Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

Nashville might be a target for some sort of deal like this. With both right wingers Smith(4.25M) and Granlund(5.75M) being UFAs they could use a cheaper option at RW in the top 9.

 

They got two similar D in Fabbro and Carrier. Both offensive/smaller right handers. Fabbro has more potential but Carrier has gotten better statistically year by year in the AHL. I would definitely target Fabbro. They have another RD prospect in Allard too, overall good pool and they might be able to afford to ship a guy like Fabbro out.

 

Preds and Canucks could be good partners.

 

Nashville will most likely protect their 4Ds + Johansen, Forsberg, Arvidsson and Duchene.   Poile explained that the only reason he was willing to trade Subban is that they believed Fabbro could become a top-4 D.  

 

I cannot see Nashville having interest in Virtanen.  Poile made the bet that Fiala would be a 30 goal scorer and talked of flashes of brilliance yet traded him away for Granlund.  He talked of needing more time to find consistency and mature.  He even admitted that on the long run the trade might not have them on the winning end but Granlund fits their timeline better.  Virtanen and Fiala were drafted the same year.   They are more likely to try and find someone in free agency than make a trade and break up their D-corps.  He also has to consider Ekholm hitting UFA status in 2 years.

 

Fabbro is also still on an ELC while Virtanen is 2 years to free agency with arbitration rights.  With the cap flat not sure many teams will want to qualify players and be at risk of having to clear cap space in the middle of the off-season.

 

Edited by mll
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moose Nuckle said:

You hate Jake and refuse to give him a chance is what you meant to say. 

Please. How many chances has he had? Heck, Green even had him on the top line.

 

He has also had multiple training camps too where he has failed to meet (not unreasonable) expectations.

 

Don't talk to me about chances. Jake has had plenty.

Edited by kloubek
Link to post
Share on other sites

...did you mention what you'd do with Virtanen aGent? May have missed an earlier post...

 

As much as Jake does pain me, we would be selling very, very low and I would like to keep him in the fold if possible. It isn't like being scratched for reopening night is increasing his value...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I was thinking Stecher. Tanev would be a possibility as well.

 

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

If it was that good enough of a D prospect where he could step into a top 4 role it could cost Virtanen+. It would be a somewhat touted prospect in that case

 

Ideally said prospect would start as a top 6 RD or with a veteran like Tanev. Probably want each young guy to have a solid veteran to play with. Example being Rathbone/OJ-Tanev, Edler-Said prospect in 5v5 play. Hughes can play with Myers and probably bring the best in Myers.

 

One of Tanev/Stecher would be going. Depending which one it would change how we work our D around.

I think the concept is good, but I don't think many teams have that type of player to sell. With that said, I'd look into Jokiharju from Buffalo if we are dealing Virtanen. It wouldn't be a "sexy" trade, but it fits the criteria here.

 

With that said, if we are to keep Tanev (and Toffoli) in the mix as well, there would still be a lot of work needed to get the team in under the cap.

 

But honestly if we were looking at this route, I don't see why we didn't just sign Tryamkin and then just offloaded Virtanen for picks/prospects in the offseason with no pressure of filling that last RD spot and limiting what we could get in return. I imagine that if we are looking to bolster the team through trade, it would be a much bigger move, whether it's for cap relief or we do indeed add more to Virtanen to try and get immediate top 4 D help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, stawns said:

The problem is the fans and media's.  James done nothing but progress every year

that's true. I think the media here and their coverage of the Canucks is crazy. 

 

i knew Jake was going to face so much criticism when he was drafted by the Canucks. 

 

I think it's reason that some BC born players who had opportunities to come home never did. Players like Yzerman, P. Kariya, and even Sakic (who at one point signed with the NYR) only for Colorado to keep him (if I recall correctly). 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Cheers. A guy like Fabbro would work nicely!

I think the Canucks can learn from Nashville. They have so many RD defenseman, and when they have a surplus they can afford to trade them away for forward help. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Nashville will most likely protect their 4Ds + Johansen, Forsberg, Arvidsson and Duchene.   Poile explained that the only reason he was willing to trade Subban is that they believed Fabbro could become a top-4 D.  

 

I cannot see Nashville having interest in Virtanen.  Poile made the bet that Fiala would be a 30 goal scorer and talked of flashes of brilliance yet traded him away for Granlund.  He talked of needing more time to find consistency and mature.  He even admitted that on the long run the trade might not have them on the winning end but Granlund fits their timeline better.  Virtanen and Fiala were drafted the same year.   They are more likely to try and find someone in free agency than make a trade and break up their D-corps.  He also has to consider Ekholm hitting UFA status in 2 years.

