CanucksCorner.com Forums

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:57 pm**

Only way they can keep him is to carry 3 goalies. And wait. Not sure that is good for his development. They’ve made their decisions on who to keep so unless they are trading Demko or Lankinen I see no path forward to keeping him. Very much like the Kippersoff situation years back. SJS I think ended up trading him for a 2nd to Calgary. We all know how that turned out.

No no no, I am not saying he will be a Kipper, could be who knows, but rather comparing the situation. And that’s the gamble, could be who knows.

Do we want a goalie distraction to start the season?? I’m not sold on him being a viable NHL goalie long term. I thought he got pretty vented by the Oilers and we should have gone back to DeSmith once he was healthy. I thought he had a horrible NHL season last year. I understand the “potential” but we need to move on on one of them.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 6:11 am**

Columbus Blue Jackets traded goalie prospect Daniil Tarasov to the Panthers for a 5th round pick this summer. Tarasov is considered to be a better goalie prospect than Silovs. Some of you need to lower your expectations on the return for Silovs.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 6:57 am**

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:57 pm I thought he got pretty vented by the Oilers and we should have gone back to DeSmith once he was healthy. I thought he had a horrible NHL season last year. I understand the “potential” but we need to move on on one of them.

I think most people here know that he still has a lot to prove at the NHL level, although the 'fanbase' may have anointed him "the next one". He obviously has the demenour to pick his game up when it matters, whether it's for Latvia, the Canucks, or Abby - but last season he showed that as far as the regular NHL workload goes, he has a lot to prove.

BUT..... he is only 24 and has time to fix his flaws. Although the long shots could be an eyesight issue, he should be able to turn into a decent NHL backup as a minimum.

Considering the reports that 5 teams tried to get Fluery out of retirement, the market is there for him. I think as we get closer to the start of the season, teams will come knocking and he'll move on.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:02 am**

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 6:11 am Columbus Blue Jackets traded goalie prospect Daniil Tarasov to the Panthers for a 5th round pick this summer. Tarasov is considered to be a better goalie prospect than Silovs. Some of you need to lower your expectations on the return for Silovs.

First, I have a hard time seeing a 26 year old as a prospect. He was considered a pretty good prospect — years ago.

Second, Tarasov is a bit of a reclamation project. He has had limited success in both the AHL and NHL. Columbus has a had a shit show in net for years and Tarasov was given chances; he didn’t impress much. He was overtaken by Greaves on their depth chart.

Third, Florida traded for Tarasov but then didn’t qualify him. So they wouldn’t have to pay him the minor raise that comes with qualifying offer. But I am sure it was all arranged — this way, we can give you a signing bonus and you can have a chance to right your career under Bobrovsky’s wing.

Fourth, Tarasov had been difficult at times with Columbus, refusing conditioning assignments, etc. This will exclude potential market participants who might like the player but don’t want the hassle.

I am not saying that Silovs is going to get a better return than a fifth. But he is two years younger than Tarasov, and arguably has accomplished more on big stages (won an nhl playoff series, won the Calder Cup, international success). Still, a 5th is as good a return as you can get for a still-much-to-prove goalie who is otherwise going to be waived. Unless there are multiple teams with interest. That market might exist today—so many teams could see Silovs as an upgrade to their backup (or a wash but with growth potential). It all depends how sanguine they are with the options they have (like Greaves in Columbus) — teams tend to require something more than “that guys a little better than ours” when dealing with players at this stage in their careers — waiver eligible but still with growth potential.

And it depends on whether you can make interest instead of suppressing it. The trick in any negotiation, and neither Allvin/Rutherford or Benning seem particularly skilled at this, is to aim to satisfy the counterparties needs instead of appealing to them to solve your needs. It isn’t just the appeal, but also the attitude: the disposition going in can’t be “anything is better than losing the asset for nothing,” it must be “our guy is the only guy on the market that is a proven big stage player who can be a backup now and has a realistic chance of being a starter in the future” — find those teams.

Allvin made a mistake at the presser when asked about the goalie situation, and answered hey we have Medvedev and Young and those guys are really good goalies. That’s a conversation for the boardroom — we have other Demko successors, don’t worry about Silovs’ potential, the timing is off. To the press, it should have been “we are blessed to have 3 really good nhl goalies and a some players in the system we believe in. You can never have enough quality goaltending, teams in this league know that. Managing workload for three guys who want to play every day is a challenge, but it’s a far less daunting challenge than lacking confidence in your backup. We are absolutely prepared to have all 3 on our roster if that’s what makes the most sense….”

