Welcome back to WDYTT, the only hockey column on the internet you can read in a matter of seconds, so long as you are not concerned with comprehension or retention.

Speaking of seconds, they’re apparently the most common currency of the Vancouver Canucks’ current rebuild. The Canucks closed down four major trades this 2025-26 season, and brought back four second-round picks in those four trades – two for Kiefer Sherwood, and one each for Tyler Myers and Conor Garland.

Overall, this gives the Canucks six second-round picks over the next three drafts, evenly spaced at two each. That’s an awful lot of second-round action in the near future, and it got us thinking about the past.

It’s true that the Canucks haven’t been all that fortunate with their second-rounders over the years. More have busted than have turned out alright. But still, through the decades, a number of names stand out. We’ve got a Vezina nominee, an NHL captain (of other teams), a key forward from the 2011 roster, and one of the toughest Canucks to ever lace them up, among others.

We’re keeping it vague here because we don’t want to preconceive your own notions too heavily. In fact, we’re not even 100% sure of the question we want to ask here, and so we’re leaving that intentionally open-ended, too, between the “best” and the “favourite” of it all.

In short, we’re here to reminisce about second-round selections of the past, and to use that as an excuse to dream about all those second-round picks set to come in the next few years.

This week, we’re asking:

Let it be known in the comment section.

You answered below!

If you’re a fan of this management group and this direction, I bet you’re super excited about all this draft capital Allvin has got to use over the next few years. Obviously, by the looks of the moves, he will be steering the ship for the foreseeable future along with his mentor and boss man ole Jimmy Rutherford.

I personally am weary of the near and distant future of this team and look forward to hopefully watching them play at least one more long run of playoffs in my life, but the history of the franchise and this management group look to keep it Standard Vancouver Canucks hockey – a team full of fluff with no heart.

The DL went as I expected it to. Garland was easy to move because he is still a good player. Kane isn’t, so he didn’t get any offers. Blueger is a guy Rutherford and Allvin wanted to re-sign. Myers did them a favor and waived. Good for him. The rest with term and expensive deals were not getting dealt at the DL. Anyone saying there would be a bunch od trades just isn’t in touch with how it works. Trading poor players is really hard.

Another Allvin-type TDL: overhyped and no substance.

Not making DeBrusk, Boeser, or Blueger available was a dumb decision, as both made it clear they’d welcome a trade out.

Same for refusing to eat on Kane’s or Pettersson’s salaries.

They tell us we are entering a major rebuild and then do zero actual rebuild moves.

We know Hughes and Garland demanded trades out and my guess is that Myers asked to be moved out as well.

Anyone actually believe we are entering a rebuild?

Or was this done to dupe us again?

I thought it was a solid trade deadline; was unrealistic to expect miracles for a team with as little to sell as this team had.

The 2026 trade deadline exceeded my expectations somewhat. It was disappointing Kane and Blueger weren’t moved, but the somewhat unexpected trades of Myers and Garland more than offset the disappointment.

Not sure what the author meant by “the trade deadline we were promised.” The Canucks didn’t promise anything. They certainly never promised to sell off veterans beyond the UFAs. Just like every year the media over-hyped the trade deadline and like every year activity fell short of the hype.

The Canucks moved five roster players going back to the Hughes trade. That’s a lot.

Failure to trade Kane and Blueger was disappointing, however, moving Myers and Garland ahead of schedule, along with Sherwood and Hughes, was good.

Re-signing Blueger would compound the failure.

Blueger is in the way of developing younger players.

Failure to trade Blueger and Kane shows they were bad signing/trade and, compound that with Demko and Boeser, and I stand by my take that it is a firing offense.

I give the management team a ‘B-.’

The Good:

-They got ahead of the market instead of waiting and traded Sherwood.

-They needed to trade Garland before his trade restriction clauses kicked in this summer. They weren’t going to get a better return.

-A little surprised they traded Myers and they received a good return.

-They were able to trade Kampf and Reichel .

The Bad:

-Kane was a bad acquisition and that looks worse with time.

-They should have been able to create a market for Blueger.

I’m giving management a ‘C-.’ They didn’t rob anyone, but hey, at least they weren’t stripped naked like in previous trades. Keeping their clothes on counts as progress, even if they’re still standing in the cold with nothing but their underwear and a pair of socks.

Fail. I get that trading Garland’s 6×6 before his NMC kicks in should be a win, but those are the guys who signed him to that deal in the first place. Bummed that neither Kane or Blueger were traded. Not moving expiring contracts is a dead loss, and the Myers trade was a year too soon. Is a second and a fourth rounder going to help the three or four rookie defensemen that the Canucks are forced to dress for every game? You’d be hard pressed to convince me they wouldn’t have been able to get a similar return next year for Myers anyhow.

I think it was a solid 6 out of 10 if you just look at deadline week. Moving Garland for a third and a second and convincing Myers to go to Dallas. Would love to know what Detroit was offering, however. If you included the massive Haul for Hughes and the overpayment by San Jose, then I would give it a 8 out of 10. Blueger does not really move the needle on a playoff team unless there is a team with late season injuries to the bottom-six. It is also well-documented that Kane and dumb penalties cost the Oilers in some capacity, so I was not surprised he was not moved. Overall a B+.

Taking a look at the various letter grades you’ve offered out here, I think that management’s performance at this deadline deserves a ‘C+’ rating, but I would probably bump that up to a ‘B-’ in recognition of the improved direction of the team and to encourage this managerial group to keep pushing in this same direction. A motivational mark, if you will.