 

They can't really afford anyone in FA. One of Granlund/Smith has got to go. Josi makes 9M next year. They probably part with Bonino too the following year but they have good enough C prospects to compensate. TBH it would be better for them to part with both Granlund and Smith if they wanted to retain Ekholm. So they're in a bit of a pickle if they don't cheaper forward-wise. IMO they probably make a deal with Seattle to take Turris.

 

They have a couple of good RD prospectsbehind Fabbro so they could afford to move him for a guy like Virtanen though they might want Stecher as a stop gap for those players. that might mess with us if we can't sign Tanev.

 

It also sounds like Poile is capable of jumping the gun and changing his mind on players. Fiala was traded during an off-year and Subban was traded after one. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for JB to see where's at in regards to any sort of deal. Could end up well for us.

Edited by Junkyard Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

They can't really afford anyone in FA. One of Granlund/Smith has got to go. Josi makes 9M next year. They probably part with Bonino too the following year but they have good enough C prospects to compensate. TBH it would be better for them to part with both Granlund and Smith if they wanted to retain Ekholm. So they're in a bit of a pickle if they don't cheaper forward-wise. IMO they probably make a deal with Seattle to take Turris.

 

They have a couple of good RD prospectsbehind Fabbro so they could afford to move him for a guy like Virtanen though they might want Stecher as a stop gap for those players. that might mess with us if we can't sign Tanev.

 

It also sounds like Poile is capable of jumping the gun and changing his mind on players. Fiala was traded during an off-year and Subban was traded after one. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for JB to see where's at in regards to any sort of deal. Could end up well for us.

 

Fabbro is still on an ELC.  He is cheaper than Virtanen and Stecher combined.  The Predators are not going to bring in Stecher at his cost.  Their 3rd pairing D gets league minimum - they barely play.  

 

Alex Carrier went through waivers last year - they weren't afraid of losing him.  He's not a replacement for Fabbro.

 

The Predators want to compete now.  Poile is getting older and wants a Cup.  He says it takes at least 4 years to develop Ds - was his argument for drafting Ds the year they took Fabbro. Fabbro is already in the NHL.  Prospects might not turn out.  Poile says his philosophy is to build from the net out.  He's not giving up a D that they think will become a top-4 D.  Cannot see them giving Josi a 9M deal and then break up their D-corps when they don't know if they can bring Ekholm back in a couple of years.


Vingan covers the Predators he thinks that cap wise they can bring back one of Granlund or Smith fairly easily.  They really don't need to bring back both with him arguing that Trenin and others need spots to play too.  Nashville could buy out Turris to create an additional 4M in cap space.  Poile has bought out a lot of players in past years. 

 

I don't think Virtanen has that much trade value. Among other reasons simply because it's a flat cap and he has arbitration rights.  The hearings are after free agency and teams can't walk away if the award is under some 4M or so.  Teams could be forced into clearing cap late in the off-season to fit him in.  Poile also doesn't like arbitration because he likes to use the Nashville dollar argument - life is cheaper and less taxation so players should agree to take less.  Can't argue that in arbitration.

 

Drance has also been arguing that Virtanen's numbers are not sustainable and that there is more in player evaluation now than just looking at production.  Fwiw Hynes is very much into advanced stats and Poile has always involved his coach in trades in the past.

 

Poile did not want to trade Subban but he really wanted Duchene - they had to clear cap space.  He also said that if Fabbro had not had his showing at the World and in those 10 NHL games he wouldn't have made the trade.  It's only because Fabbro showed so well that he felt comfortable their D could still be a strength of the team. 

 

He traded Fiala because there was a lack of consistency - would be the same issue with Virtanen.  He made the bet that he would be a 30 goal scorer but felt he needed more development time.  Granlund was already consistent and producing.  Even after the trade Poile admitted that they could hear about it for years to come because Fiala is still so young.  Granlund simply fit their age group better.

 

Edited by mll
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dpn1 said:

Hey Guys, if you keep talking to a fool, he won't stop.  Maybe we could return to talking about Jake. B)

Hard to believe all this $&!# over a player that mishandled the puck and got frustrated and threw a hit. You guys have zero evidence to back up your claims other than a 30 second clip. People that think they know every thing don't need proof i guess.

Edited by Timbermen
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

Nashville might be a target for some sort of deal like this. With both right wingers Smith(4.25M) and Granlund(5.75M) being UFAs they could use a cheaper option at RW in the top 9.

