Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Gaudette Celly]

11 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

 

I have a feeling by the end of this season his comments about Jake's development are going to look pretty ridiculous.

All 500+ pages worth, lol.  He already started backtracking late last year, but he's dug his hole and very deep.

[Toews]

7 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Personally, I'm keeping my expectations modest for Virtanen. I'd be happy if he gets 30 points. I could see him approaching 40, but even 30 would be a good step forward for him. 

I am in the same boat. To me the problem with Jake aren't his tools but the way he reads the game. I don't see that as fixable in the off season. Seeing as that aspect of his game doesn't come naturally to him, he is going to have to learn it through in-game reps and spending more hours in the film room.

 

Personally I am not expecting some huge breakout season, I think we are going to see a more gradual improvement. The major hurdle was to become a serviceable NHL player and now that he has cleared that, he can start to work on some of those weaknesses which require experience and time. There are still some growing pains to come, hopefully the end product will end up being all the more satisfying as a result.

[guntrix]

On September 7, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alflives said:

There are posters here, who appear to be stirring the pot by touching on the most (obviously) sensitive areas to Canuck's fans.  Jake's selection and progress has been a concern (especially when compared to players drafted soon after him) to Canuck's fans.  

Why would a Canuck's fan continue to re-open that wound, or not admit that there is a nice strong scare developing where that wound once was?  

To me, that sounds like something a fan from another team (like the Loser Leafs) would do? 

I don't know if you've been reading the last couple of pages and/or are aware about how this whole discussion started but it's always the same posters, often bored out of their mind, who bait others into discussions they know will be controversial. When all's said and done, we're apparently the ones who are reopening old wounds. 

 

On September 7, 2018 at 12:25 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Why some people remain fans, when they provide nothing but judgment, derision, and hypercriticism, is a fair question. I wonder what the end game is in putting in effort into finding ways of devaluing a player's performance in a blog or online. Does it give the critic some sense of satisfaction in calling out a player? An "I told you so" righteous back pat for being on point with a player's shortcomings, even though the majority of the people on this board wouldn't last a minute out on the ice with the very players that are derided?

Likewise, I also wonder about the endgame of forging a forum that streamlines similar opinions and disregards everything else. As has been said ad nauseum, this defeats the entire purpose of a forum.

 

On September 7, 2018 at 12:25 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

An "I told you so" righteous back pat for being on point with a player's shortcomings, even though the majority of the people on this board wouldn't last a minute out on the ice with the very players that are derided?

Why do they warrant criticism? Because the PDO chart said so? It's really comical that so many folks deem themselves capable of determining which players are talented and which aren't. To make it to the NHL, getting past thousands of other players who couldn't, is far from easy. I fail to see why someone who could never achieve that should have their biased, slanted information taken with anything more than a grain of salt.

Correct me if I'm wrong; what you're essentially saying is that you can't criticize professional sports players because you're not as good? Yikes. Think about that for a second.

 

On September 7, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Vanuckles said:

@guntrix You're debating many posters at once, so I won't pile on but I'm just curious about one thing. Are you aware that Virtanen picked up his game dramatically in the second half of last season, or are you unaware of that development?

We all watch the same games. I'm aware and didn't say that he hasn't been progressing. Where opinions diverge is on the topic of where his ceiling realistically is. 

 

On September 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

It is not false unless you honestly believe that EVERY player has to have the exact point total in each development year.  Bertuzzi didn't top 20 goals until he was 24 years old and was still seeing AHL time at 22.   His rookie year you talk about was when he turned 21.   Wheeler was 22 as a rookie and you can claim he was NHL ready but he wasn't in NHL....period.    Over NHL history there are dozens and dozens of examples.    Just from recent (e.g. still playing) includes many power forwards such as Charlie Coyle (first round pick who didn't hit 20 goals until he was 24 and didn't see NHL until he was 20),  Chris Kreider (another first round pick) who didn't get a regular season NHL game until he was 21 and hit 20 goals for the firs time when he hit 24, Sean Couturier who is an emerging superstar hit 30 goals and nearly 80 points this past season where he turned 25 and this former 8th overall first round pick had never broken 20 goals prior over six prior seasons, Wayne Simmonds who didn't break 20 goal barrier until his 23rd  year, Tom Wilson a first round pick of the Capitals was noted as a key Stanley Cup run contributors and at 24 years of age had a career high 14 goals last year and didn't break 7 goals in any year prior, etc. etc. etc.

