Canucks News N Notes 25-26

[dangler]

Proper load management is the key. Lankinen was fine until he got overworked.
Once Demko's injury turned long-term and Silovs lost Tocchet's trust the writing was on the wall.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Proper load management is the key.

Agreed. Whatever else he gets right or wrong, much of Foote's season will hang on how healthy he can keep his goaltending duo, especially going into any playoff games.

Probably true of Pettersson's and Hughes' minutes, too, now that I think about it.

[Meds]

Lankinen is overpaid by about a million. They just jumped the gun a bit when they re-upped him imho.,

The best part is that we have the next 5 years to debate this.

Honestly, the worst part of this is the trade protection. 2 years full NMC followed by 3 years of M-NTC (he can submit a 15 team no-go list).

That pretty much means 5 years with Lankinen. Nobody is taking on that contract without considerable sweetening of the pot unless they are desperate for a goaltender because of injury.....and that assumes that Lankinen continues to be a bottom-10 starter with flashes of over-achieving.

[Hockey Widow]

When the Memorandum of Understanding between the NHL and NHLPA was officially released it stated that changes agreed to in the document will take effect on September 16, 2026. Why is this important to the Canucks? Because that means between July 1, 2026 and Sept 16, 2026, they can still offer Hughes an 8 year deal. More incentive for him to sign with Vancouver if he wants an 8 year deal. The only way he can get that is by signing before Sept 16, 2026.

This could bode well for Vancouver.

[rikster]

When the Memorandum of Understanding between the NHL and NHLPA was officially released it stated that changes agreed to in the document will take effect on September 16, 2026. Why is this important to the Canucks? Because that means between July 1, 2026 and Sept 16, 2026, they can still offer Hughes an 8 year deal. More incentive for him to sign with Vancouver if he wants an 8 year deal. The only way he can get that is by signing before Sept 16, 2026.

This could bode well for Vancouver.

Except that the cap is on an upward trajectory with a bullet which may discourage committing long term at his age and skill level....

The upward trajectory with a bullet salary cap also makes this discussion of Lankanen and his 5 year contract being somehow an overpayment or making him untradable a bit of a head scratcher for me...

Take care...

[UWSaint]

When the Memorandum of Understanding between the NHL and NHLPA was officially released it stated that changes agreed to in the document will take effect on September 16, 2026. Why is this important to the Canucks? Because that means between July 1, 2026 and Sept 16, 2026, they can still offer Hughes an 8 year deal. More incentive for him to sign with Vancouver if he wants an 8 year deal. The only way he can get that is by signing before Sept 16, 2026.

This could bode well for Vancouver.

Except that the cap is on an upward trajectory with a bullet which may discourage committing long term at his age and skill level....

The upward trajectory with a bullet salary cap also makes this discussion of Lankanen and his 5 year contract being somehow an overpayment or making him untradable a bit of a head scratcher for me...

Take care...

(1) Sure, any particular player may choose a shorter term to bet on themselves, absorb the risk of injury or diminished performance, and bet the cap's increase will skyrocket (as if anyone knows the economy in 5 years). Others, though, would rather the team take the risk. For those players, 8 is better than 7, and Wids makes a good point that if QH is in that category, there is some pressure for him to make a signing decision before the 2026-27 camp begins. 8 years means the Canucks can offer QH a 9 figure contract without overpaying.... (12.5AAV/8 years -- Edit: I'm not saying anything more is an overpay -- haven't given a ton of thought to the market, just pointing out this would NOT be an overpay and is $100M).

(2) (a) The moving Lankinen problem isn't just money, its a full no move clause for three years. (b) The money can be used now -- was safer Demko-injury/load management and the marginal expected benefit over Silovs worth $3.75M for this season? Do the Canucks not have greater needs? (c) even with a projected cap of $113.5 3 years from now, it will be nearly a 4% cap hit for a guy who is playing 30 games a year and not in the playoffs (unless Demko is unhealthy or falls apart). Do you know how many teams have a second goalie at 4% of cap today? One. Seattle. Because they signed Graubauer to a starter's deal, he wasn't good, but D'accord sort of was (so they signed him to $5M). And I also considered cap hits of current goalies when signed. Still that's the only one.

Toronto's Woll comes in just under 4% (basically is today the cap hit of Lankinen's against a projected 2027-28 cap), but that was signed with the idea he and Stolarz (paid less) would be a tandem and that when Stolarz's contract is done, Wolll would be the #1 (or at least #1A).

Outside the Canucks, there is NO demonstrated market for a backup at 4% cap hit. Failed starters playing games is it -- no one (else) chooses that distribution. There could be a tandem market developing more broadly in this league that would look favorably on 4% going to a tandem starter, but note that the best backup-turned-tandem guy on the market last season--Stolarz--signed for just under 3% of last year's cap hit (with knowledge the cap was going to increased this upcoming season. Stolarz signed his contract to enter his Age 30 season, same age as Lankinen. Stolarz was coming off a better season, though I'll give Lankinen the benefit of the doubt and say they had fairly equivalent histories. Unless the trend in the NHL looks to pay backups more as a % of cap (and I don't see that happening because there is never been a shortage of "fringe" starter or below goalies), the only realistic potential trade for Lankinen is in a situation where there's a similar tandem opportunity (let the prospect we believe in ease his way in) or (worse) we can't find a top tier goalie so two mediocre ones will do (I call this the Ceci and Dumolin solution to losing Gavrikov....) Possibly a trade deadline deal with a team who's starter in known to be out for the playoffs....

