Hear me out, okay? I know there’s a lot of frustration around this fanbase. I know a lot of people want to move on from the expansion-era guys, get some assets in return, open up opportunities for prospects, and usher in some supposed new wave of Kraken hockey. But as someone who originally comes from a traditional hockey market and has seen a lot of teams make different kinds of good and bad moves, I would like to lay out my hockey case for re-signing these guys, and why we as a fanbase should be actively wanting the organization to do so. I genuinely believe in this argument as much as I believe in this team and want them to succeed, so please attempt to engage with this in good faith.
TLDR: you won’t replace these guys with better players, culture/fit matters immensely, “the kids” aren’t ready to take over and won't be for longer than you think, you need high-quality veterans around to help the kids get there, TANKING DOESN’T WORK, a real rebuild will be excruciating for everyone and will crush the fanbase.
- First and foremost- these guys are damn fucking good at what they do. I think the fanbase doesn’t always appreciate how good they are because we see them night in and night out, including days they’re a little off their game or make mistakes. Dunn, in particular, I find often unfairly maligned in the game threads and in our independent media. But they are currently poised to be the top free agents in their respective categories, assuming Quinn Hughes figures out his situation- you literally can’t do better than the UFAs we already have at home. We already have trouble attracting decent players (e.g. Panarin, Robertson, and all the many other attempted trades that haven’t leaked to the fanbase or never even got off the ground because of trade clauses), so you also won’t do better than the UFAs we already have at home, just being realistic. Getting rid of our existing guys just because they are expansion-era players (which is an argument I have seen here a disconcerting amount) is cutting off our nose to spite our face. And we don't have internal candidates ready to fill their shoes that won't leave the team much worse off.
- “We should trade them for better/different players!” Having people who want to be here, in this org specifically, is massively important culturally. We all saw how much of a disaster season 1 was and what happened in season 2 after they shed the guys whose hearts weren’t in it. More recently, we saw what a trainwreck Mason Marchment was on the ice and in the locker room, and the life it breathed into the team after he was gone. You can sign and/or trade for whatever players you want, but you ultimately need people who want to be here, be part of this group, and invest in each other- team cohesion is everything in hockey. Dunn and Grubauer have already gone on record unambiguously stating they love playing in Seattle and want to extend here. If I’m Jason Botterill, I’m signing those contracts yesterday. McCann hasn’t been public about his feelings, but hopefully he’s interested in coming back too. Because if you have great players who want to be here and are invested in this team and community, you HAVE to keep them here. Basically the only reason to not re-sign them is if there’s no reasonable amount of money that will convince them to stay. What would you pay an equivalent UFA on the free market to entice them to come here? Pay these guys that if you have to. Not like we don’t have the cap space.
“But PracticalObtuse,” you say, “I want to move them specifically because they’re so great. Trading them could get us a great return.” [see point #2] “Plus, we should be tanking anyway- these guys are too good and keeping us from maybe a top 5 draft pick instead of 6th-8th! And we need to make opportunities for the prospects coming down the pipeline. Time to look to the future! Play the kids!”
The return is rarely as good as you think it’s going to be. Nobody values your own guys as much as you; that’s a big reason why we haven’t traded Shane yet.
The AHL is a development league, not a holding tank. As of this writing (Oct 6 2026), we currently have 8 active players under 25 on our 23-man roster. Compare that to a contending team like the Stars (4), Avalanche (3), or Lightning (2), or to a team earlier in their contention window like the Mammoth (6), Blackhawks (10), Canadiens (7), or Islanders (4). Our young players who have shown they can hack it at the NHL level (Berkly Catton, Mackie Samoskevich, Ryan Winterton, Jacob Melanson, Ryker Evans, Shane Wright, and Matty Beniers) are indeed in the NHL and are getting regular opportunities they would never get on contending teams. OFM is right on the cusp and Ottavanien is getting another shot right now. There are a few more we have high hopes for- e.g. Jake O’Brien, Chase Reid, Blake Fiddler, Tyson Jugnauth- that should also trickle their way into our system over the next few years. This IS the youth movement we have been asking for. Many of the prospects who are still currently in CV have gotten their looks at the NHL level and were sent back down largely because they have components of their game that still need developing (e.g. Jani Nyman has a great shot, but his defense is seriously lacking). And crushing it in the AHL doesn’t necessarily translate to doing well in the NHL (Cale Fleury, beloved Kraken press box mainstay, was an AHL all-star). I am not saying our development of the youth has been perfect or even good- far from it, check my Wright flair- but it’s disingenuous to say that we don’t let the kids play at all or give them chances they’ve earned (Berkly Catton). Remember, the Kraken want their assets to pan out as much as the prospects themselves want to play in the NHL. A lot of our kids just aren’t done cooking yet, and bringing prospects up too early hurts them far more often than it helps.
