-
Greg Wyshynski
Watch your favorite events in the newly enhanced ESPN App. Learn more about what plan is right for you. Sign Up Now
RK: Well, it’s not that I dislike Selke wingers; Mitch Marner and all his clutch play have made the roster. It is more related to the fact that Stone’s speed concerns me, as does his injury history. As for Marchand, he’s likely to be a middle-six player on Florida. Canada has “pesty” players that can play both special teams, and it isn’t lacking in the leadership qualities that those two bring.
By the time February rolls around, I believe Celebrini will have surpassed both of them. Suzuki and Jarvis are both elite, two-way play drivers that are already in the same category, if not better.
GW: I want to get to the literal children you’ve decided are worthy of the Canadian national team, but wanted to pause on Suzuki. The Canadiens center seems like he’s now ascended to the throne of “is this person elite or nah?” debates. Why him over other candidates?
RK: The Nick Suzuki debates pretty much power the entire province of Quebec with the amount of energy expended on them. Canada has a habit of taking “role players” instead of the best players. It has paid dearly for it at junior levels. I opted for Suzuki over Cirelli because Suzuki is the better offensive player with elite penalty-killing abilities. If Canada is going to win gold, it is going to need more than its nuclear weapons to score, and Suzuki is a reliable option to play that role.
Cirelli was my last cut from the forward group, although I think it is likely he makes the team. As for Marchand, Stone and Travis Konecny, I will always opt for the center over the wingers because of the versatility and faceoff factor.
GW: Speaking of divisive centers, you have 20-year-old Connor Bedard on the roster — with the caveat that you’ll swap in Robert Thomas of the St. Louis Blues if Bedard stumbles in Year 3. Macklin Celebrini, 19, I can understand, as he’s been knighted by Sidney Crosby as a potential Team Canada teammate. What is it about Bedard, at this point, that would make him Olympic-worthy, or what would you need to see from him?
RK: Bedard is the only player to whom I have afforded this latitude, because given the rareness of his talents, I had to allow for the distinct possibility that he pops in his third NHL season. But in order to get the nod, Bedard would have to be a point-per-game (or better) player against difficult matchups to start the season, and consistently drive offense.
His shot is world-class. Given the strength of the goaltending in the Olympics, having a guy with a laser beam in your back pocket could be very useful. The thing with Bedard is that he must play in the top six if he’s going to make the team. Unless it takes him as a spare, which I could see because of his game-breaking ability.
If Bedard doesn’t pop, Robert Thomas’ ability to distribute the puck, create off the rush and cycle and read defensive coverage are deserving of a spot. If we’re being blunt, I think it is conceivable that Canada takes neither of them and that spot goes to someone like Cirelli or Stone — similar to how I can see the USA leaving Clayton Keller or Tage Thompson off for a more “reliable” player.
GW: I appreciate you adding Evan Bouchard to your defense corps, in case the Americans need a giveaway or defensive lapse to help them in a critical time against Canada.
RK: Believe me, I hemmed and hawed about that selection more than most given his “controller unplugged” moments at critical junctures. The conclusion I came to was this: When Canada lost Cale Makar at 4 Nations, it really would have benefited from having Bouchard to step in. I think this is a scenario where he is the spare who steps in if Doughty falters. The veteran’s age and fall-off deeply concern me, but it is a near foregone conclusion that he will make the team.
The reality is, Bouchard makes fewer mistakes than Doughty, Weegar and Colton Parayko, but his mistakes are the ones that often end up on the highlight reels. You need difference-makers, and he is the second-best puck mover, shooter and offensive creator that Canada has on the blue line. Very much like taking Adam Fox despite his warts; the good far outweighs the bad.
GW: I’ll be honest. I was really looking forward to having this debate in the months leading up to 4 Nations because I was literally going to pop champagne bottles when we turned our attention to Canada’s goaltending. Not just because the Americans have an advantage here both in high-end talent and overall depth, but because I really believed Canada didn’t have a championship solution between the pipes, the end result of a yearslong evaporation of the nation’s prospect pool that’s led to a national crisis of conscience.