 

They got two similar D in Fabbro and Carrier. Both offensive/smaller right handers. Fabbro has more potential but Carrier has gotten better statistically year by year in the AHL. I would definitely target Fabbro. They have another RD prospect in Allard too, overall good pool and they might be able to afford to ship a guy like Fabbro out.

 

Preds and Canucks could be good partners.

You're not going to get Fabbro with Virtanen. Especially, when Virtanen is due for a raise. It would be more like Virtanen and Woo/Joulevi for Fabbro. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, theo5789 said:

 

I think the concept is good, but I don't think many teams have that type of player to sell. 

As I said:

 

9 hours ago, aGENT said:

Good place to start would be to look at teams bound to lose a D in the upcoming expansion draft but lacking forwards ;)

 

As for his value. I think Virtanen has decent enough value next season to bring back a young D that's currently a 2nd/3rd pair tweener, trending to a 2nd pair guy in his prime.

 

Especially if we package him with a Brisebois or similar (to take off some of the sting of losing a young D). Might even be able to remove the 'tweener' label with the right package and have a small chance of even becoming a #2B/3A level D (similar level to Tanev) in his prime. I'm not expecting a 'Parayko' (as nice as that would be).

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kloubek said:

Please. How many chances has he had? Heck, Green even had him on the top line.

 

He has also had multiple training camps too where he has failed to meet (not unreasonable) expectations.

 

Don't talk to me about chances. Jake has had plenty.

So what you're saying is im right hahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, aGENT said:

As I said:

 

As for his value. I think Virtanen has decent enough value next season to bring back a young D that's currently a 2nd/3rd pair tweener, trending to a 2nd pair guy in his prime.

 

Especially if we package him with a Brisebois or similar (to take off some of the sting of losing a young D). Might even be able to remove the 'tweener' label with the right package and have a small chance of even becoming a #2B/3A level D (similar level to Tanev) in his prime. I'm not expecting a 'Parayko' (as nice as that would be).

I think the limiting factors here are "inexpensive", "young" and "potential top 4 D". Inexpensive holds value right now with the stagnant cap, everyone in the league knows this and knows which teams need cap relief. Young limits from the age group that are automatically protected as they are worth gold prior to an expansion and to an age where if they haven't started making strides in the NHL, they are projects that are higher risk at not panning out. If they have that potential top 4 D label, they are much more of a valued commodity than say a middle 6 winger. The more established they are, their value keeps going up based on position. If you take the high risk/high reward route, then you might be able to squeeze more value and hope the player pans out, but no guarantees and could also fall flat on your face.

 

Not I get what you're saying in trying to find a situation that works for both sides and I haven't done the research thoroughly here on that, but I feel like there aren't exactly a lot of options. But like I mentioned, Jokiharju (off the top of my head) might be the best bet as he's young, on his ELC still and currently on Buffalo's bottom pairing but has that "potential". Buffalo has 4 RD and barring any changes, they will have to protect Risto, Montour, McCabe, and Dahlin, which puts them in a bind to protect Jokiharju as well whichever route they choose to protect through the expansion. There is a scenario where protect 5 dmen and leave Middlestadt, Olofsson, Vesey and Tage Thompson exposed which they might consider though. If they acquire Virtanen, I'd assume they would want to protect him, which still leaves them with the decision to expose McCabe or those same forwards.

 

Anyway, I get and agree with your value assessment, I just don't know if there is a trade available that fits. Even if we got a "Parayko", we would have to work around his cap still which also likely means Toffoli can't stay. So we would lose both Virtanen and Toffoli in that (also unlikely) scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think the limiting factors here are "inexpensive", "young" and "potential top 4 D". Inexpensive holds value right now with the stagnant cap, everyone in the league knows this and knows which teams need cap relief. Young limits from the age group that are automatically protected as they are worth gold prior to an expansion and to an age where if they haven't started making strides in the NHL, they are projects that are higher risk at not panning out. If they have that potential top 4 D label, they are much more of a valued commodity than say a middle 6 winger. The more established they are, their value keeps going up based on position. If you take the high risk/high reward route, then you might be able to squeeze more value and hope the player pans out, but no guarantees and could also fall flat on your face.

