NHL Rumor Mill – March 16, 2026
Check out the recent Canucks speculation in today’s NHL Rumor Mill.
THE HOCKEY NEWS: Jim Parsons wondered what the future holds for Brock Boeser with the rebuilding Vancouver Canucks.
Vancouver Canucks winger Brock Boeser (NHL Images).
Boeser is in the first season of a seven-year contract. Meanwhile, questions remain about the Canucks’ current core players. Leading up to the trade deadline, he stated that he is committed to the club and its direction, adding that he hopes to play a leadership role.
The 29-year-old winger was the subject of some speculation leading up to the trade deadline, which he laughingly downplayed. Nevertheless, Parsons noted that there was rumored interest from the New York Islanders and Boston Bruins amid reports he might waive his no-movement clause for the right fit.
Parsons claimed the Canucks weren’t aggressively shopping Boeser, but suggests their interest in keeping the veteran winger long-term isn’t as certain as his. They might consider moving him worthwhile if they get offers that could fetch a solid return.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Boeser’s $7.25 million annual average value for the next six seasons isn’t as difficult to move as teammate Elias Pettersson’s $11.6 million over the same period. However, the latter is two years younger than Boeser and has shown elite offensive skill.
Like Pettersson, Boeser’s no-movement clause gives him full control over his situation. There’s always a possibility he could agree to a trade, but it’s a slim one right now.
DONNIE & DHALI: CHEK-TV’s Rick Dhaliwal recently wondered why the Canucks didn’t move Teddy Blueger at the March 6 trade deadline.
Canucks general manager Patrik Allvin claimed he received no offers for the 31-year-old checking-line center. However, Dhaliwal expressed skepticism, noting that they had found a trade partner for David Kampf, who went unclaimed on waivers earlier this season and spent some time in the minors. He doubted that no one was interested in Blueger, who has Stanley Cup experience and is a better center than Kampf.
Dhaliwal believes the Canucks hope to re-sign Blueger, who is eligible for unrestricted free-agent status on July 1. However, it’s believed he’s interested in staying in Vancouver.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: As Dhaliwal observed, the Canucks need depth at center. Losing Blueger will only weaken them at that position. He won’t be an expensive re-signing for them.
I am of the mind Boeser won’t be moved for a little while meaning not for a couple of seasons.
Like logically he signed knowing that the Canucks were unlikely to be immediate cup contenders and being part of the team for many seasons he has to have the temperature of his team mates meaning hughes being moved or at least not willing to extend long term cannot be shocking.
This is all to say i doubt he turned down offers from teams closer to cup contention if his heart was not in Vancouver and he had to know there would be some rough waters ahead.
That may change after a couple more poor seasons but I think talk of the team or him parting ways right now is very premature.
Barring some bizarre turn of the lucky wheel Vancouver SHOULD be picking # 1, with the best odds by far among what should be 3 of the other “bottom 5″ – Calgary, Chicago, St. Louis.
The Rangers and Winnipeg (both 6-2-2 over their past 10) seem to be Hell-bent on vacating their potential spot among the bottom 5 as they are both on the verge of making room there for Nashville, New Jersey, Los Angeles and/or Florida.
Assuming the Canucks do get the # 1, will they select LW McKenna, or go for one of the highly-ranked top D available RDs Keaston Verhoeff 6′ 4″ and Chase Reid 6′ 2″ and LD Carson Carels 6′ 2”.
Or Stenberg, who fluctuates between #1 and #2 overall in most of the mock drafts I have seen.
McKenna seems to be back to being the consensus #1 these days. Stenberg got a big bump after the WJC plus his offence has slowed in SHL a bit.
Any of the top 3 picks would help any franchise in a big way by the sounds of it.
Yeah, Stenberg is right there as well, for sure Ray. Whoever goes 1 to 5, at least, the teams concerned desperately need their pick to become huge factors in their respective re-builds. Little to no room for error this time around … despite he odds – based on several drafts – that someone will turn out to be a dud.
Boeser is from Minnesota and I could see him joining Hughes there. N Foligno, Zuccarello, and Tarasenko are all ufa at seasons end. Zuc and Foligno both turn 39 at beginning of season. Tarasenko will be 36 in December.
Nailed it! If he is moved this summer, that is the team he would want to join. Not sure what would come back to the Canucks though.
LOL Zach Parise 2.0 they’ll absolutely make the same mistake again. Maybe they’ll give some ridiculous contract to an aging defenseman too.
Heck they’re still paying off Parise and Suter. Oh the irony. Please let it happen.
You sure about that? Hate making you blind again?
Puck pedia lists Parise and Suter buyouts to end after 2028-2029!
These darn no movement clauses drive me nuts
Heh. You and the idiot GMs who dole them out like candy rather than biting the bullet and calling some of those players’/agents’ bluffs … “you want that clause? … let me get back to you while I see who’s interested in acquiring you and what I can get back for you now.”
Like that is ever going to happen.
I don’t even like the 10-5 rule in baseball either.
GMs are responsible for building teams that can compete for a Cup. As a player, if you and your bloated contract get in the way within the cap, then the GM should be able to move on from you.
The next agreement should include the option to move on from any player with buyouts that are favorable to both player and team.
I dont see a problem with the clauses at all. Makes for slow rumors and less trades but I dont care about that and I say that by someone chearing a team that is burdened by them as well.
All the player is asking for is the team to honor what they are agreeing to no? When you really break it down that is it at its most basic.
They are real people with real families and real children that factor into the UFA selecting what city they will commit to. That is a consideration to everything from schools and services to location and ease of travel for families and what not….I see no issue with the clauses.
Wouldn’t we all like to have these guarantees in life.
So do coaches and GMs … but none among them have similar clauses. They are perceived to be not doing their jobs? They get dumped … often unceremoniously.
It isn’t like the players are controlling moves to a 3rd world location. If the estimate is that 37% of the players h ave some sort of NMC and/or limited trade destinations, then that means 63% do not. Don’t many of them too have families? Yet most of them are obviously not concerned.
When a player gets married the wife would have to be from Mars not to realize that the life they are entering – automatically among the best-paying jobs on the Continent, including the basic ELC $850,000 contracts – come with the possibility of sudden moves.
I’m with you on this 1Oilerfan.
Because what he said was correct, if you can negotiate it, good for you.
Players only get access to even negotiate these when they become UFA eligible. So for the first 7-8 years of the contract they have no say where they live and work once they are drafted and sign the ELC. Unless they give up everything they have worked for most of their life.
If I want to go work for a competitor I can, they can’t.
If my employer is heading downhill, management keeps screwing up, we are losing, I can try and work for the other guys. If I’m good at what I do, they will hire me if they have a need. My current company can’t fire me without cause, or they will have to buck up and pay me.
A player can’t. Hronek is a good player in VCR and has a NMC playing on a crappy team. He can’t simply pickup and move to to San Jose to join an up and coming team, even though they would luv to have him. VCR can’t trade him without having his approval either. Seems pretty fair to me.
Hence that’s the deal, and to George’s point would luv to see a GM call their bluff and that is within their rights. I would simply answer – go for it. I don’t know what would happen, but could guess.
That’s the GM’s job, they bet on some players, not on others.
And I should also mention the many who are playing in the AHL. None of them have such restrictions. Isn’t there similar family concerns there as well, even when called up to the majors – inconveniences offset to a considerable degree by a chance of better paydays?
McKenna and Stenberg are sure 1-2 in likely order but not certain. Then there are like 4 D, the comes some C and wingers