uselessstats

Not sure I agree. Very little is expected defensively out of Hodgson in Buffalo and he still can't produce even marginal offence. How is he going to produce in a restrictive system where coaches expect excellent attention to defense on every shift? IMO Hodgson should be thriving in Buffalo where they really don't have a lot of better options than him yet there he sits largely due to his poor skating and lazy defensive play. Jake on the other hand *should* translate his game better as his skating, shot, and strength should allow him to play the same style that he plays in junior. Sure he isn't likely to pop 45 in the NHL like in the WHL, but I think his offense will carry over better than someone like Hodgson (and others).

Haha, ya its a shame that it needs to be said but we go through it with every draft pick it seems. And we all "ooohed" and "aaaahed" over Hodgson's huge numbers in his post-draft year yet barely 5 years later he is one of the least effective 25 year olds in the league. Why? Because his numbers were driven by a made-for-junior skillset, huge minutes, and a potent powerplay to rack up points. But those opportunities simply aren't present at the NHL level where your coach expects you to battle and not float, play defense and not blow the zone early, and play 16-18 minutes rather than 25-28. Jake, for all the disappointment over his production, has produced at a good rate relative to his minutes played. His defensive game is reasonably good, and his combo of size, skating, and aggressiveness will help him adapt to the defensive duties that will be expected of him without completely abandoning his offensive game. As I said, there is nothing wrong with critiquing Jake when he has an actual bad game - they happen to everyone - but people can't extrapolate his entire NHL career in this. He's got things to work on for sure but fortunately he will be given plenty of time and opportunity to do so in the next couple of seasons. Don't assume what he is today is what he'll be in 2-3 years.

Ya then I'd tend to agree. Nothing wrong with saying a player has had a bad game or needs to improve in certain areas but FFS having a bad game or two doesn't mean a player was a bad pick or is a bust at 18.5 years of age. People seem to have a really weak understanding of what the word "development" actually means and it isn't always just piling up a ton of points by playing 25+ minutes a game or feasting on junior powerplays.

Hope that's not aimed at me, as I never called Jake a bust (I'm one of his strongest advocates on other boards) but the reality is he played a poor game 1. A single game or even a dozen games never makes a player a "bust" but for the sake of his team and potentially a long playoff run, Jake needed to get re-engaged. Which he has done the last couple, and not surprisingly his offence has picked up too.

Ya definitely not a coincidence. Jake seemed like a passenger in game 1 and wasn't fully engaged all night. No surprise that as his physical game improved so did his involvement in the offense.

Depends on what the OP meant by "Canuck property", as I read it to mean Canuck-owned prospect but not a player on the NHL club (otherwise I assume he would have simply said Canuck). Obviously Naslund, Mogilny, Bertuzzi were incredible Canucks and that makes it silly to compare to a 19 kid in junior. But if you narrow the goal post to just Canuck prospects since Bure (Linden was drafted pre-Bure) then the Sedins are the only ones that you could easily say had more natural talent than Jake, though I might suggest that Grabner wasn't too far off. Certainly had the same explosive wheels and bullet shot but not the same physical game (not sure if that would be included under "talent"). Kesler was talented too but he worked hard for it post-draft. He wasn't as naturally gifted as Jake.

That's not really how trades work in real life.

You know there's a difference between how Jake played last night and how he's played all year, right? He played poorly last night, most people have said that. At the same time, people look at his PPG and assume he has played "poorly" all season when that isn't the case. Jake *has* been underutilizes by his coach for most of the year, despite a strong per 60 scoring rate and effective physical and defensive play. Those "excuses" are attempts to give context to posters who come into this thread and lose their **** when they see his simple PPG. They are two separate issues.

Sure, cause a) Schroeder dreams of having Baertschi's AHL and NHL numbers, and b ) Schroeder is 2 years older than Baertschi, so that would be like comparing last year's Schroeder (2013-14) to next year's Baertschi (2015-16). At the same point in time, Baertschi and Schroeder arent close to comparable.

I get that and have high hopes for Virtanen myself, hence my interest in understanding his role in Calgary and how it may be impacting his underlying numbers. Here's a post from another site shared by a Hitmen fan (Denominator) who drops by from time to time. Gives really great insight into Jake's strengths and weaknesses and how that plays into how he is used by the coach.

Totally agree and I tend to think having Green in Utica was a key reason why Benning was willing to pay "much more" for Baertschi than other GMs. I think it made Benning more confident that they could "fix" whatever was impeding Sven's growth in the Calgary system. Green was his secret weapon in this gamble.

Fair nuff, I only suggest people who have only checked out his PPG keep an open mind about his game and not assume it predicts Jake as a low skill 3rd line grinder. He may take some time and his transition may not be as easy as Horvat's but I believe he'll develop into a very valuable 25-30 goal scoring pain-in-the-ass winger in a few years. His skill set is that good but his role in Calgary has been limited by a coach intent on playing overagers over Jake. He'll open some eyes next year (IMO).