 

Give Jake a chance here!   He will not turn 23 until the season after the next one.   For many of these power forward types it seems the age 23 or 24 is a key to their emergence.    

I'm confused as to why you completely leave out assists in your analysis while including players like Wheeler, Couturier, Wilson and Coyle. It's completely misleading. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by guntrix

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, guntrix said:

I'm confused as to why you completely leave out assists in your analysis while including players like Wheeler, Couturier, Wilson and Coyle. It's completely misleading. 

Edited 1 hour ago by guntrix

Lol / ok, let’s see... can’t use goals but assists are ok.   Plus minus, GA/TK and hits per 60 are out too as are offensive zone entries as those make Jake look good.

 

Will remember to only note stats in future that make him look poorly.  Further will never ask you to acknowledge that players like Jake often take until 23/24/25 to hit their “stride” as that interferes with the “he sucks” narrative.

 

That about it?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

On 2018-09-06 at 12:21 PM, Alflives said:

I don't know which thread is more fun:  this one or Trump?

Same amount of whining for sure!   The anti Trump and anti Jake use similar approaches.   I am happy to say Trump is a disaster but Jake is a rising talent and on edge of being a top six NHL player

[The Lock]

12 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Okay?  Good, I hope they do, I don't want to see the kid fail.  I'm not trying to win some argument about the kids future...I say the kid sucks when he sucks I say he's good when he's good, why is it considered backtracking?  Why can't I just call it how it is without being ridiculed for it.  This place is sad and pathetic

Personally, I'm of the mindset of if he needs work he needs work and if he's great he's great as well; however, what I don't agree with is hating on a player simply for the sake of hating. It's one thing to call a player out. It's another thing to call a player out, yet not even listen to the other side of the story or even acknowledge that there's two sides of it. The same could also go for the opposite side not listening to criticism.

 

And I've seen a LOT of this in this thread, from both sides. I just choose to not really post much in here because really, what's there to say? Virtanen clearly didn't have the start people would have hoped; however, he's also a power forward which takes longer to develop. He also could have been not rushed as much as he was. He also has been making strides. To ignore any of that, by either side, to me, says that that side is here to "win" an argument, logically or illogically, and is not willing to look at the big picture.

 

I personally do not care where people have come from. I do not care if they've played hockey or been in the NHL. I care to have a conversation with people who are willing to listen and respect both sides. I barely see any of that in this thread as of late and it sucks.

[Kosmo Kramer]

I still have high hopes for this kid.

He is maturing in a lot of ways still, he's still super young.

 

It would be tragic to give up on him and trade him away, it's not like he is the only piece keeping us from making the playoffs and/or winning the cup.

 

It seems like he has man strength in a boys body and mind if that makes sense.

I want to see a 26,27 year old Virtanen.

I think we will be very glad we kept him and that he is on our side.

[Bissurnette]

2 hours ago, guntrix said:

We all watch the same games. I'm aware and didn't say that he hasn't been progressing. Where opinions diverge is on the topic of where his ceiling realistically is.

Ok. As you were 

[Rob_Zepp]

15 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Personally, I'm of the mindset of if he needs work he needs work and if he's great he's great as well; however, what I don't agree with is hating on a player simply for the sake of hating. It's one thing to call a player out. It's another thing to call a player out, yet not even listen to the other side of the story or even acknowledge that there's two sides of it. The same could also go for the opposite side not listening to criticism.

