Pro Hockey Rumors

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include Winnipeg’s attractiveness to potential free agents, the Quinn Hughes situation in Vancouver following comments from management, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, we’ll have one more mailbag next weekend so watch for it there.

Cla23: With the recent signings by the Jets of Alex Iafallo and Neal Pionk and long-term contracts to their star players, will this year FA‘s think hmmm, maybe Winnipeg has something I don’t know about or will it always be a hard no?

If the extensions to Connor Hellebuyck and Mark Scheifele didn’t materially improve Winnipeg’s perception among free agents, I’m not sure new deals for Iafallo and Pionk (or Vladislav Namestnikov who also re-signed somewhat recently) will move the needle all that much.  When a player is an unrestricted free agent with plenty of suitors, they’re generally not going to go to a small-market team with a fairly high tax rate unless there’s a specific opportunity they’re pursuing.  That’s not a shot at Winnipeg but rather a reality that some smaller-market teams face.  Especially this year with a big jump in the cap putting more money in the market than usual.

But one of those specific opportunities I just mentioned is winning.  If the Jets have a long and successful playoff run, that will go a long way toward bolstering their standing among free agents.  Lots of players want to win and if there’s an opportunity with a legitimate contender, it will be a more coveted spot even in a smaller market.  That’s what’s going to materially improve their standing as a free agent destination.

One thing that these extensions should do is give GM Kevin Cheveldayoff more confidence when it comes to acquiring rental players they want to re-sign.  While they haven’t kept them all over the years, it hasn’t exactly been a mass exodus of talent either.  While players could be reticent about the market when they’re acquired, enough of them decide to stay which should make Cheveldayoff feel more optimistic about the prospect of keeping them around should the opportunity present itself to acquire someone on an expiring or short-term contract.

frozenaquatic: Of the lottery teams trending up, who has laid the groundwork for future success? Calgary has Wolf, but relying too much on a keeper isn’t a recipe for success (Coronato looks great though), and are in reality a trending-down older team that happens to have a great keeper and a top D-man in Andersson. The Flyers are the opposite, and could build around Michkov, but their D is suspect, and they forever seem a good goalie away from being decent. Utah is pretty well-rounded, but got bit by the injury bug, and may need an upgrade in goal. The Wings have some nice pieces, but seem snakebitten, and who knows if the Sabres will ever make the playoffs again. My vote would be split between the Ducks and the Jackets — both have potential — though for the Jackets going into ’26 with Jet Greaves, hot as he was down the stretch, as the best option net feels a bit scary.

Long term, I’m more bullish on Utah than it appears you are.  They’re reasonably well-rounded now with an improved core crop and have one of the deeper prospect pools in the NHL, including Michael Hrabal, one of the better goalie prospects out there if Karel Vejmelka isn’t the long-term starter.  They also still have a surplus of future picks to try to trade from to add to their core plus ample cap space (more than $22MM this summer per PuckPedia), a clean long-term cap situation, and an owner that appears to be willing to spend.  That’s a team that feels like they’re poised to be on the rise in the near future with a deep enough system to sustain it for a little while.  And for how long they’ve struggled, it better be sustainable for a while to justify the years of pain.

If Anaheim’s young core forwards can live up to expectations, they have the chance to be a longer-term contender as well.  But whoever takes over as head coach is going to need to find a way to get more offensively out of those players.  Otherwise, things might start to stagnate.  Columbus is in solid shape as well but I feel like they’re a team that punched a bit higher than expected which might put expectations a bit too high.  They need to sort out their goaltending to really take a step forward and while Greaves could be part of the solution, he profiles as more of a backup than a starter.

Since you noted trending up, that takes some of the bottom teams out of the equation and some disappointing underachievers so Utah would be my top pick for this question.  Quickly touching on the other teams you listed, I agree that Dustin Wolf masked over some of Calgary’s deficiencies that will need to be addressed still while Philadelphia’s long-standing goalie trouble keeps me from being super bullish on their future.  Buffalo has to get it right one day but whether they can sustain it after losing this much is still in question and I’m not sure Detroit is trending up but rather treading water.  There’s a nucleus to work with but until that young nucleus gets a lot better or they bring in better veterans to elevate the floor, they look destined to remain in the middle for a while yet.

SoCalADRL: Zegras, Zelly, Pastujov, 2025 1st, 2026 1st for Pasta. Who says no?

With a no-move clause, David Pastrnak probably says no.  There’s no reason to think he’d want to leave Boston, especially to go to a team that hasn’t been good for a while.  Yes, as noted above, Anaheim is in solid shape from a long-term roster perspective but until they actually start winning, they’re not going to be the most appealing of teams for players to go to, especially ones who completely control their fate in a trade.  This is the type of move that Anaheim GM Pat Verbeek might be looking to make, bringing in someone to anchor their attack but Pastrnak would likely nix it, ending the thought quickly.