I'm not ragging on Lankinen. I think he's fine as a player, not a bad backup at all. An "elite" third liner perhaps... But you know what he does better than goaltending? Hire agents who could sell this team on that contract.....

[Meds]

(2) (a) The moving Lankinen problem isn't just money, its a full no move clause for three years. (b) The money can be used now -- was safer Demko-injury/load management and the marginal expected benefit over Silovs worth $3.75M for this season? Do the Canucks not have greater needs? (c) even with a projected cap of $113.5 3 years from now, it will be nearly a 4% cap hit for a guy who is playing 30 games a year and not in the playoffs (unless Demko is unhealthy or falls apart). Do you know how many teams have a second goalie at 4% of cap today? One. Seattle. Because they signed Graubauer to a starter's deal, he wasn't good, but D'accord sort of was (so they signed him to $5M). And I also considered cap hits of current goalies when signed. Still that's the only one.

Toronto's Woll comes in just under 4% (basically is today the cap hit of Lankinen's against a projected 2027-28 cap), but that was signed with the idea he and Stolarz (paid less) would be a tandem and that when Stolarz's contract is done, Wolll would be the #1 (or at least #1A).

Outside the Canucks, there is NO demonstrated market for a backup at 4% cap hit. Failed starters playing games is it -- no one (else) chooses that distribution. There could be a tandem market developing more broadly in this league that would look favorably on 4% going to a tandem starter, but note that the best backup-turned-tandem guy on the market last season--Stolarz--signed for just under 3% of last year's cap hit (with knowledge the cap was going to increased this upcoming season. Stolarz signed his contract to enter his Age 30 season, same age as Lankinen. Stolarz was coming off a better season, though I'll give Lankinen the benefit of the doubt and say they had fairly equivalent histories. Unless the trend in the NHL looks to pay backups more as a % of cap (and I don't see that happening because there is never been a shortage of "fringe" starter or below goalies), the only realistic potential trade for Lankinen is in a situation where there's a similar tandem opportunity (let the prospect we believe in ease his way in) or (worse) we can't find a top tier goalie so two mediocre ones will do (I call this the Ceci and Dumolin solution to losing Gavrikov....) Possibly a trade deadline deal with a team who's starter in known to be out for the playoffs....

I'm not ragging on Lankinen. I think he's fine as a player, not a bad backup at all. An "elite" third liner perhaps... But you know what he does better than goaltending? Hire agents who could sell this team on that contract.....

Well articulated, as always, UW.

"Hire agents who could sell the contract".....great line.

I think what made it as LOL-worthy was the truth of it. I doubt any team was going to pay Lankinen that kind of money in free agency. Last season JR/PA did very well to take advantage of the fact that a fringe starter was available in a market with very little openings for a player of his age/calibre.....and Lankinen definitely rose to the occasion. That being said, when I look at the goaltender signings in free agency, and the extensions that were signed to avoid it, the two guys that are the closest comparables to Lankinen are, imheo, Anton Forsberg and Jake Allen. While Lankinen did play 20 more games than them, their stat lines aren't far off, and they are both in roles where they are backing up a legit starter. Forsberg got $2.25M x 2 and Allen got $1.8M x 5. Both of those contracts tell me that had the Canucks allowed Lankinen to walk to free agency the teams interested in his services would have been unwilling to pay $4.5M x 5, and had they elected to do so, then the Canucks could have taken a run at the goaltenders that those teams did not sign instead. I think the most likely though, in this scenario, would be that the Canucks circle back to Lankinen and are able to offer him a contract closer to $3.25M AAV. That salary would still be 3.4% of the overall cap, which, if I'm not mistaken, is still a bit higher than most teams are committing to for a back-up position.

I'd also like to point out that not very many playoff teams run with a true tandem. Boston was the most recent example a couple of years ago, but they were bounced in the 2nd round and both of those goalies were on very affordable contracts.

[Hockey Widow]

You have to think that at the time they signed Lankinen they thought Demko was done or was going to be traded. They may have been a bit triggered by DeSmith snubbing them for a new deal the year before and he walked. They may also have been stung by how bad Silovs was to start the season. So maybe they signed Lankinen to be their new starter and panicked a bit. Fast forward, Demko seems to have fully recovered and entered the off season fully healthy. A new place for him to be. Silovs shinned in the AHL playoffs and was the Calder Cup MVP. Suddenly our goaltending looks real good again and the Lankinen deal is sitting there like an albatross.

