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

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

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.

Level of D, sure, but still a LD which we aren't in a need of, so don't see why we need to move a Jake for him for that reason. You draft the BPA regardless of position, but in trades, you're looking to bolster your roster in areas of need. Didn't consider that Urho would no longer be exempt after next season, so will be interesting to see if they protect him along with McAvoy and Carlo.

 

I have no problem moving on from Jake sometime in the future barring an incredible uptick in performance, but right now he has value when considering his performance to cap, which is beneficial if he gives us a "hometown discount" to stay and hopefully continues to improve. I'm not all too urgent to move him.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Level of D, sure, but still a LD which we aren't in a need of, so don't see why we need to move a Jake for him for that reason. You draft the BPA regardless of position, but in trades, you're looking to bolster your roster in areas of need. Didn't consider that Urho would no longer be exempt after next season, so will be interesting to see if they protect him along with McAvoy and Carlo.

 

I have no problem moving on from Jake sometime in the future barring an incredible uptick in performance, but right now he has value when considering his performance to cap, which is beneficial if he gives us a "hometown discount" to stay and hopefully continues to improve. I'm not all too urgent to move him.

Very true, if there's a glaring need, he's a valuable asset that just might be useful in a trade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

Very true, if there's a glaring need, he's a valuable asset that just might be useful in a trade.

Yes and I feel like his value/performance is climbing. Need to gauge when that peak would be to pull that trigger. Maybe a solid playoff performance is the time, but then again, that is also something that we would have to value if we are serious about winning in the playoffs in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

Yes and I feel like his value/performance is climbing. Need to gauge when that peak would be to pull that trigger. Maybe a solid playoff performance is the time, but then again, that is also something that we would have to value if we are serious about winning in the playoffs in the future.

I would think a good playoff performance would make him extremely hard to trade from an improvement standpoint. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

There is no way that Jake Virtanen is landing Dante Fabbro. FIrst off he is 22 years old, 2 years younger than Jake. Second, He is a Dman who is already playing top 4 minutes in the NHL - these guys take awhile to develop. He has a much higher ceiling than Virtanen.  Third he is exempt from the expansion lottery. Therefore, Nashville has no reason to trade him and they also need him... Fourth, They don't need Jake Virtanen. No way Nashville is making this trade unless they are getting a good D prospect back. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

I would think a good playoff performance would make him extremely hard to trade from an improvement standpoint. 

But would that be the peak of his value in which to capitalize? Wing is a position of strength right now and if we can peak value trade him to bolster a position of need, then that is also favourable to us. It's certainly something I'd consider if the right deal can be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

But would that be the peak of his value in which to capitalize? Wing is a position of strength right now and if we can peak value trade him to bolster a position of need, then that is also favourable to us. It's certainly something I'd consider if the right deal can be made.

It's a gamble. Assuming it's his peak and he'll never do it again when he's only 23 is a bold gamble once he's already done it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

It's a gamble. Assuming it's his peak and he'll never do it again when he's only 23 is a bold gamble once he's already done it.

You have to trade a good piece to get a good one back. Maximizing the value on wing to bolster a position of need is not a bad gamble to take. Not saying I'd do it, just saying it's something I'd consider and wouldn't write off completely.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

You have to trade a good piece to get a good one back. Maximizing the value on wing to bolster a position of need is not a bad gamble to take. Not saying I'd do it, just saying it's something I'd consider and wouldn't write off completely.

100%

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moose Nuckle said:

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.

actually they don't hate Jake, they might not like that he is lazy sometimes, but no one person on here has said they hate Jake,  and you sound like a complete troll for saying  "no wonder they burned their own city down after 2011". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bree2 said:

actually they don't hate Jake, they might not like that he is lazy sometimes, but no one person on here has said they hate Jake,  and you sound like a complete troll for saying  "no wonder they burned their own city down after 2011". 

First off, this topic is FULL of Jake hate. If you can't see that, you are purposely not reading half the posts on here.

 

Not sure why people are getting so defensive of the morons who couldn't handle a result they didn't like. It did happen. I for one don't want it to happen again because it's something we as Canucks fans have to now live with for the rest of time. Any fan of any other team can hold it over us because it happened and it was pathetic. When I read people losing their marbles over how much they hate Jake, I can only imagine this mindset is what led to that debacle:

 

Edited by Moose Nuckle
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Level of D, sure, but still a LD which we aren't in a need of, so don't see why we need to move a Jake for him for that reason. You draft the BPA regardless of position, but in trades, you're looking to bolster your roster in areas of need.

I'd certainly prefer a right D but we'd hardly be the first team playing left D on the right side. A good player is a good player.

 

Quote

 

Didn't consider that Urho would no longer be exempt after next season, so will be interesting to see if they protect him along with McAvoy and Carlo.

Yeah there's quite a few good players bound to become eligible over the next season (assuming the is one).

 

Quote

I have no problem moving on from Jake sometime in the future barring an incredible uptick in performance, but right now he has value when considering his performance to cap, which is beneficial if he gives us a "hometown discount" to stay and hopefully continues to improve. I'm not all too urgent to move him.

I wouldn't say I'm urgent. I just see the writing on the wall. We have depth on wing, both in the short term/interim and coming up. And right in the third/sometimes second line slot he plays in. And those kids will do that at even less cap than 'home town discount' Jake.  So that's not a (big) selling point IMO.