The Bruins also probably say no as well.  CEO Charlie Jacobs spoke this week about getting back to the playoffs next season, throwing any idea of a rebuild (even the short-term one I thought they might do) out the window.  So making a declaration like that and then trading your franchise forward for a package comprised primarily of future or still-developing assets wouldn’t make much sense.

I should also note that packages like this rarely actually work in trades.  While there is definitely some quality young talent in there (plus a fairly high draft pick this year), the Ducks aren’t going to get an elite or franchise-type of forward for it; quantity rarely yields a high-quality player in a swap.  That probably doesn’t change with this package.

SpeakOfTheDevils: I’M NOT SAYING THEY NEED TO GO THIS ROUTE BUT…What does a Quinn Hughes to New Jersey mock trade look like to you?

In case you missed it this week, Canucks president Jim Rutherford indicated that defenseman Quinn Hughes would like to play with his brothers one day.  Can I just say that I appreciate Rutherford’s all-too-rare candor?  It’s fun to have something meaty like this to ponder without it just being a pie-in-the-sky idea.

I know he’d love to walk back that comment as it has brought forth all sorts of speculation but I understand what he was trying to say in that they’re going to offer Hughes a bunch of money but lots of brothers desire to play on the same team and with Quinn being the first to reach UFA status, he could try to force his way there if he really wanted to do so.  For one, I think it’s largely overblown, especially if the brothers are able to play on the same teams internationally in best-on-best play, scratching that particular itch.

Call me crazy but the trade that makes the most sense to me is one that sends Luke Hughes the other way as the centerpiece.  New Jersey will need to offload a lot of money to afford a Quinn extension that will be in the double-digits in AAV.  I don’t see the Canucks wanting Dougie Hamilton as a key part of the return and I’m not sure carrying him plus Quinn and Luke is necessarily a good thing from a defensive standpoint or even a cap standpoint.  From there, the timing would then dictate the adds.  If it was now with Quinn only having two years of control left, it might be close to a one-for-one swap.  But if it’s a year later when Quinn can be extended, that probably means more has to come from the Devils.

It’s a fun hypothetical exercise but there’s only one way I see the three brothers playing together as a result of a trade and even it’s iffy at best.  That’s if Quinn goes to Vancouver management next summer and says no matter what, he’s signing with New Jersey.  But even then, Quinn doesn’t have any trade protection in his contract and the Canucks could look to get a strong return for a one-year rental over what would be more of a salvage trade where they look to get something in return for someone they’d lose for nothing.  But would the Devils pay the top value to ensure they got him?  Probably not which is why I said even this idea is iffy at best.

FearTheWilson: Since when can you use a Coach’s Challenge for a puck over the glass penalty? And will the NHL ever leave goal reviews strictly up to the War Room? Imo any decisions after the original call on the ice should fall on the War Room.

Challenging puck over glass is a new rule for this season.  The relevant section from the NHL Rulebook is 38.2 (d) which reads as follows:

Penalty situations for “Delaying the game – puck over the glass” – When a minor penalty for delaying the game has been assessed under Rule 63.2 (iii) for shooting or batting the puck out of play from the defending zone. This will only apply to delay of game penalties when the shot/batted puck is determined to have subsequently deflected off a player, stick, glass or boards, etc., and not a judgment call. No challenge can be issued for a non-call, in other words, no challenge is to be considered when the On-Ice Officials deem that it was not a violation of Rule 63.2 (iii). A challenge can only be used to rescind a penalty, not to have one assessed. In the event of a failed challenge, an additional minor penalty (or double-minor penalty, as appropriate) will be assessed (in addition to the existing delay of game penalty).

(Rule 63.2 (iii), if you’re wondering, is the one that establishes the minor penalty for the puck-over-glass infraction.)

With it only being challengeable to take a penalty off the board and not put one on, it’s fortunately something we haven’t seen too often.  I don’t mind that it’s an option as sometimes, the officials conferring can get it wrong so for something that’s supposed to be black-and-white, the reviews shouldn’t take long so I’m okay with it.

As for goal reviews being made by the War Room, I like the sentiment of the idea in that it takes some responsibility away from the on-ice official and makes it more of an independent decision.  But sometimes the on-ice official had the best angle and might be able to contribute something or fill in a blank that helps determine the final call.  If they still have that input, it’s not necessarily a War Room decision then.  And if you take away that input and have no communication between the War Room and the on-ice officials, you’re not necessarily getting the full picture which brings a fairness question into play.  I think this is why we don’t see it that way now and probably won’t any time soon.

Read more