 

And I've seen a LOT of this in this thread, from both sides. I just choose to not really post much in here because really, what's there to say? Virtanen clearly didn't have the start people would have hoped; however, he's also a power forward which takes longer to develop. He also could have been not rushed as much as he was. He also has been making strides. To ignore any of that, by either side, to me, says that that side is here to "win" an argument, logically or illogically, and is not willing to look at the big picture.

 

I personally do not care where people have come from. I do not care if they've played hockey or been in the NHL. I care to have a conversation with people who are willing to listen and respect both sides. I barely see any of that in this thread as of late and it sucks.

Good post!   I don't think the criticism of Jake was ever the problem - it was the crap made up about his personal life and then it extended into the expectations for a young power forward which few in NHL history have met let alone all sorts of comparable examples over the past 10 years or so.   

 

Would it be more ideal if Jake was already a 20 goal, 40 point player....for sure it would be BUT his unique set of skills and size combined with the massive strides he made last year cannot be taken for anything but a great sign.   

 

Not just with Jake, but in general, people need to give these kids enough time to prove themselves and support that process.   It just doesn't equate with harsh personal criticisms of a kid being something a "fan" would do prior to the kid even having finished his development curve.

[The Lock]

24 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Good post!   I don't think the criticism of Jake was ever the problem - it was the crap made up about his personal life and then it extended into the expectations for a young power forward which few in NHL history have met let alone all sorts of comparable examples over the past 10 years or so.   

 

Would it be more ideal if Jake was already a 20 goal, 40 point player....for sure it would be BUT his unique set of skills and size combined with the massive strides he made last year cannot be taken for anything but a great sign.   

 

Not just with Jake, but in general, people need to give these kids enough time to prove themselves and support that process.   It just doesn't equate with harsh personal criticisms of a kid being something a "fan" would do prior to the kid even having finished his development curve.

Definitely. Any extra development from a player would be ideal; however, we are in the here and now. Our situation with Virtanen is what it is (because who doesn't like a Bertuzzi quote ;)); yet, it baffles me how some people can just still live in the past and hound on Virtanen no matter his progress, 6th overall: that seems to be the number fixated in some people's minds. Yet, in what draft does the order indicate the actual skill of the player when you literally have the Stefans and the Zetterberg? Obviously there are some generalizations in draft order that can indicate the likeliness to succeed, but when has that ever been the end all?

 

Yet, 6th overall gets stressed. One number. It doesn't seen to matter what type of player he is. The fixation is on goals and assists. To me, I say WHO CARES? Do we get a player that helps us in the LONG RUN? As someone said earlier, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Honestly, if Jake becomes a consistent player who complements guys like Boeser and Pettersson by being that grit while also being able to chip in now and then, I'd much rather have that than Nylander or Ehlers. Does that kind of style of play take longer to develop? Absolutely; however, it's that kind of style that will get us farther into the playoffs later on. It's that grit that makes us the team that other teams fear playing.

 

Perhaps I'm a minority in this, but I've never actually regretted taking Virtanen at 6th overall, and my immediate thought when we drafted him was how we will likely not see what he can do for at least a few years after that draft. When you draft a power forward, it's a journey, especially in a market like ours where people can't see beyond the next game someone's potential skill. If Virtanen sees his potential, he's one of a kind in this league, unlike Ehlers or Nylander who could be replaced. Virtanen you can't replace.

Edited September 8, 2018 by The Lock

[TNucks1]

42 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Personally, I'm of the mindset of if he needs work he needs work and if he's great he's great as well; however, what I don't agree with is hating on a player simply for the sake of hating. It's one thing to call a player out. It's another thing to call a player out, yet not even listen to the other side of the story or even acknowledge that there's two sides of it. The same could also go for the opposite side not listening to criticism.

 

And I've seen a LOT of this in this thread, from both sides. I just choose to not really post much in here because really, what's there to say? Virtanen clearly didn't have the start people would have hoped; however, he's also a power forward which takes longer to develop. He also could have been not rushed as much as he was. He also has been making strides. To ignore any of that, by either side, to me, says that that side is here to "win" an argument, logically or illogically, and is not willing to look at the big picture.

