Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Kanukfanatic]

6 hours ago, canuckistani said:

I said that a guy who is a 0.45 PPG for LESS THAN HALF a season, for first time in his career in 4 years, is NOT a top six material YET. Kindly quote the *entire* post. 

All this means diddly squat if he cannot produce at top six level, does not find spot regularly in a top six role in a bottom-feeder team and is a non-factor in either special teams. 

Correction. That is an useful thing for ANY skater to do. 

Means squat. He does not play for a team that is leading the league or in the top half for hits delivered. Plus its such a whishy-washy stat in the first place. 

Nobody looks out of place playing on EP's wing. If he was good enough to play in the top six, he'd be a REGULAR in the top six by now. Yet, this is the first time in his career he's had more than a few shifts in the top six and by no means has cemented his spot. 

Put it this way - if the Seattle draft was next year,  Virtanen is NOT an automatic guy you protect, unless you want to protect 'hope' ahead of performance ( Baer, Bo, Brock,Sutter,Beagle,Roussel are the top six protected, with the final slot coming down between Loui,Virtanen and Goldy). For a bottom quarter team, that is clear-cut indication that he is by no means a secure NHL-er. Jake is coming along nicely. But he has a long, long way to go before he is good enough NHL-er, nevermind the platitudes you want to throw at him. 

Virt gets protected over Loui & Goldy easily.

 

Don't be so silly.

[Boudrias]

8 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You are fixated on two things - and neither makes sense.   This isn't a "bottom-feeder" team - when healthy, they are in the top 20 in the league easily.    Further, he is just 22 ..... 22!   For a big guy, his progression is nicely on track.    Tom Wilson is two years older and has had a career best 35 points (14 goals) but many think he is one of the more valuable members of the past Stanley Cup winning team.   

 

David Pastrňák (if you are going to troll with another player's name, use the right spelling at least) was passed over by 24 other picks and he was not rated in the top of the draft whereas Virtanen was.   "Easy pick for you" means you feel you are smarter about draft picks than the vast majority of NHL GMs and their amateur scouting staff.      

 

PS - are you not the guy who suggested that the Canucks trade EP40 last summer as he wouldn't make it as a center?

To many fans take the easy or obvious valuation process of a player by looking a ppg. A player like Jake with 35 - 40 points and an ability to play a heavy game will shine more in CUP play than other equivalent players with similar ppg. IMHO Benning has a pretty solid vision of the type of team he has to ice to have a serious CUP contender. Players like Jake and Gudbranson are key building blocks. 

[Battlemonger]

Not protecting Virtanen is just idiotic. Period. Who comes up with this stuff?

[WeneedLumme]

25 minutes ago, Battlemonger said:

Not protecting Virtanen is just idiotic. Period. Who comes up with this stuff?

Only a troll or a simpleton would suggest protecting Beagle, Roussel or Loui ahead of Jake. Goldy is just barely debatable, and only by those who think simplistic scoring stats, with no context, are all that matter. It is probably time for everybody to stop responding to the latest "realistic fan" who is gleefully trolling the Canucks fans in Jake's thread.

Edited December 10, 2018 by WeneedLumme

[Gaudette Celly]

Saying that Jake hasn't yet arrived as a top-6 player is one thing, but then claiming that guys like Beagle, Roussel, and Eriksson are more likely to be protected is utter nonsense.  You don't release young NHL players for aging veterans, let alone for NOTHING.  Really want to believe it's not outright ignorance and has to be straight-up trolling.

 

Jake is going to be re-signed long term, the only question is the money, which will be determined by how he does the next season and a half.

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Put it this way - if the Seattle draft was next year,  Virtanen is NOT an automatic guy you protect, unless you want to protect 'hope' ahead of performance ( Baer, Bo, Brock,Sutter,Beagle,Roussel are the top six protected, with the final slot coming down between Loui,Virtanen and Goldy). 

 

[Borvat]

Draft year bio: Virtanen has a nice range of skills, including a terrific shot and a gritty style. The Hockey News' bio summed up his ability well, saying, "Is a natural scorer with soft hands and an excellent skating stride. Also boasts very good size for the wing position in the NHL. Is effective on either side of center."  