 

It simply makes sense to translate him, and that value, in to other assets if he's not a long term fit here (IMO, he isn't).

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 8:31 AM, aGENT said:

 

He did get a pretty juicy, organic, heirloom carrot of top 6 time with Pettersson when playing well this season (as well as pp time). If Jake wants more 'carrot', he needs to stop largely only responding to 'stick' and take some added initiative and be more consistent and committed. Committed and hard working Jake gets fresh picked, organic heirloom carrots all day long. Immature, inconsistent Jake gets the stick.

 

As for this 'Boeser gets a pass' nonsense. Struggling because of injuries and family health issues is always going to get more of a 'pass' from fans, team mates and coaches than struggling because of a lack of commitment. Boeser may have struggled at points but his commitment and 'try' weren't ever in question. I'm not sure how that's remotely a mystery.

 

Jake package for Soderstrom you say? Yes please!

 

Unfortunately, with Chayka now gone, that's unlikely to happen :lol:

Not sure why you quoted me and said this, it's literally exactly what I said in the post before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bree2 said:

actually they don't hate Jake, they might not like that he is lazy sometimes, but no one person on here has said they hate Jake,  and you sound like a complete troll for saying  "no wonder they burned their own city down after 2011". 

Well, I for one can’t stand the guy (nothing to do with hockey) and I know others who feel the same. There’s something about him that really rubs some of us the wrong way. I realize I am setting myself up for abuse from at least one of his legion of devotees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mad Jon said:

Well, I for one can’t stand the guy (nothing to do with hockey) and I know others who feel the same. There’s something about him that really rubs some of us the wrong way. I realize I am setting myself up for abuse from at least one of his legion of devotees.

I appreciate your honesty, being called a liar wasnt ideal lol. Im a lot of things, but I'm not a liar. 

Edited by Moose Nuckle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Is this necessary? Borders on trolling at this point. Disliking Jake and the 2011 riot aren't remotely comparable. Those people in 2011 were not true fans. I may not like some people's opinions of Jake but I wouldn't come close to comparing them to 2011 rioters. Just seems like you're trying to upset people and re-direct them away from the actual topic at hand.

Just saying cooler heads prevail. Losing it results in living with the consequences. People got all mad so I articulated it more clearly. 

 

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

I'd certainly prefer a right D but we'd hardly be the first team playing left D on the right side. A good player is a good player.

 

Yeah there's quite a few good players bound to become eligible over the next season (assuming the is one).

 

I wouldn't say I'm urgent. I just see the writing on the wall. We have depth on wing, both in the short term/interim and coming up. And right in the third/sometimes second line slot he plays in. And those kids will do that at even less cap than 'home town discount' Jake.  So that's not a (big) selling point IMO.

 

It simply makes sense to translate him, and that value, in to other assets if he's not a long term fit here (IMO, he isn't).

If Jake can elevate his game on that discount, then you're laughing. If his asking price becomes too high after that, then you sell him while his value is high. Jake provides good value to cap at the moment and I suspect his next contract wouldn't be out of line for a 20 goal scoring 3rd liner with an opportunity to step into a bigger role (assuming Toffoli isn't back). I am comfortable with the idea of moving him as perhaps he's not part of the main core, but it's about selling him at the right time and for the right return.

 

We may already have to play an LD on the right side as it is. Adding to it creates more problems than it solves. Having Jake be a relatively cheap option potentially in the top 6 is a more beneficial solution to our cap and team.

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

If Jake can elevate his game on that discount, then you're laughing. If his asking price becomes too high after that, then you sell him while his value is high. Jake provides good value to cap at the moment and I suspect his next contract wouldn't be out of line for a 20 goal scoring 3rd liner with an opportunity to step into a bigger role (assuming Toffoli isn't back). I am comfortable with the idea of moving him as perhaps he's not part of the main core, but it's about selling him at the right time and for the right return.

 

We may already have to play an LD on the right side as it is. Adding to it creates more problems than it solves. Having Jake be a relatively cheap option potentially in the top 6 is a more beneficial solution to our cap and team.

And if he can't?

 

+/- 40 point, middle 6 Jake, on a cheap extension may never have more trade value than next year.

 

And we can easily survive without him, Toffoli or otherwise with existing personnel. And even cheaper, higher value prospects coming up after that. 

 

Either route has risks. Neither is inherently right or wrong. Again, either way, I have trouble seeing him here much part next year with Podkolzin, Lind and Hoglander all knocking on the door. Coaches players who are already looking like guys who 'buy in'.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And if he can't?

 

+/- 40 point, middle 6 Jake, on a cheap extension may never have more trade value than next year.

 

And we can easily survive without him, Toffoli or otherwise with existing personnel. And even cheaper, higher value prospects coming up after that. 

 

Either route has risks. Neither is inherently right or wrong. Again, either way, I have trouble seeing him here much part next year with Podkolzin, Lind and Hoglander all knocking on the door. Coaches players who are already looking like guys who 'buy in'.

I don't see how a 40 point guy is replaced by a door knocker, and I think assuming he maxed his potential at 23 is a pretty wild assumption. 

  • Upvote 1
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...