 

I personally do not care where people have come from. I do not care if they've played hockey or been in the NHL. I care to have a conversation with people who are willing to listen and respect both sides. I barely see any of that in this thread as of late and it sucks.

most reasonable post on this thread.

[martybyrd]

Jakes situation is what it is. We all hope he develops into this impactful power forward, but the truth of the matter is that no one knows.

To say that all involved with the decision to draft Jake where we did are pleased with the pick are being disingenuous.

 

Jake recently signed a 2yr 1.25 million/yr contract...this is his current value in the league in which he plays.

Ehlers and Nylander are both going to be paid north of 5.25 million/yr....this is their current value in the same league.

 

Please don't respond with "I'd rather have JV at 1.25 blah,blah"...that is not the discussion here

 

Jake has been a major disappointment so far....but his story is far from being complete.

Hopefully, he's able to continue his progression that warrants his lofty draft selection.

 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

Definitely. Any extra development from a player would be ideal; however, we are in the here and now. Our situation with Virtanen is what it is (because who doesn't like a Bertuzzi quote ;)); yet, it baffles me how some people can just still live in the past and hound on Virtanen no matter his progress, 6th overall: that seems to be the number fixated in some people's minds. Yet, in what draft does the order indicate the actual skill of the player when you literally have the Stefans and the Zetterberg? Obviously there are some generalizations in draft order that can indicate the likeliness to succeed, but when has that ever been the end all?

 

Yet, 6th overall gets stressed. One number. It doesn't seen to matter what type of player he is. The fixation is on goals and assists. To me, I say WHO CARES? Do we get a player that helps us in the LONG RUN? As someone said earlier, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Honestly, if Jake becomes a consistent player who complements guys like Boeser and Pettersson by being that grit while also being able to chip in now and then, I'd much rather have that than Nylander or Ehlers. Does that kind of style of play take longer to develop? Absolutely; however, it's that kind of style that will get us farther into the playoffs later on. It's that grit that makes us the team that other teams fear playing.

 

Perhaps I'm a minority in this, but I've never actually regretted taking Virtanen at 6th overall, and my immediate thought when we drafted him was how we will likely not see what he can do for at least a few years after that draft. When you draft a power forward, it's a journey, especially in a market like ours where people can't see beyond the next game someone's potential skill. If Virtanen sees his potential, he's one of a kind in this league, unlike Ehlers or Nylander who could be replaced. Virtanen you can't replace.

Logic on CDC exists!    ^^^^^^^

[The Lock]

16 minutes ago, martybyrd said:

Jakes situation is what it is. We all hope he develops into this impactful power forward, but the truth of the matter is that no one knows.

To say that all involved with the decision to draft Jake where we did are pleased with the pick are being disingenuous.

 

Jake recently signed a 2yr 1.25 million/yr contract...this is his current value in the league in which he plays.

Ehlers and Nylander are both going to be paid north of 5.25 million/yr....this is their current value in the same league.

 

Please don't respond with "I'd rather have JV at 1.25 blah,blah"...that is not the discussion here

 

Jake has been a major disappointment so far....but his story is far from being complete.

Hopefully, he's able to continue his progression that warrants his lofty draft selection.

 

Like I said earlier, it's a journey when you draft a power forward, meaning there are going to be ups and downs. There will be times when it's like "wow he plowed right through that defender" and there will be times that's it's easy to question the pick.

 

We don't even have to look much further in our backyard for evidence of this. Take a look at Todd Bertuzzi for example. He was drafted in 1993, but it wasn't until the Islanders traded him to us (foolishly) that he amounted to much of anything. Even then, he didn't play an 80 game season until 1999-00. That's over 6 years. If we were back in mid to late 90's talking about Bertuzzi on a forum like we are about Virtanen, if Bert were drafted by us (which he wasn't of course), would we not be having the same conversation? I mean the main difference could be that Bert was drafted 23rd overall, but still, look at how much we get riled up over ANY 1st round pick these days.