 

Look at who was projected top ten in 2014 by Mckenzie:

 

1 - Aaron Ekblad, Barrie - OHL

2 - Sam Reinhart, Kootenay - WHL

3 - Sam Bennett, Kingston - OHL

4 - Leon Draisaitl, Prince Albert - WHL

5 - Michael Dal Colle, Oshawa - OHL

6 - Nick Ritchie, Peterborough - OHL

7- Jake Virtanen, Calgary - WHL

8 - Hayden Fleury, Red Deer - WHL

9 - William Nylander - Modo - SwedishL

10 - Nikolaj Ehlers - Halifax - QMJHL

 

Look at the list above. At this point I like the pick based on the information and consensus at the time.  

 

Virtanen continues to improve and has the size, skill and speed to be a solid top six winger. I have noticed how he is gaining confidence and believes he belongs. (ask Phaneuf or any of the other players he has run over or have bounced off him when they try and hit him) Its showing in his game and physicality.  I admit early on I had concerns over his maturity level and commitment.  I am happy to say he is proving those concerns wrong at this point.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Borvat

[SingleThorn]

2 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Only a troll or a simpleton would suggest protecting Beagle, Roussel or Loui ahead of Jake. Goldy is just barely debatable, and only by those who think simplistic scoring stats, with no context, are all that matter. It is probably time for everybody to stop responding to the latest "realistic fan" who is gleefully trolling the Canucks fans in Jake's thread.

Suggestion comes from someone using the most revered Canuck's name and yet uses an ID pic of the most hated Canuck ever. Hmmm...........

[The Lock]

19 hours ago, canuckistani said:

This is what hot air looks like. And i guess for non-science-educated people, throwing numbers around automatically makes it a more exact argument. LOL. 

I'm not giving you hot air at all. I'm calling it how I personally see it. I'm also about to complete a degree in computer science and have another degree in business. However, I'm not arrogant enough to think that means anything on a hockey forum because it doesn't. I don't need to compensate by thinking I'm better than others. Throwing numbers makes a better argument than your opinion since you haven't backed up your opinion at all. If you are a science educated person, you have yet to prove it to be honest. It doesn't take a rocket science to see the difference between a fact and an opinion, but apparently you can't figure that out?....

 

Anyway, enough of this. It's not worth my time. Can't argue with a brick wall no matter how poor the foundation is I guess lol....

Edited December 11, 2018 by The Lock

[canuckistani]

18 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I'm not giving you hot air at all. I'm calling it how I personally see it. I'm also about to complete a degree in computer science and have another degree in business. However, I'm not arrogant enough to think that means anything on a hockey forum because it doesn't. I don't need to compensate by thinking I'm better than others. Throwing numbers makes a better argument than your opinion since you haven't backed up your opinion at all. If you are a science educated person, you have yet to prove it to be honest. It doesn't take a rocket science to see the difference between a fact and an opinion, but apparently you can't figure that out?....

 

Anyway, enough of this. It's not worth my time. Can't argue with a brick wall no matter how poor the foundation is I guess lol....

When you grow up a bit more and get some actual STEM work experience, you will realize that selective data-analysis can lead to virtually any conclusion you wish to support. Its called data-mining. 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

When you grow up a bit more and get some actual STEM work experience, you will realize that selective data-analysis can lead to virtually any conclusion you wish to support. Its called data-mining. 

And if you don't provide any counter evidence to debunk it, you don't have any basis at all, just hypotheses.

[canuckistani]

Just now, The Lock said:

And if you don't provide any counter evidence to debunk it, you don't have any basis at all, just hypotheses.

So much for no time, eh ?

Kids these days...arrested development is really a thing i suppose. 

As i said, young one - one day, when you put your knowledge to work, you will find out what data-mining is, in this context. Now, g'nite. 

 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

So much for no time, eh ?

Kids these days...arrested development is really a thing i suppose. 

As i said, young one - one day, when you put your knowledge to work, you will find out what data-mining is, in this context. Now, g'nite. 

 

I wish I was young.

 

Also, I know what data mining is. I'm taking that course right now and can say that your basis on it is also flawed as properly sorted data can lead to good results. That's part of data mining. Sorting through big data. Except this data isn't even big.

Edited December 11, 2018 by The Lock

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

I wish I was young.

