CanucksCorner.com Forums

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 12:16 pm Can we add Bains to this list somehow?

He should never be in the NHL ever again.

I agree he should never get another nhl game. He’s no longer a prospect.

But in his defense, he can serve as a top 6 player in abbotsford to give that team a playmaker who will complement prospect development. We’ve talked about how that’s important at the nhl level and the same is true in Abby. Of course those spots can be filled in free agency (either on Canuck contracts or AHL contracts) until the prospect pool thickens, but as it stands, Baines is an established AHL top 6 player, so why not?

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 12:22 pm

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 12:16 pm Can we add Bains to this list somehow?

He should never be in the NHL ever again.

I agree he should never get another nhl game. He’s no longer a prospect.

But in his defense, he can serve as a top 6 player in abbotsford to give that team a playmaker who will complement prospect development. We’ve talked about how that’s important at the nhl level and the same is true in Abby. Of course those spots can be filled in free agency (either on Canuck contracts or AHL contracts) until the prospect pool thickens, but as it stands, Baines is an established AHL top 6 player, so why not?

For sure. I would sign him to a 2 way contract. 300k at AHL level (or whatever - pay him enough so he wants to stay) and 1.8-2m at the NHL level. If someone wants him off waivers, we set him up and fuck whomever takes him. (is this even a legal contract??) Otherwise, he just here do veteran stuff.....

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:44 pm For sure. I would sign him to a 2-way contract. 300k at AHL level (or whatever - pay him enough so he wants to stay) and 1.8-2m at the NHL level. If someone wants him off waivers, we set him up and fuck whoever takes him. (is this even a legal contract??) Otherwise, he's just here to do veteran stuff.....

Legal - and would only bite us in the ass if we have to call him up ourselves.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 4:09 pm

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 3:44 pm For sure. I would sign him to a 2-way contract. 300k at AHL level (or whatever - pay him enough so he wants to stay) and 1.8-2m at the NHL level. If someone wants him off waivers, we set him up and fuck whoever takes him. (is this even a legal contract??) Otherwise, he's just here to do veteran stuff.....

Legal - and would only bite us in the ass if we have to call him up ourselves.

which we will NEVER do. WAYYY better options that need seasoning. Bains seems to be some kind of local hero or some shit - and has had PLENTY of chances, so I am suggesting a structure to keep him so people are happy. We want a solid core of AHL winners that can build a winning culture in Abby as well. If he doesnt add to the culture down there, skid his fucking ass.

Dubas getting some business done.

Another show me contract. Meh regular season, great playoff numbers.

What Lankinen should be making max.

donlever wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 9:46 pm What Lankinen should be making max.

Yup.

Good enough to be either a backup on a good team, but a starter on a bad team. His salary suggested a starter on a bad team.

One of Allvin's uglier moves. It is to wonder what Ian Clark thought of it all, as Silovs was one of his picks. I wager he had input on Lankinen but Silovs was one of his projects.

Lancer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 7:42 am

donlever wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2026 9:46 pm What Lankinen should be making max.

Yup.

Good enough to be either a backup on a good team, but a starter on a bad team. His salary suggested a starter on a bad team.

One of Allvin's uglier moves. It is to wonder what Ian Clark thought of it all, as Silovs was one of his picks. I wager he had input on Lankinen but Silovs was one of his projects.

Signing Lankinen when they did for what they did with the protection they gave him was about as bad of a GM decision as I've seen. I've written about the whys at great length, and I won't repeat it. I have to say that the *only* way this could possibly be explained is if anyone touching goalies in the organization was saying Silovs will never have what it takes to be an NHL goalie. (Which I think was the message around Mike DiPietro, who has been rock solid for Providence the past three seasons and at 27 looks like he's going to start next season as Boston's #2).

Silovs didn't really level up last year, he sort of continued his slow development progression and mirrored his now well established penchant for stepping up the higher the stakes. That level of goaltending wasn't going to save the Canucks season by any stretch, but surely it would be better to have a likable guy with *some* chance of riding out the rebuild.

So you're saying Silovs....a swing and a miss in Canuckland.

Ditto DiPietro.

Which poses the query.

What the actual fuck Ian Clark?

donlever wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:27 am What the actual fuck Ian Clark?

It's hard to tell this early on, but it's unlikely that Clark had as much say with the old regime as the Sedins and Johnson did. We'll never know if it was Clark who endorsed that ridiculous Lankinen contract, but I'll bet that it wasn't.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:33 am

donlever wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:27 am What the actual fuck Ian Clark?

It's hard to tell this early on, but it's unlikely that Clark had as much say with the old regime as the Sedins and Johnson did. We'll never know if it was Clark who endorsed that ridiculous Lankinen contract, but I'll bet that it wasn't.

If Clarke sticks around with the new regime, you might have your answer.

donlever wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:27 am So you're saying Silovs....a swing and a miss in Canuckland.

Ditto DiPietro.

Which poses the query.

What the actual fuck Ian Clark?

They turned DiPietro and a throw in into Studnicka, so.....

If it weren't unanimity in the organization that Silovs was going nowhere, the only other explanation that makes "sense" of signing Lankinen when they did for what they did with the protections they gave him was an oral understanding that if Lankinen signed the cap friendly one year deal that first season and did what he ended up doing, there'd be a long term deal in it for him and Allvin was going to keep his word. By signing the deal early while Silovs wasn't yet blowing things out of the water, Allvin and JR were able to accomplish another thing they were competent at: create the conditions where tough choices become easy choices because you preconditioned the landscape to have only one option.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:33 am

donlever wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 10:27 am What the actual fuck Ian Clark?

It's hard to tell this early on, but it's unlikely that Clark had as much say with the old regime as the Sedins and Johnson did. We'll never know if it was Clark who endorsed that ridiculous Lankinen contract, but I'll bet that it wasn't.

Clark's title since 2024 is goaltending scout and development.

Surely he had a say in Silovs and DiPietros "development" or perceived lack thereof.