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:27 am**

I understand keeping Silovs through training camp but by the end of preseason they should trade him for what they can. That is assuming Lankinen and Demko are not injured or have shit the bed.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:50 am**

I'm on board with keeping Silovs, and running a 3-goalie tandem for a bit.

There was a bit of talk about Demko's practice time, and limiting it - Van is in a bit of unique situation due to this, much like an older veteran goalie needing time to rest. Silovs can fill in for those practices nicely.

To HW's point - developing Silovs isn't the priority anymore - it almost seems a foregone conclusion he will be traded - so sitting him in the press box until Nov/Dec - seeing how Demko holds up, and if another Org's goalie goes down, might be the best option. Worst case you trade him for exactly what you would have gotten after training camp. Best case - a desperate team comes calling and you get a decent prospect thrown in.

Though it does create cap issues - perhaps only carrying 6 defensemen initially helps with that? Haven't looked.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:05 am**

At the end of the day AS is a borderline NHL backup at best.

Meh...take the 5th and move along

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:35 am**

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:05 am At the end of the day AS is a borderline NHL backup at best.

Meh...take the 5th and move along

Agree with you, the only "yeah but" is that its an Olympic year and a condensed schedule so he may have a tad more value than during a normal year...

Take care...

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:38 am**

You’re not getting more than a 3rd round pick for Silovs. Btw it wasn’t me who brought up the Tarasov comparison regarding Silovs value, it was a scout being interviewed on 650 recently discussing comparisons between the value of Silov in a trade vs what CBJ received in return for Tarasov. Apparently some “pro scouts” value Tarasov as a better “NHL” goalie than Silovs NHL potential. Don’t shoot the messenger, the goalies in the AHL are well scouted.

We seem to be looking through rose coloured glasses at Silovs NHL potential. Athleticism which he has doesn’t always translate at the NHL level. You can have success with it against lesser talent which can make you look better but mechanics, tracking pucks, body positioning, anticipation etc., seem to trump athleticism when it comes to the NHL, or what the scouts look for. Anyhow just saying what I heard from a pro scout on 650.

For instance at the 2025 nhl draft goalie Ravensbergen went 30th overall ahead of the more “athletic” goalie Ivankovic who went 58th overall. Ravensbergen’s style (stationary) isn’t the fish out of water style that Ivankovic is but Ivankovic looks like a superstar at the junior level with his spectacular out of position saves. He won’t get away with that at the pro level.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 2:17 pm**

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:38 am You’re not getting more than a 3rd round pick for Silovs. Btw it wasn’t me who brought up the Tarasov comparison regarding Silovs value, it was a scout being interviewed on 650 recently discussing comparisons between the value of Silov in a trade vs what CBJ received in return for Tarasov. Apparently some “pro scouts” value Tarasov as a better “NHL” goalie than Silovs NHL potential. Don’t shoot the messenger, the goalies in the AHL are well scouted.

We seem to be looking through rose coloured glasses at Silovs NHL potential. Athleticism which he has doesn’t always translate at the NHL level. You can have success with it against lesser talent which can make you look better but mechanics, tracking pucks, body positioning, anticipation etc., seem to trump athleticism when it comes to the NHL, or what the scouts look for. Anyhow just saying what I heard from a pro scout on 650.

For instance at the 2025 nhl draft goalie Ravensbergen went 30th overall ahead of the more “athletic” goalie Ivankovic who went 58th overall. Ravensbergen’s style (stationary) isn’t the fish out of water style that Ivankovic is but Ivankovic looks like a superstar at the junior level with his spectacular out of position saves. He won’t get away with that at the pro level.

Tarasov might be a safer bet than Silovs next year as that scout said -- but neither a sure thing as a backup, there's considerable variation in likely performance, and the question of Silovs' value involves the likelihood of being a starter. Goalies take longer to reach peak, but even so 26, Tarasov's far closer to the "nothing-else-to-show" stage. Silovs has two more years of potential growth.

