Welcome back to WDYTT, the only hockey column on the internet that comes in between the other days of the week.

Speaking of in-between, that’s the group we want to talk about today. In all this rebuilding business, there’s been plenty of chat about the Canucks’ veterans, in terms of trading them, and their burgeoning young core, in terms of building around them.

But what about the folks in between? What about the mid-20s Canucks?

There are a number of players caught up in this age-based middle ground. Too old to be counted as part of the youth movement, too young to be shopped as vet pieces. We’re talking players like Marco Rossi (24), Nils Höglander (25), Aatu Räty (23), Linus Karlsson (26), Max Sasson (25), and even Filip Chytil (26). That’s the Canucks’ current crew of mid-20-year-olds. And the question of the day is, which of these players is going to play the largest role in the Canucks’ eventual future?

Every NHL player has some untapped potential, but few fully hit it, and the likelihood of that hitting gets less with each passing year. That said, late-career breakouts happen all the time. So, of the players we’ve mentioned, we’re wondering who has that untapped potential, and who seems most likely to hit it.

Which of these players is going to make themselves part of the rebuild on their own playing merits?

This week, we’re asking:

Let it be known in the comment section.

You answered below! (PS: Apologies, but we’ve been getting a ton of responses lately, and had to cut a few for space. We will try our best to be equitable with this moving forward.)

I would support the full on rebuild, everybody over 25 must go, but it’s not going to happen due to NMCs and want for veteran leadership from Hronek, Garly, and … that’s about it. The rest of the Canucks veterans don’t provide any leadership worth keeping.

To the studs . . . but here’s an idea: when you’re not spending to the cap, how about give the existing season ticket holders a break on ticket prices and not jack them up another ~30% for this tire fire season? Maybe even consider a haircut.

I would support any level below “retool on the fly”. Preferably somewhere between that and scorched earth.

I support a full and measured rebuild. Only keep players that will be an integral part of this team in five years. The rest should be traded at peak value from this point on, whatever implications that has. The team cannot allow depreciation of their assets.

The only offseason signings should be short-term contracts to vets that can contribute to a strong culture and help shelter the rookies.

The Canucks absolutely need to define what kind of team they want to be and draft/sign players complementary to that profile.

This doesn’t have to be a long rebuild if it is done properly.

Trade everyone over 24 years old.

Then use the space to weaponize for junk contracts.

Bring in vets at higher money shorter term this offseason in hopes they can be flipped at the deadlines moving forward.

We should be able to make all of our deals and have the majority of the pieces in place in one or two years. Then its just a matter of a few years to bottom out for high-end players.

The new core should be Cootes, Buium, and Willander.

Not sure scorched earth is the right path, but a significant renovation is needed. I would keep the following veterans:

-Hronek and Pettersson, because those are the most difficult positions to fill and both players can play a role in three years.

-Others unlikely have any market like Demko and Boeser.

Everyone else should be traded over the course of the next two years. Aside from the UFAs, I think Garland and DOC should be traded before the deadline. Garland because his NTC kicks in next year and DOC because he would have a lot of value and will be a UFA next season.

I want a full rebuild which involves:

– Management should work three solid years on a proper rebuild; I don’t want them to delude themselves after a year, thinking they are competitive and going for it.

– Trade away every veteran player as possible for maximum return. I don’t want to see them re-signing Sherwood who has peaked in his career.

– Trying to unload some of the long-term contracts like Boeser’s and Pettersson’s.

– Canucks should get veteran value signings on one-year contracts in the offseason with the sole intent of flipping the players at the trade deadline.

– Canucks should be focussing on acquiring as many draft picks as possible and that includes taking on short-term salary dumps in exchange for picks. Edmonton should have given Canucks draft picks for taking Evander Kane instead of Canucks giving them draft picks.

– Bottom line: I want discipline from management to stick to a rebuild plan.

Our defense is well on its way. We still need to draft D to keep the pipeline flowing.

We should go all-in on the forwards. Move any vet with decent value.

I was wondering if we might run three goaltenders next year. (Unless Demko retires). Keep Demko’s load down. See to it that he always has two days between games. If they can show some stability, then see if he can be moved.

I want a measured and thoughtful approach. The draft has a couple prospects who are seen as being offensive players who can be available when the Canucks pick. Team needs offence, and one of McKenna, Stenberg, and Belchetz would be nice.

But with the lottery the Canucks may end up taking Verhoeff, which would not be bad. Verhoeff would most definitely make the Canucks younger, as the team could move either Myers or Hronek – or even both if the team thought they could get through next season with Willander, Verhoeff, and Mancini on the right side.

