Whose 2026 Olympic stock rose or fell at the 4 Nations Face-Off?

Team Canada goaltender Jordan Binnington

Credit: Feb 15, 2025; Montreal, Quebec, CAN; [Imagn Images direct customers only] Team Canada goalie Jordan Binnington (50) stops Team United States forward Auston Matthews (34) in the first period during a 4 Nations Face-Off ice hockey game at the Bell Centre. Mandatory Credit: Eric Bolte-Imagn Images

It was a short tournament, but the 4 Nations Face-Off provided us with a ton of intel toward forecasting 2026 Olympic rosters for Canada, Finland, Sweden and USA. As soon as the players’ spirited effort established extremely high stakes – with several players suffering injuries from pushing so hard – it was clear we were witnessing a legitimate test of how some of the game’s top players handled best-on-best competition for the first time.

Now that we’ve had several days to digest the tournament, it’s time to examine whose Milano Cortina Olympic stocks changed for better or worse. The crucial criterion for this exercise: I’m addressing players whose 2026 participation isn’t or wasn’t a sure thing. Elias Pettersson flopping for Sweden doesn’t jeopardize his shot of making the team or dressing for games, for instance.

With that, here are my 10 picks for players who changed their standing for 2026, listed alphabetically.

STOCK UP

Sam Bennett, F, Canada

Bennett didn’t even dress for Canada’s first game but, as one genius predicted, they needed his sandpaper for the USA game, and Bennett cemented himself as a key lineup cog after that. Bennett finished top-10 in the tournament in shots on goal despite playing only three games. He delivered a crucial tying goal during the championship game. He was selected ahead of some more naturally skilled forwards, drawing some criticism after the initial roster unveiling, but it’s difficult to imagine Canada not taking him to Milan, especially since the event will be played on NHL-sized ice. Bennett’s physicality will be needed, and it’s not like he’s a poor skater; he absolutely can keep up with the pace, as he showed at the 4 Nations. As a pending UFA, he’s also about to get P.A.I.D. by a power-forward-starved team if he makes it to July 1.

Jordan Binnington, G, Canada

You don’t have to like it, but you should acknowledge it. Yes, Binnington’s spastic style gave Canadians heart palpitations all tournament, and he allowed a few softies. But his performance in the deciding game trumped everything else. He was downright legendary during the overtime, making six saves, several of them on grade-A chances, stealing the win from the Americans. There’s simply no way you can leave him off Canada now barring an unexpected health concern arising. He should be favored to start in Milan, too.

Thomas Harley, D, Canada

Narratively, it was impressive so see Harley parachute into the tournament – twice – for crucial games against USA. But he’s not only deserving of kudos for showing up without getting a proper opportunity to practise with Canada. No, Harley was good. He was poised with the puck under pressure from the aggressive American forwards. Unless you count Shea Theodore’s half a period before getting hurt, Harley had the lowest expected goals against of any Canada player in the tournament at 5-on-5, per SportContract. The left side of Canada’s D-corps pool was arguably a bit weaker than the right leading up to the team selection, but Harley staked claim to a spot with his effort in the tournament. Playing crucial minutes with the Dallas Stars while Miro Heiskanen is out should only strengthen Harley’s resolve, too.

Henri Jokiharju, D, Finland

The Finns were ravaged by injuries before the tournament even started, losing Heiskanen and Rasmus Ristolainen. Jokiharju elevated his game as well as any other Finnish blueliner under difficult circumstances. He was more or less a break-even player at 5-on-5 against a barrage of elite opponents, and he scored a goal against Sweden. If the Finns are healthy for Milan in 2026, a few of their 4 Nations participants will slide off the roster, but Jokiharju’s respectable effort made him a solid case to be a third-pair guy next year.

Dylan Larkin, C, USA

It was apparent from the Americans’ first game that a bottom-six deployment wouldn’t stop Larkin from becoming a crucial component. His blinding speed made him a chore to defend. He delivered the game-winner in USA’s unforgettable round-robin victory over Canada. It was telling that, after Matthew Tkachuk exited the championship contest due to injury, the U.S. turned to Larkin, elevating him into top-six duty. For the tourney, the U.S. had a 5-on-5 expected goals percentage right around 60 when Larkin was on the ice. He began the 4 Nations as a fourth-liner, but he seems to have cemented himself as a third-liner next time around.

