Nothing confirmed, but there are rumblings that it's a body injury.
you want him to reach the 40 game mark?Jake Allen maybe?
Anyone else wonder if the "new school" goalie style is so demanding physically that goalies are getting hurt more often and more seriously?
You don’t understand LTIR do you? Or what the + could be? Or even who the targeted goalie could be, hint, I never suggested anyone decent.Gee. That's so appealing. What team could resist?
Not a goalie expert - but if the "reverse VH" is so demanding physically that world class atheletes break down playing it, it might not be worth it. (Or you have more teams running 3 legits goalies and split the time to enable guys to not break down trying to play 60 games in a year).There is no question about it imo
When free agent market opened, I thought that Canucks is the team that signs Lankinen. So why not.Lankinen
The entire contract is 3 million not each yearMoney
He got a 3x3M deal with Dallas. We simply couldn't afford that for our backup goalie
Money
He got a 3x3M deal with Dallas. We simply couldn't afford that for our backup goalie
Lankinen
I remember when Vanek once sat out a game from "general soreness".My favorite injury, and I forget the player that had it but when the team was asked about his injury they said he had a physical injury.
Oh I understand ltir just fine and I realize that it's not actually an asset 95% of the time. Do you?You don’t understand LTIR do you? Or what the + could be? Or even who the targeted goalie could be, hint, I never suggested anyone decent.
Vancouver literally made a similar trade with your team last year sending capdump Tanner Pearson and a 3rd for Casey DeSmith.
Next time, save the effort, and don’t even bother attempting to make a “funny” response.
Yes and I never suggested he was an asset. The Canucks if they’re going to make a move for a goalie that makes over $1M would need to find a way to include Poolman in the deal, just like Vancouver did last year with the Pearson/DeSmith trade. So my suggestion of Poolman+ could be any number of options. Only you thought I was suggesting Poolman was an asset lol.Oh I understand ltir just fine and I realize that it's not actually an asset 95% of the time. Do you?
When the only thing you suggest in your suggestion is a negative value asset and some undetermined + it's reasonable to assume you think Poolman is actually worth somethingYes and I never suggested he was an asset. The Canucks if they’re going to make a move for a goalie that makes over $1M would need to find a way to include Poolman in the deal, just like Vancouver did last year with the Pearson/DeSmith trade. So my suggestion of Poolman+ could be any number of options. Only you thought I was suggesting Poolman was an asset lol.