset to be flipped.

The Vancouver market is currently split between relief and exhaustion. Making believers of this fanbase requires more than just losing for a high pick; it requires a visible change in culture.

The “Tank” is Real

The Canucks currently sit 32nd in the NHL with an 18–33–6 record. While losing is hard to watch, the 20.5% chance at the 1st overall pick (Gavin McKenna) is the “carrot” keeping fans engaged. For the first time in a decade, the “tanking” feels intentional rather than accidental.

New Leadership, New Culture

With the captaincy vacant, the focus has shifted to the “NextGen” core.

Young Stars: The emergence of Jonathan Lekkerimäki, Tom Willander, and Elias Pettersson II (D) provides a tangible reason for optimism.
Culture Shift: Head coach Adam Foote has been vocal about “getting losing out of the culture,” emphasizing that while the team is rebuilding, the effort level must be non-negotiable.

Rebranding the Experience

The team is attempting to win back fans through “Community & Fan Engagement Nights” (like the upcoming Black Excellence and First Nations nights in March).

However, the real “believer-making” will happen at the 2026 NHL Draft, where the Canucks are projected to have their highest pick since the Sedin era.

Record	18–33–6	32nd (Last)
Goals Against	210	32nd (Worst)
Points Leader	Elias Pettersson (34 pts)	—
Draft Lottery Odds	20.5% for 1st Overall	1st

Until next time, hockey fans

By Andrew Phillip Chernoff | CanucksBanter

February 7, 2026

“If the #canucks  don’t trade a veteran with term before the deadline, there is no way they can look the fanbase in the eye and say they are going about this rebuild properly” a recent comment attributed to Jeff Paterson, on the Sekeres and Price podcast on February 4, 2026.

The podcast video:

With more than 25 years covering the Vancouver Canucks. And a Senior writer for Canucks Army and host of Rink Wide Vancouver postgame livestream, Paterson has reasons behind his views.

How correct could Paterson be based on the Canucks actions prior to the Winter Olympics break in the 2025-26 season? Let’s find out.

The institutional credibility of a National Hockey League franchise is predicated upon the alignment of its stated strategic objectives with its contributing behavior.

In the case of the Vancouver Canucks during the 2025-26 season, the plan, the team objectives at the start of the season, has reached a point of critical failure.

As the organization entered the mid-February Olympic break occupying the lowest tier of the league standings, the commentary provided by veteran analyst Jeff Paterson emerged not merely as a critique, but as a definitive metric for organizational integrity.

Paterson asserted that a failure to move a veteran player with remaining contract term before the March 6 trade deadline would render management’s “rebuild” narrative fundamentally dishonest to its fanbase.

At the core of this tension is the distinction between transactional maintenance—selling expiring assets—and the structural dismantling of a core that has proven incapable of contention.

The urgency behind Paterson’s demand for a “term” trade is rooted in the unprecedented on-ice failure of the 2025-26 Canucks.

By February 5, 2026, the team possessed a record of 18-33-6, totaling 42 points through 57 games.

This record places the franchise in 32nd place, seven points adrift of the nearest competitor in the Pacific Division. The collapse is comprehensive, shown by a league-worst goal differential of -61.

The failure of the roster is most apparent in its defensive deficiencies.

The team’s 70.4% penalty kill is the least efficient in the NHL, contributing to a goals-against average that has rendered even moderate offensive contributions irrelevant. This statistical environment serves as the primary catalyst for the “rebuild” declaration.
When a team operates at nearly maximum cap capacity—projected at $94.162 million for the 2025-26 season—and achieves the worst results in the league, the institutional imperative for a teardown becomes an economic necessity.

Team	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	GF	GA	GD	PK%
Vegas Golden Knights	56	26	16	14	66	188	178	+10	81.2
Edmonton Oilers	58	28	22	8	64	198	194	+8	79.5
Seattle Kraken	56	27	20	9	63	162	165	-3	82.1
Anaheim Ducks	56	30	23	3	63	185	195	-10	78.4
Los Angeles Kings	55	23	18	14	60	145	157	-12	80.9
San Jose Sharks	55	27	24	4	58	171	193	-22	77.2
Calgary Flames	56	23	27	6	52	142	169	-27	76.8
Vancouver Canucks	57	18	33	6	42	149	210	-61	70.4

The crux of the controversy Paterson outlines, lies in the definition of a “rebuild.