STOCK DOWN

Adam Fox, D, USA

It feels weird to criticize Fox in any space. He’s arguably been a top-three defensemen in the NHL, give or take, over the past half decade. But he’s the one American blueliner for whom the moment seemed a bit too big. He was on the ice for Canada’s tying and winning goal in the Final. Among the right-shot U.S. blueliners in the tourney, Charlie McAvoy and Brock Faber looked superior. Whether Fox makes the 2026 team could depend on how willing the Americans are to move a lefty to the other side. They have Quinn Hughes, Jaccob Slavin, Zach Werenski, Noah Hanifin and Jake Sanderson, after all.

Elias Lindholm, F, Sweden

Lindholm was a non-factor for most of his Vancouver Canucks tenure last season, post-trade. He’s been a disappointment as a big-ticket Boston Bruins free agent signing this season. And he didn’t move the needle for Sweden at the 4 Nations. He failed to record a point, and the shot attempts were 49-28 for the other side when he was on the ice at 5-on-5. Sure, those types of stats are skewed when you’re facing some of the world’s best players every shift, but only two Swedes averaged less ice time. Lindholm clearly wasn’t a go-to member of this team. He has the age edge over fringe players like Gustav Nyquist, sure, but a Milan spot isn’t guaranteed given Lindholm topped out as a fourth-liner. Compare that to what fellow middle-six pivot Joel Eriksson Ek did, for instance. He was a beast. Lindholm was not.

Brad Marchand, F, Canada

Marchand did a tremendous job on the mic throughout the tournament, taking his job as a team leader seriously, absorbing a lot of the media attention – which isn’t nothing. But he didn’t impact the game all that much on the ice, which was particularly surprising during the wars against the Americans given his knack for agitating opponents. Marchand is a future Hall of Famer but looked like a 36-year-old struggling to keep up with the fast-paced play. His ice time shrunk and he was a fourth-liner by the end of the tournament. He turns 37 in a few months; he’ll be pushing 38 during the Olympics next year. He’s been great for Canada, but there’s a decent chance the 4 Nations was Marchand’s best-on-best farewell.

Teuvo Teravainen, F, Finland

Talk about a non-entity. No player (Theodore’s first-period injury excluded) averaged fewer minutes in the tournament than Teravainen. He couldn’t crack Finland’s top-six forward group, which was a strength, and his game didn’t earn him trust as a bottom-sixer. Coach Antti Pennanen benched Teravainen during one game and scratched him altogether for Finland’s elimination game vs. Canada to close out the round-robin. Teravainen returned from the 4 Nations jaded, claiming he never got a chance to do much. Will he get a chance to even attend the 2026 Olympics at this point?

Juuse Saros, G, Finland

Saros is up there with Fox as the player whose struggles surprised me the most. Yes, Saros has labored at times this season on the massively disappointing Nashville Predators, but he’s still been one of the best goalies in the NHL for the past several years, regularly elevating overmatched teams, and I thought he had a chance to play hero for Finland. Instead, he lost his job to Kevin Lankinen after imploding in Finland’s opener against the U.S. Saros isn’t in danger of omission from Finland’s 2026 team, but we can no longer assume he’s the starter. The competition from Lankinen and Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen is real.

Bonus category: 4 Nations snubs

The following players didn’t compete at the 4 Nations but arguably saw their stocks improve indirectly as a result of certain tournament narratives:

William Eklund, Sweden: Sweden couldn’t get much out of its fourth line. It will need some younger, fresher legs to keep up, and the emerging San Jose Sharks playmaker probably should’ve made the team anyway.

Zach Hyman, Canada: It took Canada almost the whole tournament to find the right wingers for Connor McDavid. Maybe next time just take the guy who already has the best chemistry with him and don’t judge him off a bad 20-game sample?

Jesperi Kotkaniemi, Finland: Kotkaniemi’s game allows him to play multiple forward positions, and he’s not out of place on a checking line. He’s a bit more versatile than Teravainen, even if the latter is a better scorer.

Tage Thompson, USA: The Americans were most fearsome when they were overwhelming opponents with size and skill. The Tkachuk brothers were amazing, particularly when Auston Matthews slotted between them for a Big Man line, but GM Bill Guerin could lean further into the principle and add the monstrous Thompson to the top six next time. He’d also bring one of the game’s most lethal one-timers to the American power play.

Tom Wilson, Canada: The Canadians will treat the Americans as their No. 1 threat a year from now. Even though Canada prevailed in the game that mattered, USA put a scare in them. One way to counter an opponent’s nastiness is to add some of your own: the Tkachuks would have a much tougher time bullying everyone if Wilson was out there for Canada.

_____

POST SPONSORED BY bet365