The Canucks Need Kevin Lankinen to Answer a Bigger Question

There is a funny thing about goaltending in the NHL. One year, you're the guy who looks like he might have solved a problem. The next year, you're wondering whether the problem was ever really solved in the first place. That is pretty much where the Vancouver Canucks find themselves with Kevin Lankinen.

Lankinen had a really solid 2024-25 season for the Canucks.

Lankinen's first season in Vancouver created some goodwill. He looked like a goalie who could give the Canucks solid goaltending without costing them a fortune. Then came 2025-26, and pretty much everything went sideways. He finished with a 3.70 goals-against average and an .876 save percentage, numbers that leave little room for interpretation. He wasn't good enough.

But here's the part I find interesting. I'm not sure the Canucks should be asking whether Lankinen is their long-term answer. They should be asking a different question: What can they learn about him next season? Because a bounce-back season could tell Vancouver two very different things.

If Lankinen returns to something resembling the goalie he was in his first season with the Canucks, suddenly the organization has another useful player. Maybe he's capable of being a reliable starter on a better team. Maybe he's a solid 1B. Maybe he's the kind of goalie you keep around while the younger goaltenders develop.

What if Lankinen struggles again?

Well, that's useful information too. The Canucks are rebuilding. They don't need to force every player into a five-year plan. Sometimes a season is about figuring out who belongs in the next version of the team and who doesn't.

Lankinen is actually a pretty good example of that. The defensive environment around him last season was weak, and that matters. Goaltenders don't play in a vacuum. If the team in front of you is giving up dangerous chances all night, your statistics are going to suffer. But there were also too many nights when Lankinen needed to make a save and didn't.

That's where next season becomes important. If the Canucks improve defensively and Lankinen's numbers improve with them, maybe there is something worth keeping. If the team gets better and Lankinen's performance doesn't, then Vancouver has a pretty clear answer.

Regardless of Lankinen’s season, there could even be some trade value in moving him.

Goalies are funny commodities. A team can look perfectly comfortable in net in September and be desperately searching for a starter by November. One injury can change everything. One contender can suddenly need someone who can handle 30 or 40 games.

If Lankinen puts together a strong season, the Canucks wouldn't necessarily have to keep him. They could trade him. That's why I wouldn't look at next season as simply Lankinen's chance to save his job. It could be Vancouver's chance to increase its options.

My view is that rebuilding teams shouldn't make decisions too early. Give players a chance to show you what they are. Then use the information.

Lankinen has already shown Vancouver that he can have a good season.

Now they need to find out whether that was the beginning of something—or simply a very nice exception. For the Canucks, that answer could be almost as valuable as the saves.