So, like he did to the rest of the Americans in the 4 Nations final, Jordan Binnington has ruined my party. His tournament was classic Binner: Unimpressive traditional stats, much better underlying numbers like high-danger save percentage, and in the end he played like a goaltending god when it mattered most.
Do you think he replicates that in Italy, or is there a chance goaltending is still Canada’s only true vulnerability (besides the complacency that comes from a decades-long world hockey domination)?
RK: Good news for you, my friend! We are most certainly going to be having Canadian goaltending debates. The three goaltenders based on performance should be Binnington (he could have an .870 save percentage and the team would take him), Thompson and Blackwood. There is no scenario where Adin Hill or Samuel Montembeault are ahead of either of the latter two when they are at their best.
It is hard to ignore Binnington’s record in winner-take-all games. However, goaltending is still a vulnerability for Canada because the reality is, you don’t know which version is playing that night. Is it “4 Nations OT” Binnington, or is it “the dude squirting water at Nazem Kadri” Binnington?
Regardless, Canada doesn’t have a single goalie better than the four best American goalies, so it would do well to simply take the players who are performing the best. If that is Hill or Darcy Kuemper or whomever else, Canada needs to take the goaltenders who are performing the best and hope that carries over in Milan.
GW: On a scale of one to 10, how confident are you that Canada can win its fourth gold medal in men’s hockey when NHL players have participated? Keeping in mind that the Americans have been building toward this moment for 46 years and to paraphrase the great Herb Brooks, “Your time? Your time is done.”
RK: Probably a seven. Certainly, it’s the lowest it has been in a very long time.
The reality is, many nations have caught and perhaps surpassed Canada in their grassroots development of players, which has led to an influx of truly elite talent. Canada’s elite are better than everyone else’s elite (McDavid, Mackinnon, Crosby, Makar), but the skill depth gap has closed. The goaltending is going to be the deciding factor, because everyone has elite skating talent, but can they get the timely save.
Regardless, I’d rather have those four on my team than face them, because the prospect of that is terrifying.
Team USA
RK: Now, on to the Americans, who I believe are Canada’s biggest threat to its hockey supremacy.
GW: I’m rolling my eyes, but also, thank you.
RK: They have elite talent up front and on the back end, but most importantly, a level of goaltending that is only rivaled by Russia, which is ineligible for this competition. Given the 4 Nations, I see you have made some changes to the roster. What do you think guys like Keller and Thompson will bring to the roster that had been lacking?
GW: While the U.S. had a great showing at 4 Nations — the ultimate result notwithstanding — I think the roster’s flaws were pretty apparent at the forward position. It’s been a long-standing USA Hockey tradition to overlook players with incredible offensive skill because their overall games aren’t as well-rounded as some more experienced players who may no longer be able to hit their offensive heights.
In the case of 4 Nations, that was clearly Chris Kreider and Brock Nelson, whom I’ve dropped from the Olympic roster. Tage Thompson is not going to make anyone forget Patrice Bergeron defensively, but leaving his size and skill off this roster was a self-defeating decision for the Americans. I’m a huge Keller fan, especially as he’s aged into his prime. I realize he’s a replacement-level player defensively, but I love the totality of his game and skill set.
RK: I love both of those additions. But the one I really liked was Matthew Knies. He isn’t as pesky as a Tkachuk brother, but he’s big, physical and he’s got more scoring than Brady. If selected, what are you hoping he provides in a middle-six player, assuming he doesn’t play with his usual linemate in Auston Matthews?
GW: Thank you for the Knies love. I’ve seen some projecting Alex Tuch to make this team, and I’m thinking Knies is a better version of that kind of winger. Like you said, ultimately his best place in the lineup is next to Matthews, much like how you’ve added Zach Hyman to team Canada as the modern day Chris Kunitz to McDavid’s Crosby.
Ultimately I’d like him there, but it’s hard not to have Boldy as RW1 considering how he tore up 4 Nations. So I see Knies as a “break glass in case Matthews needs a boost” option for now.
RK: Speaking of where he plays … Jack Hughes. He struggled in 4 Nations. How do you see him being used to mask some of his defensive deficiencies while taking advantage of his offensive brilliance? Could a move to the wing be what’s best? He’s the one player I have concerns about as it pertains to being bounced off the puck in certain areas of the ice.