More importantly, and this is a common mistake when analyzing markets, what "most" scouts say (and you've made the claim off a single interview) is not important. What is important is what do the scouts of the teams who might have interest in Silovs think (and I listed 8 potential teams that should have some interest in Silovs because he may upgrade their backup and/or provide a possible successor to a starter with a limited horizon).

To illustrate, let's say that every NHL scouting department has Player A rated 45th overall in an upcoming draft. And let's say that 21 teams have Player B rated between 50-65, but 11 teams have that guy rated between 33-44. Player A will have better "median" scout ranking, and he will very have a better "average" ranking, but Player B will likely be drafted before Player A. Its almost a sure thing that one of those 11 teams will have a pick in the 33-44 range -- the question will simply be whether they have different outliers when their time comes up. What's more, Player A is almost certainly NOT going to be drafted 45, he'll be drafted later. That's because there while every team has him 45, they have different sets of 44 players in front of him.

This is why when a player projected as a top 10 pick, like Eklund, falls to #16, its often not because there was a change in how Eklund was viewed (though he might have not performed well in interviews or whatever), but because teams had a lot of variation on their lists as to who they had above Eklund. Perhaps the Flyers were the only team that had Nesbitt higher -- but that's all it takes, one team, one player.

Nevertheless, I don't think you are wrong that the most likely scenario is the Canucks aren't getting more than a 3rd for Silovs -- and that would be a pretty good return given the usual trade market for unproven goalies (or even proven backups). Because the question here is whether this is a usual market -- and that depends on whether there are 2 or more teams that see Silovs as marginally better for their needs than other goalies who might be traded. Which we don't know, and one scout or even the average scout's view on it doesn't provide too much useful information. And I don't think the Canucks will get that because I think this management group will view any return as "good" because they price the internal value of the asset as zero. So I think they blink first.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 2:34 pm**

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 2:17 pm Nevertheless, I don't think you are wrong that the most likely scenario is the Canucks aren't getting more than a 3rd for Silovs -- and that would be a pretty good return given the usual trade market for unproven goalies (or even proven backups).

Of course, the market is different each year, but remember what we have to give up to get Lankinen.

It would suck to have to take a 3rd and watch Arty bloom elsewhere - but we also have a few goalies in the pipeline.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 3:50 pm**

Silovs would’ve been traded by now had there been a decent offer tabled for him. The offers were probably so unsatisfying they felt they would be better served keeping him around in case one of the two get hurt, then are ok with losing to waivers once the injured return. Some risk management there. The offers will get worse to nothing as soon as he is brought up knowing the Canucks will have to waive him to send him back down.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 4:04 pm**

General Manager Patrik Allvin announced today that the #Canucks have agreed to terms with forward Braeden Cootes on a three-year, entry-level contract.
got $500,000 in schedule A bonuses on this contract.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:38 pm**

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 3:34 pm The only way I could see Silovs in Vancouver next year is if Lankinen or Demko are on the IR coming out of camp.

Perhaps they have a deal on the table for the end of camp hinging on whether Demmer and Lanky are healthy?

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 3:34 pm Tampa Bay, Calgary, Columbus, Pittsburgh could all use him now as a back up, or in Columbus' case, even to compete for a starting job (and maybe the older Latvian can be a mentor to the younger). And maybe Nashville, Florida, Edmonton, or Ottawa. Some of these situations have a starter that the team might not want to hang on to in a year or two -- and that's the thing that would be attractive to a buying team. Good enough to play now and if we get a good performance, a possible solution to a starter/platoon for the future. .

Great summary of potentially interested teams!

(I like the Columbus one best)

Definitely one of the best seller's market ever for goaltenders

... even an NHL-unproven youngun (with a good pedigree).

I could definitely see us getting a 3rd for him.

Or perhaps he becomes a piece in a larger deal.

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:44 pm**

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 4:04 pm
General Manager Patrik Allvin announced today that the #Canucks have agreed to terms with forward Braeden Cootes on a three-year, entry-level contract.
got $500,000 in schedule A bonuses on this contract.

Tidy bit of business there, when the maximum is $825k. Not that the kid's agent would have asked for the max given where Cootes got picked, but I get the sense the kid is not just stoked to be an NHL 1st round pick, but that Vancouver picked him. Apparently, he played in BC for a year in his younger years, says he had friends in Van already.

Gotta admit, I'm taking a shine to the kid.

CanucksCorner.com Forums

Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26

Re: Canucks News N Notes 25-26