Why Artturi Lehkonen Is So Difficult for the Avalanche to Trade

Colorado’s decision on Artturi Lehkonen isn’t simply whether a contender might offer a useful return. It’s whether the Avalanche can afford to lose a forward who leads the team with 10 goals—and whether a deadline deal could bring back someone ready to fill the hole he’d leave. Right now, that replacement question makes a trade hard to justify.

Lehkonen, 31, is in the final season of the five-year, $22.5 million contract he signed in 2022. That deal was struck during the flat-cap era, when its price reflected the market at the time. His current production and role make the contract look like a bargain, which could increase his appeal to a team looking for help up front. It also sharpens Colorado’s challenge: a productive player on a favorable deal can attract interest, but moving him would cost the Avalanche a piece they rely on.

Colorado has a longer-term question to answer, too. Cale Makar’s significant cap hit is coming next season, and Lehkonen’s contract situation will need to be addressed in the same broader roster picture. Keeping Lehkonen could make the finances more complicated. But a deal at the wrong time could weaken the lineup while the Avalanche are still trying to compete. The source article doesn’t report a contract offer or a decision from the team, so this remains a roster-management problem rather than a confirmed move.

A return would need to solve Colorado’s lineup problem

If the Avalanche decide they won’t re-sign Lehkonen, trading him before his contract expires could bring back an asset instead of letting him leave without a return. That logic is straightforward. The harder part is finding a package that helps Colorado now or gives it a credible path to replacing his contribution.

A contender seeking depth might be interested in Lehkonen, but a futures-focused package wouldn’t automatically make sense for a team with immediate needs. Draft picks and prospects can offer value over time; they don’t necessarily provide a ready-made answer in the lineup. Colorado would have to weigh that longer horizon against the value Lehkonen provides this season. A buyer’s willingness to pay is only one side of the negotiation—the Avalanche would also need to believe the return leaves them better equipped to finish the year.

Rebuilding teams face a different calculation. They may have young players Colorado would want, but a rental forward may not fit their plans well enough to prompt them to part with one. The article points to San Jose and William Eklund as an example: unless the Sharks view themselves as contenders this season, it’s difficult to see them surrendering a young player of that kind for a short-term addition. That’s a hypothetical market comparison, not a report that the teams are discussing a deal.

Carolina is presented as another possible destination for a team seeking more depth. Yet the same mismatch remains. A club might want Lehkonen’s experience and scoring, while Colorado would need a return substantial enough to offset his absence. If the Hurricanes can’t offer a young player who could help fill that role, the Avalanche may have little incentive to move him simply because another contender has interest.

Internal options leave little room for a gamble

Colorado’s current alternatives inside the organization are another reason the timing looks difficult. T.J. Hughes is described as an intriguing prospect, but he isn’t ready to take Lehkonen’s place. That distinction matters: potential can make a player part of the future plan without making him a suitable immediate substitute. The Avalanche would be asking more of their lineup if they dealt Lehkonen before another option had established itself.

The club’s depth forwards would need to absorb some of the lost responsibility, too. The article notes that no internal candidate appears positioned to step into Lehkonen’s spot right now. That doesn’t mean Colorado could never adjust its combinations or find another solution. It does mean a trade would create a pressing lineup question at the same time the team is trying to manage its cap picture.

Lehkonen has also been described as deserving consideration among Colorado’s best players, and his team-leading 10 goals give that argument a concrete marker this season. His value to the Avalanche isn’t limited to what a potential buyer might pay. It includes the uncertainty and work involved in replacing a productive forward during a competitive season.

Joe Sakic could still move Lehkonen if a strong offer changes the calculation. But without a return that addresses the lineup cost, keeping him through the season and tackling the contract question in the summer looks more practical. That approach carries its own risk: Colorado would be prioritizing present help while leaving the future arrangement unresolved. For now, though, Lehkonen’s value to the roster appears to outweigh the appeal of a speculative return, and any trade offer would have to make the Avalanche reconsider that balance.

Lehkonen’s case among Colorado’s top players | Colorado’s depth-forward question