 

Not I get what you're saying in trying to find a situation that works for both sides and I haven't done the research thoroughly here on that, but I feel like there aren't exactly a lot of options. But like I mentioned, Jokiharju (off the top of my head) might be the best bet as he's young, on his ELC still and currently on Buffalo's bottom pairing but has that "potential". Buffalo has 4 RD and barring any changes, they will have to protect Risto, Montour, McCabe, and Dahlin, which puts them in a bind to protect Jokiharju as well whichever route they choose to protect through the expansion. There is a scenario where protect 5 dmen and leave Middlestadt, Olofsson, Vesey and Tage Thompson exposed which they might consider though. If they acquire Virtanen, I'd assume they would want to protect him, which still leaves them with the decision to expose McCabe or those same forwards.

 

Anyway, I get and agree with your value assessment, I just don't know if there is a trade available that fits. Even if we got a "Parayko", we would have to work around his cap still which also likely means Toffoli can't stay. So we would lose both Virtanen and Toffoli in that (also unlikely) scenario.

Well Virtanen still has (relatively) affordable, young, middle 6 etc going for him as well. I don't think he's going to cost as much as some people fear (albeit likely only on a 1 year extension). Between covid and his maturity/commitment issues, I'll be pretty surprised if he's over $2.5m. Granted, that's not ELC cheap but it's still pretty affordable for what he brings, never mind his upside with perhaps additional opportunity (and maybe some maturity/wake up after being traded and sent away from his home town and crew).

 

As for the risk factor, that's where Benning and Co can put there scouting money where their scouting mouth is ;) Fingers crossed (though not expecting) for something like the JT Miller trade. I'm confident they can find someone with minimal risk/potential reward.

 

Sabres are a good option as you note. Perhaps Boston as well (I'd target Vaakanainen... even if a lefty). IIRC Carolina still has loads of right D depth ( though I haven't had time to look in to it for specifics). Benning has encyclopedic knowledge of team depth charts, I'm sure he'll find a few options that fit the bill.

 

Yeah and as @Junkyard Dog eluded to last page, as nice as a 'Parayko' would be for the roster, it doesn't work with our cap management. I think we're all in agreement there.

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bree2 said:

why is it that some on here like to think our players have no value,  Fabbro is okay but not great,  Benning would be crazy to give Woo/Juolevi and Jake for just Fabbro.

Because there's a number of people who hate Jake with a passion and if you say otherwise you'll be ridiculed, harassed and insulted by the angry mob. 

 

No wonder they burned their own city down after 2011.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Well Virtanen still has (relatively) affordable, young, middle 6 etc going for him as well. I don't think he's going to cost as much as some people fear (albeit likely only on a 1 year extension). Between covid and his maturity/commitment issues, I'll be pretty surprised if he's over $2.5m. Granted, that's not ELC cheap but it's still pretty affordable for what he brings, never mind his upside with perhaps additional opportunity (and maybe some maturity/wake up after being traded and sent away from his home town and crew).

 

As for the risk factor, that's where Benning and Co can put there scouting money where their scouting mouth is ;) Fingers crossed (though not expecting) for something like the JT Miller trade. I'm confident they can find someone with minimal risk/potential reward.

 

Sabres are a good option as you note. Perhaps Boston as well (I'd target Vaakanainen... even if a lefty). IIRC Carolina still has loads of right D depth ( though I haven't had time to look in to it for specifics). Benning has encyclopedic knowledge of team depth charts, I'm sure he'll find a few options that fit the bill.

 

Yeah and as @Junkyard Dog eluded to last page, as nice as a 'Parayko' would be for the roster, it doesn't work with our cap management. I think we're all in agreement there.

Yes I don't think Jake gets more than 2.5 either as I've projected in other threads, but that is also potential added value if he stays here in that he could potentially break out into a 2nd line RW role and 2.5 is cheap. If it's a one year deal and he does blossom, that only bumps his trade value higher if we can afford his next raise and he's still an RFA under our control. The positive things going for him in a trade are also what makes him attractive to keep for us in our cap situation as well.

 

With that said, Vaakanainen is expansion exempt and as you've alluded to is a LD that we are privileged to have depth in already. Boston has Pastrnak, Bergeron, Marchand, Coyle, DeBrusk, Kase, and Nick Ritchie to protect on forward as is right now (assuming Krejci does the Edler UFA thing). They probably protect McAvoy, Carlo and probably Krug if they can afford to re-sign him on D and that's really all they need to concern themselves with which make Vaakanainen all that more important to them. Adding Jake puts them in trouble of a forward that needs protection. Doesn't seem like a fit here with that consideration.

 

Carolina does have an abundance of dmen and some forwards that they need to protect. However their dmen are on the pricier end of things and would "Parayko" our cap. I suspect they will want to keep their exempt RD in Keane and Kaski should they lose a dman in expansion.