[Glug Datt]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

Definitely. Any extra development from a player would be ideal; however, we are in the here and now. Our situation with Virtanen is what it is (because who doesn't like a Bertuzzi quote ;)); yet, it baffles me how some people can just still live in the past and hound on Virtanen no matter his progress, 6th overall: that seems to be the number fixated in some people's minds. Yet, in what draft does the order indicate the actual skill of the player when you literally have the Stefans and the Zetterberg? Obviously there are some generalizations in draft order that can indicate the likeliness to succeed, but when has that ever been the end all?

 

Yet, 6th overall gets stressed. One number. It doesn't seen to matter what type of player he is. The fixation is on goals and assists. To me, I say WHO CARES? Do we get a player that helps us in the LONG RUN? As someone said earlier, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Honestly, if Jake becomes a consistent player who complements guys like Boeser and Pettersson by being that grit while also being able to chip in now and then, I'd much rather have that than Nylander or Ehlers. Does that kind of style of play take longer to develop? Absolutely; however, it's that kind of style that will get us farther into the playoffs later on. It's that grit that makes us the team that other teams fear playing.

 

Perhaps I'm a minority in this, but I've never actually regretted taking Virtanen at 6th overall, and my immediate thought when we drafted him was how we will likely not see what he can do for at least a few years after that draft. When you draft a power forward, it's a journey, especially in a market like ours where people can't see beyond the next game someone's potential skill. If Virtanen sees his potential, he's one of a kind in this league, unlike Ehlers or Nylander who could be replaced. Virtanen you can't replace.

yup.. and if I remember correctly, both nylander and ehlers faded in the playoffs... although I suppose they're still young as well..

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

Definitely. Any extra development from a player would be ideal; however, we are in the here and now. Our situation with Virtanen is what it is (because who doesn't like a Bertuzzi quote ;)); yet, it baffles me how some people can just still live in the past and hound on Virtanen no matter his progress, 6th overall: that seems to be the number fixated in some people's minds. Yet, in what draft does the order indicate the actual skill of the player when you literally have the Stefans and the Zetterberg? Obviously there are some generalizations in draft order that can indicate the likeliness to succeed, but when has that ever been the end all?

 

Yet, 6th overall gets stressed. One number. It doesn't seen to matter what type of player he is. The fixation is on goals and assists. To me, I say WHO CARES? Do we get a player that helps us in the LONG RUN? As someone said earlier, this is a marathon and not a sprint. Honestly, if Jake becomes a consistent player who complements guys like Boeser and Pettersson by being that grit while also being able to chip in now and then, I'd much rather have that than Nylander or Ehlers. Does that kind of style of play take longer to develop? Absolutely; however, it's that kind of style that will get us farther into the playoffs later on. It's that grit that makes us the team that other teams fear playing.

 

Perhaps I'm a minority in this, but I've never actually regretted taking Virtanen at 6th overall, and my immediate thought when we drafted him was how we will likely not see what he can do for at least a few years after that draft. When you draft a power forward, it's a journey, especially in a market like ours where people can't see beyond the next game someone's potential skill. If Virtanen sees his potential, he's one of a kind in this league, unlike Ehlers or Nylander who could be replaced. Virtanen you can't replace.

We already have Ehlers and Nylander type players in Baer and Goldy.  We need a unique physical specimen like Jake.  Like you say, Guys with Jake’s skill set are very difficult to get.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Glug Datt said:

yup.. and if I remember correctly, both nylander and ehlers faded in the playoffs... although I suppose they're still young as well..

They both disappeared.

[Toews]

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

They both disappeared.

Young players regularly struggle in the playoffs. The Sedins weren't world beaters in the playoffs either until they were older and had more experience under their belt.

