Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 1:28 pm
Great post UWS, totally agree... and thanks for clearing up the Silovs eligibility, 5th.
I might have more of a response later, for now still like to know if Lank has an NMC. If so, it makes the signing even more irresponsible.
According to PuckPedia, he has a no movement clause for the first two years; limited no trade clause for the final 3 years. So for two years (begining Tuesday) he can't be waived to the minors or traded without his consent. No movement is particularly troubling. There is a history of goalies showing up for a year or two and turning into a pumpkin, or backups playing like starters for a season, and then their game declines. Petersen. Georgiev. Samsonov. Driedger.
That NMC kicks in July 1st…..so technically they could still trade Lankinen.
However, it’s a bad look for a team to sign a guy to an extension and then trade him right away (absent that being the plan all along).
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
I think when they gave him his new deal they still didn't know how Demko would bounce back with his mysterious injury so they may have had a little desperation to lock in Lankinen. Also, Silovs did not have a great showing at the startof the year. They also didn't/don't know if they can extend Demko. The move smacks as desperation and preparation to move on from Demko. Now Demko has apparently bounced back and is saying all the right things about wanting to stay. And Silovs was MVP in the Calder run.
At the time there were a lot of people clamouring to lock Lankinen up. I don't mind the deal and if we get Demko locked up we can trade Lankinen no matter how it looks. But I suspect if we lock up Demko we will run with both and trade Silovs. There are still numerous questions surrounding Demko's ability to get through a whole season and or play in the playoffs. Lankinen is a better option to step in rather than Silovs. It will mean we are top heavy paying two goalies but that has more to do with worry about Demko.
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 2:33 pm
I think when they gave him his new deal they still didn't know how Demko would bounce back with his mysterious injury so they may have had a little desperation to lock in Lankinen. Also, Silovs did not have a great showing at the startof the year. They also didn't/don't know if they can extend Demko. The move smacks as desperation and preparation to move on from Demko. Now Demko has apparently bounced back and is saying all the right things about wanting to stay. And Silovs was MVP in the Calder run.
At the time there were a lot of people clamouring to lock Lankinen up. I don't mind the deal and if we get Demko locked up we can trade Lankinen no matter how it looks. But I suspect if we lock up Demko we will run with both and trade Silovs. There are still numerous questions surrounding Demko's ability to get through a whole season and or play in the playoffs. Lankinen is a better option to step in rather than Silovs. It will mean we are top heavy paying two goalies but that has more to do with worry about Demko.
It all sounds wonderful until Demko gets injured again.
dangler wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 3:07 pm
It all sounds wonderful until Demko gets injured again.
Except Lankinen is a stop gap goalie. Stop gap goalies are often available, and won't win championships absent an otherwise near flawless team.
Let's say Lankinen stays league average. Let's say Silovs has a 50% chance of being worse, 25% chance of being the same, 25% chance of being better (and thus better than league average). Who do you keep? Even with Demko's injury risk, the answer is Silovs. Which looks counterintuitive, until you unpack that Lankinen's likely hit his ceiling and that's not good enough for this group. If Demko and Silovs fail, the better approach is looking for the next Lankinen or better.
Its going to be my theme this season -- you have to get windfall value somewhere. Lankinen has limit approaching zero chance of doing that, Demko has a decent chance of doing that if healthy (he's done it before and the next contract should be injury-risk weighted), Silovs has some chance of doing that (few 6th round pick's have as good of a development story).
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 2:33 pm
I think when they gave him his new deal they still didn't know how Demko would bounce back with his mysterious injury so they may have had a little desperation to lock in Lankinen. Also, Silovs did not have a great showing at the startof the year. They also didn't/don't know if they can extend Demko. The move smacks as desperation and preparation to move on from Demko. Now Demko has apparently bounced back and is saying all the right things about wanting to stay. And Silovs was MVP in the Calder run.
So they panicked and moved before they had to. Look at it this way: they were in a similar position last offseason as they were February 20, 2025 (the day before they signed the Lankinen deal). Demko's not healthy enough to play; questions about Silovs. Last season, the patience paid off; they snagged a decent backup dirt cheap. This season's panic costs them $3.5 M on the cap (presuming Silovs signs for say, $1.25M), but buys them insurance that if Demko's injury returns or if Silovs isn't ready (worst case), they can pick between 10-18 next year instead of between 5-13. Doodles. And even that minimal benefit wouldn't necessarily need the signing, because another decent goalie might end up being available for near league minimum during this offseason or when pre-season waivers happen.
UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 3:33 pm
...because another decent goalie might end up being available for near league minimum during this offseason or when pre-season waivers happen.
And this is what it comes down to - a bit of a panic signing for sure, but the next Lankinen was going to be there around training camp time if we needed him.
Other than the NTC, it wasn't a horrible signing at the time, with the circumstances surrounding it. Besides, Sivlos still hasn't proven himself at the NHL level, either.
Kane: show discomfort at uncomfortable question (joke uncomfortably or attack question), get composed, answer like you went through press training. Not bad.
The focus on unspecific "past" in so many questions is classic media BS. "Some people think you're a cancer [for unstated reasons, based on the filter we've provided over the years doing our "journalism," and the people know you are bad because we clutched our pearls really visibly when the trade was announced], how is it to be a cancer coming into a room that's just battled cancer?" Do you really think you are getting an interesting answer here?
If you are going to ask a question about behavior, how about on the ice and temporally relevant, like getting the misconduct in game 6, or not coming out to shake hands. His poor judgment discerning when to risk being the only guy penalized in a non hockey play is a real hockey concern -- how about trying to get his take on what he sees as the cost benefit of this?
UW wasn't Lank signed during the period where Demko's hockey career was potentially in jeopardy due to the popleteus drama? It wasn't looking good and there were concerns over having Silovs as your #1 with KL expiring at seasons end.
It hasn't necessarily aged all that well given Thatcher's apparent recovery but then again that isn't a given either is it
I'll give them a pass on that one
Really my number one issue with this regime is fucking around with the Zadorov situation and losing that character from the mix. To a lesser extent losing Cole was another flub I'm not fond of but most of the other moves haven't been that bad in my eyes
The Lankinen deal in hindsight may prove to be a mistake for sure. Especially with that rancid OEL penalty (Thanks Elmo) around for years to come.
Silovs still can't seem to track long shots very well. He's very athletic in close though. I'm still not sold he's an NHL goalie, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Allvin isn't done yet. Not by a longshot. He won't wun out of time.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 4:40 pm
The Lankinen deal in hindsight may prove to be a mistake for sure. Especially with that rancid OEL penalty (Thanks Elmo) around for years to come.
Silovs still can't seem to track long shots very well. He's very athletic in close though. I'm still not sold he's an NHL goalie, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Allvin isn't done yet. Not by a longshot. He won't wun out of time.
Will they trade another 1st round pick? They’ve traded three already. I wouldn’t be surprised.
If Gnarls gets a $2 million raise what does that leave us in cap space? $5 million?
@ Pacific Blue ......They've had three drafts and made two first round picks. The way you carry on you make it sound like they puke all these picks away and constantly repeat this. You mention all the pocks they trade and douse the place in gas. Can you also provide a list of the picks they acquired or is that too much work for your childish narrative?
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