 

When you start eliminating teams where a Virtanen for a young potential top 4 RD trade makes sense, then there aren't a whole lot of options. I trust that if there is a deal to be made that JB will indeed find it, but I'm not seeing it yet. Even Jokiharju is a left handed RD, so like I said before, we could've just bit the bullet on Tryamkin (who is a left handed RD) which would've boosted the Stecher spot and we could've opened up the options on a Jake trade if we wanted to go that route anyway. Jokiharju would be a million cheaper than a potential Tryamkin signing, but that's putting all your eggs in that one basket and who knows if we can even pull that trade off. I don't think that if we are looking to make a trade with Jake that it would be to bolster that RD spot. I could see him as the sweetener for a cap dump though, but again why not just sign Tryamkin (his cap would likely be where we would hope a player that Jake fetches would be around) then if we are making cap space (as I still don't think it would clear enough cap to sign a Toffoli as I still think Tanev needs to be locked up in this scenario)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Yes I don't think Jake gets more than 2.5 either as I've projected in other threads, but that is also potential added value if he stays here in that he could potentially break out into a 2nd line RW role and 2.5 is cheap. If it's a one year deal and he does blossom, that only bumps his trade value higher if we can afford his next raise and he's still an RFA under our control. The positive things going for him in a trade are also what makes him attractive to keep for us in our cap situation as well.

 

With that said, Vaakanainen is expansion exempt and as you've alluded to is a LD that we are privileged to have depth in already. Boston has Pastrnak, Bergeron, Marchand, Coyle, DeBrusk, Kase, and Nick Ritchie to protect on forward as is right now (assuming Krejci does the Edler UFA thing). They probably protect McAvoy, Carlo and probably Krug if they can afford to re-sign him on D and that's really all they need to concern themselves with which make Vaakanainen all that more important to them. Adding Jake puts them in trouble of a forward that needs protection. Doesn't seem like a fit here with that consideration.

 

Carolina does have an abundance of dmen and some forwards that they need to protect. However their dmen are on the pricier end of things and would "Parayko" our cap. I suspect they will want to keep their exempt RD in Keane and Kaski should they lose a dman in expansion.

 

When you start eliminating teams where a Virtanen for a young potential top 4 RD trade makes sense, then there aren't a whole lot of options. I trust that if there is a deal to be made that JB will indeed find it, but I'm not seeing it yet. Even Jokiharju is a left handed RD, so like I said before, we could've just bit the bullet on Tryamkin (who is a left handed RD) which would've boosted the Stecher spot and we could've opened up the options on a Jake trade if we wanted to go that route anyway. Jokiharju would be a million cheaper than a potential Tryamkin signing, but that's putting all your eggs in that one basket and who knows if we can even pull that trade off. I don't think that if we are looking to make a trade with Jake that it would be to bolster that RD spot. I could see him as the sweetener for a cap dump though, but again why not just sign Tryamkin (his cap would likely be where we would hope a player that Jake fetches would be around) then if we are making cap space (as I still don't think it would clear enough cap to sign a Toffoli as I still think Tanev needs to be locked up in this scenario)?

I think Vaakanainen is exempt now but won't likely be after next season. Similar to Tryamkin if he'd signed here (exempt now, wouldn't have been with next season's games played).

 

But fair enough on the other issues. He does speak to the level of D we'd be looking for IMO though.

 

And yes, we may still bring Tryamkin back next summer and make a right D less of a requirement. And perhaps that means Jake goes for a cap dump (Eriksson) and/or picks/prospects instead, as you mention.

 

Either way, I'll be pretty surprised if Jake is still a Canuck a couple years from now. Whatever form the return is in.

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This really discredits your opinion.

 

So don't do it.

 

None of "us" burned down our city and I'd guess none of us "hate" Jake.  

 

Please try to present a reasonable opinion without stereotyping like this.  It offers nothing.

People losing their minds over something not going their way and people losing there minds over a differing opinion. 

 

Doesnt seem that outrageous to say the two might be related.

 

I never said it was you, unless "us" means the people in Van because it did happen.

 

Stating facts doesnt discredit me. It may hurt feelings but I didn't point at anyone and say you did it.

 

Stereotyping and me saying they burned their city down isnt the same. Someone did burn the city down. People who couldn't handle a loss. They.

 

Rather than mob mentality attacking a person/city with a result you dont like, or a different opinion, people should learn to listen/react without flying off handles. 

 

I am happy to say I dont agree with the people who burnt down Van and I wont try to hide them or protect them.

Edited by Moose Nuckle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...