Confirmed with Link: Canucks Re-Sign G Kevin Lankinen 5y/4.5AAV

[StreetHawk]

5 year term? wtf, oh man Demko is definitely not part of the long term plans anymore.

Even if Demko were to take a similar term of 4-5 years, the cap hit for the goalies would be into the teens. Unlikely that happens.

 

[Pacific Canuck]

Now they can let demmer get healthy and hopefully find his game for the playoffs. Really need two good goalies if you want to go on any sort of run.

 

[StickShift]

Vancouver locking in Lankinen as part of a 1A/1B tandem.

I have serious doubts that they see Demko as the other part of such a duo. It's been three seasons in a row that they have not been able to count on him to be healthy during the most important games of the season.

I would not be shocked if the Canucks let him run out his contract to UFA next season, or they trade him for whatever they can get between now and the off-season to whoever wants to take a flyer on him.

 

[bh53]

Looking at the upcoming UFAs this deal also starts to make more sense. It's not a very appealing group, either too many injury concerns (Andersen) or just not good (Petersen, Husso) like there's only a few decent options that could maybe play starting minutes: Hill, Vejmelka, Lyon

 

[TruGr1t]

Even if Demko were to take a similar term of 4-5 years, the cap hit for the goalies would be into the teens. Unlikely that happens.

Interested to see if Lankinen's deal has any type of movement protection. If Demko bounces back to something resembling full value that isn't a bad thing ... maybe you can trade Lankinen ... if Demko continues to be unable to string games together without injury his value will be in the tank anyways.

 

[Vector]

It’s a little longer than I’m comfortable with and a higher AAV than I’d like but I’m fine with the contract overall. Goalie market and goalies are volatile. It won’t hamstring the team moving forward.

Most interesting aspect is how this affects Demko & Silovs next season. It's not a guarantee they trade Demko either but this certainly increases the chances.

 

[Vector]

 

[TruGr1t]

Ew the movement clauses kinda suck, that doesn't bode well for Demko.

I will say, I don't think the Canucks had much choice here.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

It’s a little longer than I’m comfortable with and a higher AAV than I’d like but I’m fine with the contract overall. Goalie market and goalies are volatile. It won’t hamstring the team moving forward.

Most interesting aspect is how this affects Demko & Silovs next season. It's not a guarantee they trade Demko either but this certainly increases the chances.

I see it much the same way. Dont love the contract...but, it's an investment and Lankinen has shown he can work well in Tocchet's system and with the Canucks players.

 

[Red]

Good for him for getting paid, but that is quite steep and with term.

It really does solidify the fact that Demko will no longer be reliable #1 starter.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Not a huge fan of the term, but team wasn’t in a great position here with Demko’s injury history.

 

[cc]

I have some reservations about signing a goalie long term who isn't really proven as a starter but I guess there weren't too many options for the Canucks. There have been a number of goalies that looked pretty good in their first season with the Canucks but fell off a cliff after that.

 

[bossram]

Eh, I think this is excessive. I kinda leaned toward re-signing Lankinen of late, but goaltending is voodoo. Giving term to anyone is a risk. There will undoubtedly be like 1 or 2 (or 3) years where he just severely underperforms his AAV, because that's how goaltending is. It's volatile. He's had a half season as a starter.

I get the price. The market is thin. But it will hard for him to be worth it.

I'd rather just move on from Demko at this point for assets, if they're rolling with Lankinen.

 

[Rotang]

Team was clearly over a barrel with Demko’s injuries and Silovs’ regression. But that’s a lot of term and AAV for a goalie who has never been a full time starter and is about to turn 30. Everyone gets trade protection now it seems.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Eh, I think this is excessive. I kinda leaned toward re-signing Lankinen of late, but goaltending is voodoo. Giving term to anyone is a risk. There will undoubtedly be like 1 or 2 (or 3) years where he just severely underperforms his AAV, because that's how goaltending is. It's volatile. He's had a half season as a starter.

I get the price. The market is thin. But it will hard for him to be worth it.

I'd rather just move on from Demko at this point for assets, if they're rolling with Lankinen.

This sums up my thoughts, too. It's hard to be enthused about this deal.

Demko I don't think will be worth much but even getting the cap space back will be worth it.

 

[iceburg]

Term and cap hit are a little out of range for me but I'm ok with this signing given the state of the team's goaltending. If Demko wasn't injury prone the offer would have been a lot less and Lankinen would likely have signed somewhere else.

This could go one of two ways:
1. long term back-up for an injury prone tier 1 goalie. They need a goalie that can play 30-50 games per year with Demko on the roster.
2. Solid 1B goalie while trading Demko and trying to find another 1B goalie and ride the tandem until they develop "the goaltender of the future" whoever that is. IMO it's not Silovs.

 

[bossram]

Even if Demko were to take a similar term of 4-5 years, the cap hit for the goalies would be into the teens. Unlikely that happens.

You really can't bring back Demko at this point. He just leaves the roster with too much uncertainty, considering you never know if he'll actually be available. He'll be disappearing for multiple stretches during a season (injury).

Rather use whatever cap space would be invested in Demko toward a roster piece you're more confident will be available nightly.

 

[Vector]

 

[credulous]

it's risky but i don't think they had many options here. demko isn't reliable, silovs isn't good and free agency doesn't offer anything better

 

[bossram]

This sums up my thoughts, too. It's hard to be enthused about this deal.

Demko I don't think will be worth much but even getting the cap space back will be worth it.

Yeah. It's not a "good" deal. But I guess they had to do something to retain or acquire a credible goalie because Demko is just not going to be available for them.

Re-allocate Demko's AAV toward a roster piece that can help on a nightly basis.

I have some reservations about signing a goalie long term who isn't really proven as a starter but I guess there weren't too many options for the Canucks. There have been a number of goalies that looked pretty good in their first season with the Canucks but fell off a cliff after that.

There will undoubtedly be multiple seasons in that contract where Lankinen severely underperforms his status. That's just goaltending. It's volatile.

That's why I agree, would be preferable to avoid term with goalies unless they are in the true elite tier.

 

[wonton15]

Also have to consider the cap is forecasted to go up significantly over the next 3 years which is 100% considered by both sides. There’s some sticker shock and risk but it’s a calculated move that was necessary. He works in Tocchet’s system and I’m feeling ok about it now.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Looks like it was a shit or get off the pot situation..and a decision was made.

At least we’ll have two great goalkeepers this season

Some things in life are almost certain..Death,taxes..and Demko getting injured.

 

[Diablo2020]

When we dump Demko and bring in a half retained Tristan Jarry to be our 1B, our goaltending will be a tidy 7,187,500 total between the two.

Very manageable. Fans will say Lankinen is unproven and Jarry ie cooked but both are healthy and capable of 40 games while Demmer is not.

 

[TruGr1t]

Move Demko, and pending physical, look at John Gibson to platoon with Lankinen?

 

[dbaz]

i thought he would get 25-30mil as a ufa and said the canucks would have to go longer on term to make the cap hit better. looks like they did, but demko is going to be a casualty of this