Nope, don't catch the games but I follow Jake as closely as I can through Hitmen fans and Canuck fans who do. I've seen all of his full-shift highlights that a poster here and HF have posted, as well as his entire WJCs. Enough to get a good feel for how he plays and what I think will work at the next level. How bout you? Catch a lot of Hitmen games?

Sorry, meant reach Kreider's level *faster* than it took Kreider to get there. Poorly worded by me.

Ya he was never expected to reach Perry or Nash's heights, any discussion of those two players was purely stylistic (Perry= agitating, Nash=low assists). Kreider and Kane have always been the relevant comparables and I'd be stoked if Jake reached their level (though hopefully he can reach it a bit faster than Kreider).

Look I'm not gonna pretend this has been an ideal season for Jake, it obviously hasn't and I understand that it introduces some questions about how he is developing. That said, if you watch Jake's game he still shows many traits that look to translate well to the NHL. His deployment in Calgary has been horrendous this year though he hasn't helped himself with some extended scoring slumps in Feb and March. I remain a believer that Jake is a better player than his numbers show but he will need to show it next year where, as a draft+2 player, he should be given every chance to play big minutes and produce at an elite level. If he doesn't then I'll come around to your views I'm sure ...

Experienced a slump in the last 9 games? $&!# happens, doesn't make or break a player's entire career. Try looking at everything involved rather than just a simple PPG stat and losing your head.

Double post

I think what gets lost by us fans when watching and evaluating players is that they are people just like us. They aren't stat lines that exist outside of their environment and circumstances. Baertschi's skill level is, was, and will remain borderline elite but what changes is how hard he works, what opportunities he's given, and how confident he feels. I found it funny (here and on HFBoards especially) how many people wrote Sven off because of his "downward trending PPG" as if he was somehow becoming a less talented or gifted player. Rather what was really declining was his confidence and his opportunities within the Calgary organization. Just as many of us feared Benning would move Kassian at the deadline only to see him break-out under another coach that didn't bench him at every opportunity, I think this is what is partly behind Baertschi's resurgence. He feels valued, respected, and like he has a future in this organization. As a result he is playing harder and with more confidence than he has for the past couple years in Calgary. This is why many saw the trade as a great gamble by Benning because the skill was beyond what you can ever usually get with a 2nd round pick, only the player's attitude needed to improve. And so far it looks exactly like that is happening.

"One" pick that just happened to be 9th overall in a very strong draft. You can't just count the number of pieces they got back without factoring the value of the piece. How often do top 10 picks get traded, let alone for goalies? Last one I can think of was in 2011 when Jeff Carter returned the 8th pick + Jake Voracek. Considering the 9th pick in 2013 would have been quite a bit more valuable than 8th in 2011, the difference in value returned for a 30-40 goal scoring forward (a much more valuable commodity) vs a potential-loaded-but-unproven-as-a-#1-goalie is slightly less than a pre-breakout Voracek. That seems about right to me tbh.

Not many of them are 6'1 210 lbs and strong as a bull on skates. I'd easily take Jake's blend of power and skill over a 5'10 featherweight with faster dangles at the NHL level. He may not be able to dangle NHL defensemen like that often but he'll definitely create time and space with those skills.

One of the things to consider with Virtanen is how he was deployed on the Hitmen's powerplay. When you look at the top players from the 2014 draft, you see that most of them produced 40-50% of their PPG on the powerplay. Name / ES PPG / Special Teams PPG / Total PPG Perlini .98 /.43 / 1.41 Scherbak .92 /.35 / 1.27 Ho-Sang .86 /.48 / 1.34 Reinhart .85 /.48 / 1.33 Draisaitl .84 /.77 / 1.61 McCann .83 / .60 / 1.43 Dal Colle .82 / .84 / 1.66 Milano .78 /.68 / 1.36 Virtanen .73 / .33 / 1.06 Ritchie .72 /.48 / 1.20 You can see that Virtanen's ES PPG is much closer to guys like MDC, Milano, McCann, and Draisaitl. Where they really boost their overall PPG is through their team's powerplay. Since powerplays are largely a function of who you play with, how many minutes you get, and how much of the PP touches run through you, it is hard to say whether his PPG reflects Jake's abilities as much as the efficiency of and how he is used on Calgary's PP. Anyway, just something to consider before writing off his season entirely.

About as funny as Virtanen having more assists than Subban.

Big difference between Marner and Barzal. Marner will likely go top 6 while Barzal is probably in the 8-12 range. You could probably trade Jake for a pick in that range (though I personally wouldn't) but there's no way you'll get a top 6 pick for him in this year's draft.

Never said he'd make the team - I would prefer and expect he'll be in junior again next year - but your med school analogy was flawed by not allowing for an "in the moment" assessment, which is what training camps provide to NHL teams. Certainly what you've done matters however not nearly as much as you are suggesting. Basically if Jake kills it at next camp AND there is a spot, he'll make the team regardless of what you or I think his 2014-15 season was like.