GW: Look, the way Jack Hughes played at 4 Nations presents a real conundrum for the Americans. You could argue that Hughes and Adam Fox — whom I’m sure we’ll get to — were the two most disappointing players on that team. Hughes looked completely overmatched in that tournament, but I’d argue it’s because they asked him to shift to the wing — so on top of playing in his first best-on-best tournament, they had him playing out of position where I think his talents were wasted.
Yes, he’s undersized, but his playmaking and underrated defensive acumen are designed for the middle. So I’m hoping that having him in between J.T. Miller and Thompson is like putting delicately sliced gourmet meats in between two blocks of sourdough.
RK: I think there are dangers to that line simply because when Miller is on, he is a fantastic defensive player. But similar to Bouchard, there are plenty of “controller unplugged” moments, which you cannot have next to Hughes. From a size perspective, flanking Hughes with those two makes sense because it will open space for him.
Speaking of dangers, it is time to talk about Adam Fox! I am not nearly as down on him as others were, but he obviously needs to be much better in the Olympics. Pairing him with Jaccob Slavin makes a lot of sense to me. He won’t get top power-play minutes, so what is the best way to get the most out of him?
GW: I legitimately wonder if Fox would even be in the conversation for this team if Mike Sullivan weren’t his coach and Chris Drury weren’t his GM, given their roles with Team USA and the Rangers. That’s how bad the vibes were for Fox after 4 Nations and specifically the championship game — internally on Team USA, he was given the majority of the blame on McDavid’s OT goal.
RK: He took a ton of heat for the championship goal, but Jack Hughes was in a bad spot and Matthews got caught in no-man’s-land. Similar to Bouchard with Makar, I think USA has to take him as a Quinn Hughes insurance policy, as well as his ability to drive play.
GW: Like you indicated, Fox offers a lot at 5-on-5 in both ends of the ice that I’m willing to run it back with him in the hopes that that Slavin can paper over any defensive lapses he might have, and that he has a better handle on the pace of best-on-best play after getting a taste of best-on-best play.
RK: I noticed the lack of John Carlson on the roster. What put the others above him and what would have to happen for him to make the team?
GW: What, are you going to ask where Ryan Suter is next? Carlson had a very solid season for the Capitals, but he turns 36 next January and I just think there are younger, better, fresher options on the back end than Carlson. USA Hockey would seem to agree, as Carlson wasn’t even invited to its Olympic development camp. (Maybe he and Lane Hutson have a text chain about that.)
With a healthy Quinn Hughes back on the blue line, I think this D-corps is pretty cemented. The only change I made was swapping out Noah Hanifin for Seth Jones, because playing a prominent secondary role for the Stanley Cup champion Florida Panthers team made it safe to call Seth Jones good at hockey again.
RK: Oh, I am so happy you brought up Lane Hutson! The entire province of Quebec is doing a lot of yelling — and given the historic season Hutson just had, it’s hard to blame them. I think there is a legitimate possibility he plays his way onto the team, especially if injuries crop up. What would you need to see out of him to make you say, “That guy needs to be on the team,” even if it is as a spare?
GW: I realize it’s the height of hypocrisy to say “young, better, fresher options” and then be like “except for you, reigning NHL rookie of the year.”
But like I said, given the way the defense played at 4 Nations while gaining experience in a best-on-best tournament, I’m comfortable with this top eight. Where I’ll agree with my French-Canadian friends is that Hutson should have absolutely been invited to Olympic orientation camp with an eye towards the 2030 team. It’s hard to imagine, given his trajectory, that he won’t be a part of it.
RK: Fair enough, but I think that, similar to Bedard, we should leave the door open that Hutson plays himself onto the team.
The real strength of the American team is the goaltending. Connor Hellebuyck and Jake Oettinger feel like foregone conclusions, and for good reason. Hellebuyck has faltered in big moments for Winnipeg and for the USA — the anti-Binnington, as one X user put it. That’s slightly unfair, in my opinion, but at what point should Oettinger get a serious look for the crunch time starts?