 

Being a powerforward doesn't exactly guarantee success in the playoffs either. Bertuzzi (who most people on here would consider the ideal scenario for Jake) had a playoff pace of 47 points per 82 games in his prime, he was over ppg in the regular season during that same time frame. Rick Nash has never been able to duplicate his regular season success in the playoffs.

 

Joe Thornton had multiple lackluster playoff performances despite putting up historical regular season numbers. He is a lock to be a 1st ballot HOFer regardless. 

 

There are far too many variables in the playoffs which can affect a player's performance. You could lose a linemate to injury, you could run into a hot goalie, you could be snake bitten. You could be a team that lacks secondary scoring making you easy to shutdown see 2011 SCF or 2013 ECF. 

 

A 15-20 game sample size isn't something I am going to build a narrative around. There is a chance you might end up looking foolish in a year's time. How many people didn't think that Bonino was a playoff performer? "He is too slow", was a frequent complaint on this very board. How about that guy that resembles the Pillsbury Doughboy Phil Kessel? He got shipped out while the Toronto media built up the narrative that he disappeared when the going got tough. Carl Hagelin had a dreadful playoffs with the Rangers and was promptly dumped in the offseason. These misfits came together and dominated the playoffs. Why? Chemistry and getting hot at the right time.

 

There will come a time when our own youngsters will struggle in the playoffs, veterans in the NHL will tell you it's a whole different game. It will be a rude awakening for many of them and I am sure there will be some trolls on HF who will be talking smack just as they did once about the Sedins till they put everyone in their place. 

 

My point is that we don't know how a couple of 22 year olds will perform in the playoffs over their careers and making any grand proclamations is folly.

 

I would not take Jake above either of those guys if a re-draft were to take place tomorrow. I am basing my evaluations over what they have shown in their career thus far. I am not going to hang my hat on a hypothetical like future playoff performance. I realize stating this will upset quite a few people but it's not borne out of the idea that I want Jake to fail. I have moved past that draft and I want to see him continue to improve as a player. But as of now IMO he has a long way to go to catch up to many of his peers. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Toews

[The Lock]

14 hours ago, Toews said:

Young players regularly struggle in the playoffs. The Sedins weren't world beaters in the playoffs either until they were older and had more experience under their belt.

 

Being a powerforward doesn't exactly guarantee success in the playoffs either. Bertuzzi (who most people on here would consider the ideal scenario for Jake) had a playoff pace of 47 points per 82 games in his prime, he was over ppg in the regular season during that same time frame. Rick Nash has never been able to duplicate his regular season success in the playoffs.

 

Joe Thornton had multiple lackluster playoff performances despite putting up historical regular season numbers. He is a lock to be a 1st ballot HOFer regardless. 

 

There are far too many variables in the playoffs which can affect a player's performance. You could lose a linemate to injury, you could run into a hot goalie, you could be snake bitten. You could be a team that lacks secondary scoring making you easy to shutdown see 2011 SCF or 2013 ECF. 

 

A 15-20 game sample size isn't something I am going to build a narrative around. There is a chance you might end up looking foolish in a year's time. How many people didn't think that Bonino was a playoff performer? "He is too slow", was a frequent complaint on this very board. How about that guy that resembles the Pillsbury Doughboy Phil Kessel? He got shipped out while the Toronto media built up the narrative that he disappeared when the going got tough. Carl Hagelin had a dreadful playoffs with the Rangers and was promptly dumped in the offseason. These misfits came together and dominated the playoffs. Why? Chemistry and getting hot at the right time.

 

There will come a time when our own youngsters will struggle in the playoffs, veterans in the NHL will tell you it's a whole different game. It will be a rude awakening for many of them and I am sure there will be some trolls on HF who will be talking smack just as they did once about the Sedins till they put everyone in their place. 

 

My point is that we don't know how a couple of 22 year olds will perform in the playoffs over their careers and making any grand proclamations is folly.

