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

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW


avelanch

Recommended Posts

For a third liner, all he really needs is to be a bit  better defensively and use his body more (to help win board battles). As a top-6, he definitely would have to be more consistent and creative or gutsy (net presence).

 

If the price is right, then we've got a good one. 3M is fair, but our current cap issues do make it harder to keep him.

 

I would personally rather see Pearson moved, as I feel he is going to really fall next season.

Edited by c00kies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2020 at 1:30 AM, Provost said:

Ya, he hasn’t had linear improvement there “bro”.  It is the opposite, you clearly are only paying attention to overall point totals by season and not actually paying attention to actual game by game performance.

 

He had worse production for most of the season than his career average.  That isn’t linear improvement.  He literally had one statistical bulge of amazing performance at a 1st line rate.  When you are only looking at his season totals, that hides the rest of the year which was pretty dismal.... including the last part of the season and the playoffs.

 

For six weeks we saw what Jake could be if he just did as he was told by coaching staff.  He used his size and speed to drive to the net and even made a few good passing plays.  That is the guy we drafted.

 

Unfortunately that was sandwiched between a horrible start and finish to the season as well as a bad playoff showing.  In those times he went back to “perimeter Jake” where he predictably got angled off, away from the middle of the ice and then just circled behind the net before giving up the puck. 
 

So, folks have to believe if he is going to be the six week Jake or the 5 years of history Jake.  

To be honest, your comment really applies to you more than me. You clearly only focused on points and not overall development. I never said he wasn't streaky cause he is but clearly that's all you focus on. So no point in discussing :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

To be honest, your comment really applies to you more than me. You clearly only focused on points and not overall development. I never said he wasn't streaky cause he is but clearly that's all you focus on. So no point in discussing :/


Ahhh... now you are using the “I am rubber, you are glue” line of reasoning... 

 

You made a trite comment when I suggested that he hadn’t made “linear improvement”.  I provided evidence for my statement.

 

I am not sure how you take 5 years of history and dismiss it as focussing only on “points”.  
 

He hasn’t had linear improvement at all.  Being “streaky” as you say with horrible play for half a season or more does not equate to that.

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:


Ahhh... now you are using the “I am rubber, you are glue” line of reasoning... 

 

You made a trite comment when I suggested that he hadn’t made “linear improvement”.  I provided evidence for my statement.

 

I am not sure how you take 5 years of history and dismiss it as focussing only on “points”.  
 

He hasn’t had linear improvement at all.  Being “streaky” as you say with horrible play for half a season or more does not equate to that.

OK man, your bias is kind of boring thou. If you think he is horrible during other parts of the season, then there is really nothing much to discuss. IMO, you seem to only base whether a player is good or not is merely on points. 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Law of Goalies said:

OK man, your bias is kind of boring thou. If you think he is horrible during other parts of the season, then there is really nothing much to discuss. IMO, you seem to only base whether a player is good or not is merely on points. 

If they are bad defensively like Jake... ya, then points are pretty important...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess points and defense is a good argument for any player. If a player could score 100 pts., but be on  for 80 pts. against, how much value would you put in that players ability to score? His value is only worth 20 pts value?

A 100 pt player looks pretty, but in that case certainly not worth the money paying for 100 pts

Doubtful there has been such a scoring player, as they would be in the doghouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I guess points and defense is a good argument for any player. If a player could score 100 pts., but be on  for 80 pts. against, how much value would you put in that players ability to score? His value is only worth 20 pts value?

A 100 pt player looks pretty, but in that case certainly not worth the money paying for 100 pts

Doubtful there has been such a scoring player, as they would be in the doghouse

 

I guess possibly that's how Rob Brown ended up in the minors in the prime of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2020 at 2:32 PM, N7Nucks said:

If y'all think Jake is bad defensively you must be in love with his linemates' defensive stats. Hell they were hard to watch, let alone throwing in their underlying defensive stats. But nope, we don't bring up Gaudette's dogsh*t defense, or Roussel's. Just Jake's. Jake is the only player expected to do literally everything on the ice. Score, hit, defend, fight. Gaudette can be a ghost defensively and physically but people still crown him Kesler 2.0. At what point do we hold his linemates accountable? Never? The hate boner CDC and Twitter have for Jake Virtanen never ceases to amaze me. 

Tell us how you really feel

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

So are we not qualifying any RFA's this year?  Sure hope at least Gaudette and Jake (even if we trade them)

I don't think Jake will be qualified, as that allows him to file for arbitration and could get us locked into paying him more money than we want. Could be wrong though.

 

Others may not be qualified if we want to try to get a new piece like OEL, Barrie, Dillon, etc. If we want to add any sort of new pieces, we're going to need to let a large number of pending UFAs and RFAs walk away to fit it all under the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

So are we not qualifying any RFA's this year?  Sure hope at least Gaudette and Jake (even if we trade them)

Will be shocked if Jake gets QO. It's not worth the risk of winding up with him being awarded a 3 million plus arbitration award.

 

Not Qualifying him, doesn't mean that we don't sign him again anyway, it just puts the Canucks in control of the offer. 1.3 million, one year, show me contract.

 

I don't think he's even tradeable right now, too much risk for any team in a flat cap.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was reported that JB was shopping Virt to no avail.  So qualifying him was the only choice or he is gone for nothing.

 

We will see if Virt is traded before the season begins or if he stays.  If he stays I hope he does everything he can to become the player he can be. If he fails again he will  not be a Canuck in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...