GW: I’d push back on Hellebuyck having faltered in the 4 Nations tournament for the U.S. But I’ll concede that the guy considered the best in the world has failed to level up in the Stanley Cup playoffs or at 4 Nations in the same way that someone like Binnington has. Which is to say that I am a little concerned about whatever malfunction Hellebuyck has in big tournament moments.
The U.S. goaltending depth does afford it the luxury to consider other options. What’s interesting about Oettinger is that he’s sort of dined out on his reputation as a “win the series on his own” goalie based on his first couple of postseasons, but doesn’t always fulfill that promise.
RK: Hellebuyck was good in 4 Nations, but he has failed to outplay his opponent in the biggest moments, something you sort of expect out of a perennial Vezina Trophy contender. Oettinger has the aura of elevating his play in the playoffs, as does Thatcher Demko — who is noticeably absent from the roster.
Swayman was poor last season and Demko was injured. Is there a scenario where Demko makes it ahead of Swayman if he can stay healthy and play to his standard? He was the lone reason Vancouver went on their bubble playoff run, and that type of lightning in a bottle could be the difference between gold and silver.
GW: I’ll evoke the Mark Stone Protocol for Demko: Great player, dodgy health, and hence an unreliable option on a chart this deep. When it comes to Swayman, there’s no doubt his contract squabble with the Bruins knocked his 2024-25 season off its axis.
And if we’re going to ding Hellebuyck for his lack of execution in high-stress situations, then we need to acknowledge that Swayman pitched a 24-save shutout in the IIHF world championships to win the U.S. its first gold medal in that tournament since 1960 — with the Olympic management team watching keenly.
RK: The Stone Protocol it shall be. Swayman’s performance to win the Worlds for the first time in nearly a century had to earn him some significant brownie points with the USA brass.
GW: I will say that my choice for third-string goalie was Dustin Wolf of the Calgary Flames for the longest time, if only for experience ahead of 2030. But I couldn’t ignore Swayman being a bit more battle-tested.
RK: How are you feeling about the USA heading into Milan? The biggest difference will be the IIHF officiating standard, meaning the Tkachuk and Bennett nonsense will not fly.
GW: Wait, what do you mean? The Tkachuks can’t just go around beating up Canadians?
RK: Contrary to what we’ve seen in the NHL playoffs: No, they cannot! Just like Sam Bennett can’t elbow opponents in the head. That sort of behavior is generally frowned upon by the IIHF.
GW: Rachel, that’s like 90% of our game plan. What if the Canadian they’re targeting has an incredibly punchable face? Is there a carve-out for that in the IIHF rules?
RK: If that’s the case, I’m putting Tom Wilson on my team, because clearly we’re going to need in-game policemen. I guess the other question is: Which American is Binnington going to fight?
GW: Whoever he wants if it means he’s out of the gold medal game.
I’m glad you brought up Matthew Tkachuk, though. As confident as I am that the American men are going to win their first gold medal since the Miracle on Ice — and make no mistake, I am quite confident about this — the 4 Nations Face-Off revealed there are some foundations this team can’t afford to have cracked.
What does that 4 Nations championship game look like if a broken Matthew Tkachuk, an absent Quinn Hughes and a diminished Auston Matthews were all healthy and contributing? I’ve been saying for years that the Americans finally have the elite talent to equal that of Canada, but it doesn’t really matter if that talent is at like 30% effectiveness, you know?
RK: I think it likely looks different in terms of game play. Hughes is the most obvious addition, considering his impact on the game. But Tkachuk’s health is one question mark, and his effectiveness will be another. Both he and Brady are at their peak when they are “pesty,” and the IIHF does not tolerate that, so I think that will limit their play style. Matthews and Hughes are major components who could tip the scales.
The Americans have the elite talent to compete with Canada, but Canada’s best players are still slightly better. I’m curious to see how both teams adjust to the stricter standard and which game breakers make the difference. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see another overtime thriller.
GW: I was there in Vancouver in 2010 and in Boston in 2025. As confident as I am, I’m not sure my body can take another overtime championship game against Canada.
You may also like
About the author