 

I would not take Jake above either of those guys if a re-draft were to take place tomorrow. I am basing my evaluations over what they have shown in their career thus far. I am not going to hang my hat on a hypothetical like future playoff performance. I realize stating this will upset quite a few people but it's not borne out of the idea that I want Jake to fail. I have moved past that draft and I want to see him continue to improve as a player. But as of now IMO he has a long way to go to catch up to many of his peers. 

It's not about guaranteeing success though. If you are looking for guarantees then I'm sorry but sports are not for you. Instead, think of having that powerforward as increasing the likelihood of succeeding. There are power forwards that have helped win cups. Look at Lucic in Boston or Byfuglien when he was used as a forward in Chicago. Without Thornton, would San Jose have even made the finals or even some of those playoffs? Having that powerfoward gives you more options. Having more options in the playoffs can only make a team better off.

 

So, of course, we don't know how they will succeed, but that's not the point. You don't draft based on what you know about the future, because that's impossible to do. You pick the best player available that you feel will help your team succeed in the future. Virtanen was our guy in that while Nylander and Ehlers was clearly Toronto's and Winnipeg's guys. Right now, we can (and I have even) clearly see that Nylander and Ehlers have been more successful.

 

However, Virtanen's not exactly a flop if he's played 140 games in the NHL and has shown development. The real truth here is we don't know still who, of these 3, will have the best career. Right now, Nylander and Ehlers have the inside tracks, but Virtanen could still prove to be better. He might not still (and the odds are not in his favour at this point in time to be fair) but he still could, and that's all that should matter at this point. Perhaps a real point here is Virtanen will likely be compared with Nylander and Ehlers for the rest of his career, much like how Crosby and Ovechkin have been compared throughout their lives, or much like how Hodgson and Kassian are linked because of the trade. Is this fair? Probably not, but it's just the reality of it.

Edited September 9, 2018 by The Lock

[Toews]

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

It's not about guaranteeing success though. If you are looking for guarantees then I'm sorry but sports are not for you. Instead, think of having that powerforward as increasing the likelihood of succeeding. There are power forwards that have helped win cups. Look at Lucic in Boston or Byfuglien when he was used as a forward in Chicago. Without Thornton, would San Jose have even made the finals or even some of those playoffs? Having that powerfoward gives you more options. Having more options in the playoffs can only make a team better off.

I think you misinterpreted my post. I am saying that Virtanen being bigger and stronger doesn't exactly foretell success in the playoffs. To conclude if a player is a playoff performer or "fades in the playoffs" we need a reasonable sample size of games to base our evaluation upon. I think we can all agree that we don't have that information yet based on what little we have seen of all these players in the playoffs.

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So, of course, we don't know how they will succeed, but that's not the point. You don't draft based on what you know about the future, because that's impossible to do. You pick the best player available that you feel will help your team succeed in the future. Virtanen was our guy in that while Nylander and Ehlers was clearly Toronto's and Winnipeg's guys. Right now, we can (and I have even) clearly see that Nylander and Ehlers have been more successful.

I don't disagree but I will add that provided you have enough information, you have the ability to re-evaluate your initial opinion.

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

However, Virtanen's not exactly a flop if he's played 140 games in the NHL and has shown development. The real truth here is we don't know still who, of these 3, will have the best career. Right now, Nylander and Ehlers have the inside tracks, but Virtanen could still prove to be better. He might not still (and the odds are not in his favour at this point in time to be fair) but he still could, and that's all that should matter at this point. Perhaps a real point here is Virtanen will likely be compared with Nylander and Ehlers for the rest of his career, much like how Crosby and Ovechkin have been compared throughout their lives, or much like how Hodgson and Kassian are linked because of the trade. Is this fair? Probably not, but it's just the reality of it.

That's reasonable. I will also echo the sentiment that I don't consider Nylander or Ehlers as the barometer of success for Jake. I will be more than content if he becomes a core player on this team in the future but he needs to do a lot more growing for that.

 

The way the draft is structured you will almost always have someone who you wish you could have selected, that doesn't mean the player you selected was a flop.