Management, led by Jim Rutherford and Patrik Allvin, officially embraced the term in January 2026, yet their subsequent actions have suggested a lingering attachment to the previous core.
Paterson’s commentary highlights a systemic flaw in this approach: the tendency to overvalue veteran assets despite clear evidence of their diminishing returns.

A “proper” rebuild, requires the liquidation of players with “term”—those signed for multiple seasons who represent the failed architecture of the current roster. Paterson specifically identifies Thatcher Demko, Conor Garland, and Brock Boeser as the primary subjects of this requirement.

The irony of the Canucks’ situation is that management “doubled down” on these veterans as recently as the 2025 off-season, re-signing Boeser and extending Garland.

This decision-making has led to a scenario where the team is paying elite prices for bottom-tier results.

Paterson argues that for management to regain credibility, they must acknowledge the error of these extensions by moving at least one of these pieces before the deadline.

The trade of Captain Quinn Hughes to the Minnesota Wild left a leadership vacuum filled by veterans who are no longer viewed as part of the long-term solution,.

And while the “youth movement” has seen an high upside, it is currently being asked to develop within a dysfunctional environment.

If management keeps the remaining veterans with term, they risk a “delayed developmental curve” where the new arrivals are hampered by the losing culture established by the outgoing core.

Adding to the problem, is it’s symbolic of wanting to keep your cake and eat it too.

The inclusion of Tyler Myers (35 years old) and Kevin Lankinen (30 years old) on an untouchable list suggests that management is still attempting to maintain a competitive floor rather than maximizing asset value.

Lankinen, signed to a five-year, $22.5 million contract in February 2025, has performed admirably as a 1B starter, but his long-term presence on a rebuilding team is difficult to justify when Thatcher Demko’s health remains the primary goaltending concern.

The refusal to move Boeser and Hronek—both 28 and signed to massive term—indicates a belief that the “next core” can be built around the same pieces that failed the “previous core.”

Paterson’s skepticism is rooted in the fact that this approach has been tried repeatedly in Vancouver without success.

The fans, having witnessed several “retools” that failed to yield playoff success, are unlikely to accept a “rebuild” that preserves the very players most associated with the current failure.

Elias Pettersson represents the most complex variable in the Canucks’ rebuild equation.

With an $11.6 million cap hit and six years remaining on his contract, he is the highest-paid player in franchise history.

However, as the 2025-26 season progressed, reports surfaced that management had made him available for trade.

Pettersson’s offensive production—34 points in 49 games—is significantly below the expectations of his contract.

The difficulty in moving him lies in three factors: his salary, his declining production, and his full No-Movement Clause (NMC).

For a trade to occur, Pettersson must not only agree to the destination but the Canucks must also likely retain a portion of his salary, which would create “dead cap” for the next half-decade.

The Chicago Blackhawks have emerged as the most logical suitor. They possess the cap space to absorb Pettersson’s entire contract and a deep prospect pool that could help the Canucks “kickstart” their rebuild.

If management were to move Pettersson, it would be the most significant “term” trade in NHL history, immediately validating the rebuild in the eyes of the fanbase and satisfying Paterson’s requirement in the most dramatic fashion possible.

The acquisition of the players from the Quinn Hughes trade are doing their best but struggling to do more than their experience can match.

Marco Rossi and Zeev Buium, both critical components of the Minnesota Wild trade, suffered injuries in January 2026, sidelining them until after the Olympic break. Liam Ohgren, however, has showcased early chemistry with top prospect Jonathan Lekkerimäki, providing a rare highlight in the season’s second half.

That highlight is tempered by the the feeling that the Canucks are demanding too much of them while hesitating to pull the trigger on moving core players and demonstrating with action a true rebuild by pulling the trigger.

Up next Part 2 of 2: Pulling The Trigger, Making Believers Of The Fans tomorrow February 8, 2026

Until next time, hockey fans