 

Also, I know what data mining is. I'm taking that course right now and can say that your basis on it is also flawed as properly sorted data can lead to good results. That's part of data mining. Sorting through big data. Except this data isn't even big.

You are young. Hence the comment 'arrested development'. 

Good you are learning. One day when you use it in real life work, you will see how it works. Or the fact how causative or correlative data works. Funny how you don't want to throw your degree around but want to talk about how big data works, for a 4th year NHL-er who cannot make it stick in the top-6 of a bottom-feeder team. When you grow up some more ( and move past your arrested development), you will see the difference between fandom and following a team as well.

 

[The Lock]

Just now, canuckistani said:

You are young. Hence the comment 'arrested development'. 

Good you are learning. One day when you use it in real life work, you will see how it works. Or the fact how causative or correlative data works. Funny how you don't want to throw your degree around but want to talk about how big data works, for a 4th year NHL-er who cannot make it stick in the top-6 of a bottom-feeder team. When you grow up some more ( and move past your arrested development), you will see the difference between fandom and following a team as well.

 

I'd rather not have to throw my degree around and actually prove myself through my actual knowledge of hockey. If I need to throw my degree around in order to be in a debate, then I might as well not know anything about hockey because what's the point? This is a hockey forum and not a science forum. I also don't need to be condescending and tell other people how they are kids. I am confident in my abilities and knowledge and understanding on this forum. I also realise that I'm not right all the time because the strongest people are the ones who don't need to pretend they know everything and hide behind a degree that has nothing to do with the forum they are on.

 

Anyway, I think this has gone on for too long and I'm sure most people here will be bored by this discussion we are having. I'll continue to talk hockey while you can continue to hide behind you degree and we can part ways.

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I'd rather not have to throw my degree around and actually prove myself through my actual knowledge of hockey. If I need to throw my degree around in order to be in a debate, then I might as well not know anything about hockey because what's the point? This is a hockey forum and not a science forum. I also don't need to be condescending and tell other people how they are kids. I am confident in my abilities and knowledge and understanding on this forum. I also realise that I'm not right all the time because the strongest people are the ones who don't need to pretend they know everything and hide behind a degree that has nothing to do with the forum they are on.

 

 

 

Yeah, thats why you are waiving your degree around to a dude who is not. Your arrested development is more than i thought it was, i am sorry. 

 

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

 

Anyway, I think this has gone on for too long and I'm sure most people here will be bored by this discussion we are having. I'll continue to talk hockey while you can continue to hide behind you degree and we can part ways.

Good.

Lets focus on how we should NOT be calling a player, who in his 4th year of the NHL, is not a lock in the top six of a bottom-feeder team, while NOT being your regular meat and potatoes grinder dude, is anything more than a 'work in progress, with potential but squat to really show for it so far'.

 

[canuckistani]

12 hours ago, nzan said:

I was going to try to defend some of what you're trying to say, but you lost me pretty bad here.

Sutter might be moderately debatable, maybe even Baer if we're really reaching. No chance in any universe a GM protects Beagle or Roussel before Virtanen.

err WHAT ? 

you think we are going to protect a dude in his early 20s, who is not a grinder and trying to break into the top six, over a dude in his mid 20s, who is a lock in our top six ?! 
I know Virtanen gets a lot of free passes here for being a local boy, but its fantasy land if you think he is more valuable than Baer. 
To me, he is a shade below Roussel on PERFORMANCE. 

[Alflives]

Just now, canuckistani said:

err WHAT ? 

you think we are going to protect a dude in his early 20s, who is not a grinder and trying to break into the top six, over a dude in his mid 20s, who is a lock in our top six ?! 
I know Virtanen gets a lot of free passes here for being a local boy, but its fantasy land if you think he is more valuable than Baer. 
To me, he is a shade below Roussel on PERFORMANCE. 

This is my bridge!  You need to move on.

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This is my bridge!  You need to move on.

I needed to go study anyway.

 

(Ironically, it's a data mining final. I'm not even joking. lol)

Edited December 11, 2018 by The Lock

[canuckledraggin]

Guuntriiiix, Guuuntriiix. How about the 5th line? where are you guys now that this kid is showing he's a top 9 guy?