Maybe they tried to move him before July 1st and had no takers or it was going to cost them too much to move him. But whatever the case, he is a good goaltender. Yes we will be paying a boatload for two goalies after next season and we had to trade away a potential. But we seem to have a good tandem and that should win us more games then it costs us. One can hope.

[Cousin Strawberry]

You have to think that at the time they signed Lankinen they thought Demko was done or was going to be traded. They may have been a bit triggered by DeSmith snubbing them for a new deal the year before and he walked. They may also have been stung by how bad Silovs was to start the season. So maybe they signed Lankinen to be their new starter and panicked a bit. Fast forward, Demko seems to have fully recovered and entered the off season fully healthy. A new place for him to be. Silovs shinned in the AHL playoffs and was the Calder Cup MVP. Suddenly our goaltending looks real good again and the Lankinen deal is sitting there like an albatross.

Maybe they tried to move him before July 1st and had no takers or it was going to cost them too much to move him. But whatever the case, he is a good goaltender. Yes we will be paying a boatload for two goalies after next season and we had to trade away a potential. But we seem to have a good tandem and that should win us more games then it costs us. One can hope.

Lots of long eastern road trips to start the season. Having a pair of capable goalies is absolutely essential especially considering Demko and his popliteus

[Cornuck]

The Vancouver Canucks are trading Dakota Joshua to the Toronto Maple leaves in exchange for a 4th round pick, per Thomas Drance of The Athletic

The Maple leaves have acquired forward Dakota Joshua from the Canucks in exchange for their 2028 fourth-round pick, according to a team announcement.

Clears up 2.5 in cap

[Lancer]

I get the desire to free up cap space, but this is a mistake. Joshua will never stick in the top 6, but he’s a valuable piece on the 3rd line. Besides, why throw the Leaves a bone in giving them muscle??

The return is irrelevant, really, as what management wanted was cap space; the pick is a fig leaf.

Let’s hope they use it wisely, but it’s equally possible that management will contentedly see that cap space do fuck all on the ice because, well, it’s cap space flexibility… for… you know… cap space… like… you never know when you’ll need it.

[Cornuck]

If it's a cap dump, why now? Is there a UFA they want to sign right away? Even so, they can be over the cap, right? Not getting this deal at all.

[JelloPuddingPop]

Clears up 2.5 in cap

Did Van eat some of that contract?! If so, dumb move.

[UWSaint]

I get the desire to free up cap space, but this is a mistake. Joshua will never stick in the top 6, but he’s a valuable piece on the 3rd line. Besides, why throw the Leaves a bone in giving them muscle??

The return is irrelevant, really, as what management wanted was cap space; the pick is a fig leaf.

Let’s hope they use it wisely, but it’s equally possible that management will contentedly see that cap space do fuck all on the ice because, well, it’s cap space flexibility… for… you know… cap space… like… you never know when you’ll need it.

For exactly one season in his career Dakota Joshua played better than the guy you can pick up on waivers or every summer as the "remainder" in a free agency class (edit: how the Canucks got him to begin with).

That season got him a $13M contract. Well played, Dakota. Godspeed to you.

The Canucks were wrong to resign him -- its not that they overpaid (he would have gotten that deal more or less if he had become a UFA -- and the fact there was some return (even if minimal) shows this), its that they could have found another Joshua (and they did -- Sherwood), and that $3.25M/AAV might have been better spent making different moves with the D and the roster spot better used for keeping Podkolzin around.

And I've commented here before -- while the Joshua, Hoglander, and O'Connor contracts are not bad in isolation -- the marginal benefit you are getting from their play vs. replacements in those roster spots is relatively small, so when you stack those contracts (esp. with dead cap), you eliminate a chance to find a more significant marginal improvement. Joshua made the most sense to move, IMO, given (1) he made the most, (2) some of what he brought will be matched by Kane (toughness, thoughtless stupid penalties), (3) the rest of what he brought was "pre-replaced" by O'Connor, and (4) while Hoglander will probably not become much more, he's more likely than the others to improve trade value or outperform contract as time moves on.

I admire that Joshua improved his defensive play in Vancouver and become reliable in PK and end of game situations. I will not miss him missing plays because of his shit edgework.

I don't know that the moves are done, but before this move, the Canucks 23rd man decision would have been made based on salary. That salary flexibility, if not used with an acquisition now, will be used at the deadline if the Canucks are a playoff team. And its another salary taken off the Hughes resigns year 1. Whether it is banked for that, other big things, or a Sherwood extension remains to be seen.

Last, Linus Karlsson is probably the biggest beneficiary of this move. Winger, big body, option for occasional play up the lineup. He doesn't seem to have the defensive game Joshua had (though hopefully it develops), but I see a bit of truculence in his game and he can also pick up a little of what the Canucks are losing here.

[UWSaint]

Clears up 2.5 in cap

Did Van eat some of that contract?! If so, dumb move.

Not according to Puckpedia. Joshua's salary was $3.25 AAV. But his roster spot will be used. League minimum is now $775K, so that's $2.475M (or less depending on the replacement) saved.