Kevin Lankinen's struggles have some wondering if the Canucks should put him on waivers, but his reported no-movement clause takes that option off the table.
PuckEmpire asked what plenty of Vancouver fans are thinking: "Who decided it was a good idea to give a backup goalie a full no-movement clause?"
The numbers explain the frustration. Lankinen sits at a .779 save percentage, with one overtime win and five losses on his record.
Saturday in New Jersey summed it up. He lasted just over five minutes, allowing one goal on three shots before Leevi Merilainen came in and stopped 31 of 34.
Merilainen has been the better goalie all season, with a .929 save percentage.
The Canucks are 2-5-0 after a 6-2 loss to the Rangers on Sunday, their fourth straight defeat.
Manny Malhotra has a goalie problem he can't waive away
Without waivers as an option, Vancouver's choices shrink. A trade would need Lankinen's sign-off, and a buyout comes with its own cap costs.
He's 31 and carries a $4,500,000 cap hit. That's expensive for a goalie who has lost his grip on the net.
-
Giving a backup a full no-movement clause was a mistake. Teams reserve that kind of protection for core players, and the Canucks are now paying for treating a backup like one.
It's like signing a lease you can't break on an apartment you've already outgrown.
The fix in the meantime is simple. Merilainen should start, and Manny Malhotra should give him the net for the rest of this road trip.
Vancouver visits the Islanders on Tuesday, still searching for answers on its six-game road swing.
The no-movement clause protects Lankinen. It doesn't protect the Canucks from the results.
Should the Canucks name Leevi Merilainen their starting goalie?
Also read on Markerzone.com:
Connor Hellebuyck trade pitch collapses as another destination gains attention