By selecting a big right defender, they may end up improving the top-six. That, of course, would be through trading Hronek for a couple top offensive prospects.

I’d keep the Minnesota Three, D-Petey, Willander, Mancini, Medvedev, Lekkerimäki, Cootes, 2026 First, Minnesota 2026 First, 2026 Second.

Otherwise, clear the decks. I’d prioritize trading Sherwood, Garland, and Demko this year. Anything for Kane, Blueger, or Forbort is bonus. Next year, work on trading Boeser, EP40, DeBrusk, and Höglander.

Full rebuild. Now, this definition varies for everyone. For me it’s to sell off MOST vets – the ones that have value. I also believe you need to keep some mentors and solid vets around.

I don’t think Boeser has much value at this time, so he may stick.

I’d try and deal EP40, Sherwood, Kane, Blueger, DeBrusk, Garland, Demko, M. Pettersson, and Höglander. If there was a BIG offer for Hronek, I’d discuss that with him and see if a move could be made.

The returns: picks and players, 21 and under. Ideally, I’d target a future #1 centre out of some team’s system. Ideally a couple of guys that project as future #1 centres and top line wingers. Then add D, etc., but forward is our weak spot right now.

That would be my version of a rebuild. I don’t see the point of holding on to many players. It’s an awful team. I don’t think we have too many guys that could be deemed untouchable.

They need a first overall for about four years in a row and, subsequently, two or three other first rounders tossed in each of those drafts as well.

That’s 12 high-end players. Maybe a couple don’t make it, so 9 or 10 should get these guys going the right direction.

Obviously, I’m stretching reality a bit, but they do need a lot of high-end talent if they want to compete for a Stanley Cup in the future.

Being completely honest, I was one of the fans a few years ago going against a rebuild. I looked at EDM’s decade of darkness, the Buffalo Sabres, and CBJ, and saw that a scorched earth doesn’t always turn out. We also seemed to have a future core with a 1-2 punch of EP40 and JTM, a franchise D-man, and a starting goaltender, and thought we were on our way to a competitive team.

Then Hughes was gone.

At this point, I am full team tank and would support a full teardown, even if I don’t think it’s fully necessary. We have no elite talent that can stay healthy, and definitely need an injection of the high-end talent only found at the draft.

2-3 years, I’m good.

5 years? I’m good, as long as it is looking fruitful.

Name a team that has won a Cup that did a full scorched earth rebuild. I can’t think of any? Six vets stay, give or take, or are replaced. Sell off vets, build through the draft. Maintain number of vets til young can stand on their own and reduce vets as the younger players win their jobs. Three to five years. A team should turn over every ten years or less, generational players excluded.

The rebuild I support is one where every single move has the objective of benefiting the team at least two years out, with maximum benefits coming after that.

That means:

a) selling all pending UFAs for the best returns available, even for seemingly poor returns;

b) keeping all current and incoming draft picks, the only exception being to package picks in conjunction with other assets to upgrade draft position or get better prospects coming back;

c) avoiding signing any UFAs other than undrafted prospects, college players, or ultra low-cost players with upside (i.e. the first deals for guys like Sherwood, Lankinen, Joshua);

d) strategically but patiently trading out the under-performing core of 26+ players on multi-year terms, either to capitalize on exceptional returns (i.e. Hronek) or to dump anchors that will not be contributors more than three years out (i.e. Boeser, Demko);

e) keeping a few of the vets that might still add value 3+ years out, like EP40, Garland, MP3 if trade returns don’t align with the rebuild timeline, but be ready to move any of them if a good deal comes along;;

f) rotating young prospects between NHL starts, press-box, and Abby with a focus on development rather than wins;

g) giving lots of ice time to the “mid bunch” (i.e. mid-20s guys with moderate cap hits like Rossi, Karlsson, Raty, Höglander, Sasson, etc.) to either hasten their development or eventually weed them out if development stalls;

h) taking back bad contracts in exchange for draft picks or retaining salary to improve returns on any other trade.

I have no expectation of timeline. It will take as long as it takes. Avoiding the temptation to chase short term standings points – even if the team is in or close to a playoff position! – over the next 2-3 years is critical to support timely alignment of all the new parts coming together before the productive years of any retained vets drops off too far.

The glib answer is “to the studs,” which may not actually be that glib.

I remember a CA article a couple years back grading Canucks from “untouchable” to “likely to be traded,” and all the gradients in between. Hughes was, of course, the #1 ‘untouchable.’ Once, that paradigm has shifted, there’s no real reason to balk at any other necessary step.