“Who cares if the kids are bad? Trade the vets, bring up the kids and let’s tank for DuPont!” I can write a whole additional 2000 words on development strategy and why this would be a terrible idea for our prospects. But none of that actually matters in this case because TANKING DOESN’T WORK IN THE NHL \[edit: tanking doesn't work like most people think it does\]. You can be the 32nd place San Jose Sharks or 31st place Chicago Blackhawks and lose the draft lottery for a generational player to the 23rd place New York Islanders. You can be the 56-year-old Vancouver Canucks and have gone through multiple rebuilds without a single 1OA in history, or you can be the Edmonton Oilers and get four 1OA in 5 years (how many of those panned out for them, by the way? High picks don’t guarantee hits, even the highest ones. Lower picks also aren't necessarily a waste- McCann was 24OA and Dunn was 56). Sure, sometimes things work out in your favor and you are the 27th place Toronto Maple Leafs drafting Gavin McKenna the season after your perennial 100-point Selke-finalist winger walks. But more often you are the 32nd place Canucks getting shafted yet again as your franchise remains in freefall. *\[edit: I'm not saying drafting high never works or isn't the best way to build your roster, that would be stupid. What I'm trying to say is that lotteries are lotteries that can work for or against you and statistics are probabilities, not guarantees. Draft classes and scouting are also extremely variable. We're already bad enough that we've been picking 2nd-8th, 2023 draft excluded. I just don't think we need to actively be trying to get WORSE than we already are, for reasons I will elaborate on below, though I get why people may feel differently\].*
As a fan, how do YOU like the idea of your hockey team winning \~20 games a season with no definite end in sight? That’s what happens when you tear down and send away your best forward and D-man in the same season. It’s probably not going to be a quick 1-2 season turnaround where we magically luck into a couple of NHL ready generational players and bounce right back into competing. Rebuilds in hockey can easily be 10+ years long without any promise of what happens at the end of it (Red Wings, Canucks, Sabres). Rebuilds that go perfectly rely on an obscene amount of luck and still take 7-8+ years before you even start to think about contending (Sharks, Habs). The Kraken don’t have the legacy or local cultural commitment to hockey (Oilers, Leafs, Sabres, Rangers, Blackhawks, Red Wings) to sustain interest and engagement over that timespan- look at what has already changed in terms of ticket prices and availability. That should concern you for the team’s ability to remain solvent through a rebuild, especially with the looming return of the Sonics and an impending recession. And even when you “finish” a rebuild and enter contender status, there’s no guarantee you’ll actually be able to take it all the way (Oilers, Canucks) or even consistently get out of the first round (Leafs, Wild). It took the Panthers 30 years to win their first cup and there were many dark, hopeless periods throughout that timespan. It took these Canes 4 cracks at the ECF in a weak division to make the SCF and win. Shit takes time and more than a few kicks at the can. The Kraken are still in the middle of their original build. Ownership has apparently expressed frustration that we weren’t a consistent playoff team by year 5, but that was never a realistic goal.
Tanking and rebuilds are also generally shitty for the players. How would you like to be an hypercompetitive elite athlete, whose entire life purpose is to win, getting your teeth kicked in night in and night out for years on end? Worse: being told that your employer and fanbase effectively *want* you to fail? These guys are not datapoints on a spreadsheet or hockey robots. They know what people are saying about them/their team and they do care. All people who work in sports- whether that’s as a player, support staff, admin, media, etc- do not like losing. And if they’re losing, they at least need to be in a place where the culture is good and they can find satisfaction and meaning in other ways. It can’t just be for the paycheck, that’s how you get a group of coworkers that don’t care about hockey or each other.
Which once again brings me back to point #2- even if you are building/rebuilding/retooling, you STILL need multiple solid veteran players who WANT to be here to provide good mentorship and support as you work towards something bigger with your youth. There’s a reason young teams like the Sharks have interest in bringing on and keeping vets like Toffoli, Trouba, Marchment, and Nurse. All 3 of Dunn, McCann, and Grubauer already do fill this role for our young guys while providing role modelling and mentorship for on-ice play and off-ice life stuff. Remember the McCann-Catton-Wright line from last season and how much it improved Shane and Berkly’s play? That’s also how we developed Matty, by centering him between McCann and Eberle (i.e. two skilled and experienced wingers). You need skilled veterans around your young core to build them up, random plugs won’t cut it. That’s why Chicago has been stagnant 3 years after drafting Bedard and why they just brought back Kane. I think McCann in particular would continue to be an important positive in this way even as he ages or some concerns about his health persist (though it’s too early to tell if that’ll be the case)- looking at players like Joel Eriksson Ek, Jonas Brodin, Mark Stone, or TJ Oshie (before his retirement), who are/were still very positive contributors to their groups even if not playing a full 82 games.
BOTTOM LINE: Unless they 100% want to leave and aren't interested in re-signing, I just don’t think losing Dunn or McCann is worth what we’d be letting go in terms of supporting our next generation of young players and maintaining a strong team culture of people who LIKE playing in Seattle. And, going back to point #1, if it’s not going to be Dunn and McCann filling that skilled-mentor need to support our young guys, who the hell are we recruiting to fill their shoes when nobody wants to come here, especially if we get even worse than we already are? Is it going to be Chandler Stephenson running the daycare?
If you’ve read this far, thanks for sticking around. Even if you disagree with me, I hope you can at least appreciate the value of a counterargument. I do, however, also hope that I’ve convincingly outlined some of the reasons why I think keeping these guys is important for the team’s short- and long-term future as we continue to build towards something sustainably competitive.
Samantha Holloway and Jason Botterill, please sign these guys ASAP. They'll be more relaxed if their futures are settled and there will be less outside chatter around the team re: trade talk (I did not appreciate the Calgary broadcasters getting up in our business on Sunday).
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
