Right now, young players’ ice time is a pretty hot-button topic in Vancouver Canucks land.

That’s mostly because on Saturday night against the Toronto Maple Leafs, Jonathan Lekkerimäki scored a beauty of a goal, showing off his patented quick release and elite-level shot in the process.

Then he sat for the final nine minutes of the third period, as the two teams were tied at two apiece. In overtime, Lekkerimäki didn’t get to touch the ice, either. Post game, Canucks head coach Adam Foote was asked about the decision to have Lekkerimäki ride the pine.

“It’s more of the defensive side of it. He’s getting there, for sure. The more time he’s with us, the more he’ll know certain things, and the trust will be there. It’s just slight movements defensively that…it’s just being young. It’s not even a mistake…he’s a smart guy. He’ll get that pretty quick.”

The sequence of events has led to plenty of conversations being had about the rebuilding Canucks’ usage of young players. In this week’s edition of Wagner’s Weekly, CanucksArmy’s Daniel Wagner explores the question: Does Foote need to play the Canucks’ kids more?

But that’s not what we’re here to talk about today.

Instead, with all the trade chatter that’s been had about the Canucks and their veteran players, we thought it’d be fitting to take a quick look at what the Canucks’ lineup would look like if they traded all of their pending UFAs. Which roles would become available? Who would be the candidates to fill those roles?

After all, there’s perhaps no better way for a rebuilding team to force their coach into playing the kids than trading away all of his other options that don’t fit that billing. A Leonardo DiCaprio approach, if you will.

After trading Kiefer Sherwood to the San Jose Sharks, the Canucks have three healthy pending UFAs that they should be able to move ahead of the NHL Trade Deadline in March.

The smoke around a Kane trade has become thicker as of late, with reports emerging last week that the Canucks have given Kane’s agent, Dan Milstein, permission to help facilitate a trade out of Vancouver.

Now, we know what you might be thinking. Filip Chytil and Max Sasson have taken most of their reps this season at centre! Why are they on this list? Chytil has been getting reps at left wing as of late, something both he and the coaching staff appear aligned on. Could Chytil, who loves to wheel the puck up the ice and make plays with the puck on his stick, mesh better with Elias Pettersson than he does David Kampf? Probably! As for Max Sasson, our own Jeff Paterson recently laid out a pretty solid case for moving Sasson back to the wing, and it’s hard to disagree that the wing is the best spot for Sasson.

The trickle-down effect of these moves is obvious, and players like Drew O’Connor will get increases in ice time as a result (although there’s a pretty good case that the Canucks should think about moving him out, too). And what better time to finally try to see if Nils Höglander’s skill can translate into a helpful piece for the man advantage?

Is Liam Öhgren ready for top-line minutes? Maybe not. But he’s also emerging as a more trusted option, and just recently, we’ve seen him begin to get some penalty killing reps as the Canucks try to develop that side of his game. Again, the trickle-down effect of a Kane trade will equal more opportunities and ice time for youngsters like Öhgren, which is a good thing.

We feel it’s fair to lump Teddy Blueger and David Kampf into one category. In fact, if it weren’t for Blueger’s injury earlier in the season, the Canuck may never have signed Kampf in the first place. Both play similar roles. They’re trustworthy, defence-first centre options who have been mainstays on the Canucks’ penalty kill anytime they’re available. It’s more likely that a market materializes for Blueger, but the Canucks might be able to flip Kampf for a late-round pick. If the Canucks trade both, that’s two centre spots open. Who could fill those spots?

Now, this list comes with the caveat that Marco Rossi is going to be healthy and that the Canucks’ 1-2 punch down the middle will be Elias Pettersson and Rossi. We’re also going to stick with the assumption that Chytil’s look at the wing will be an extended one. With Blueger and Kampf out, there are two bottom six C spots available, and more PK time up for grabs.

The 5v5 centre portion of this equation is relatively simple. Aatu Räty would finally get some extended time in the lineup, as opposed to bouncing in and out of the press box. Max Sasson (if he stays at centre) would also likely see his ice time bumped up as well. Could Nils Aman get a late-season look? How about (more interestingly) Ty Mueller, who seemingly gets mentioned every time Patrik Allvin talks about the Canucks’ next wave of young players? Mueller got two NHL games at the end of last season, and has 20 points through 40 AHL games this season.

On the PK, Räty should see an increase in shorthanded ice time should the Canucks offload Blueger and Kampf. Currently, Sherwood (1st), Blueger (2nd), and Kampf (4th) are among the Canucks’ most-used forwards on the PK by shorthanded time on ice per game. With Sherwood out of the picture and Blueger and Kampf also gone in this scenario, some veteran forwards who would theoretically see increases in their usage are: Conor Garland (3rd), Drew O’Connor (5th), Elias Pettersson (6th), and Jake DeBrusk (7th).

But how about some of the youngsters? Räty’s current SHTOI/60 ranks 8th among Canucks forwards at 0:48 per game. Linus Karlsson and Max Sasson have spent minimal time on the PK this season, but perhaps that’s something both players can try to add to their games down the stretch, similar to what the Canucks are hoping to accomplish with Liam Öhgren.

If the Canucks trade all three of their healthy UFAs, their lineup might end up looking something like this:

Chytil-Pettersson-Boeser
DeBrusk-Rossi-Lekkerimäki
Öhgren-Räty-Garland
O’Connor-Sasson-Höglander/Karlsson

Now, if you look at the lineup and think, “I don’t like that Höglander and Karlsson are playing bottom-six minutes. The Canucks need to trade more of their veteran forwards,” we wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you! In fact, we have a great idea of what you should read next: