avelanch

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

A good reason to trade Virtanen over Boeser is that we are in a better position to have a younger cheaper and promising RD on our roster rather than a top 4 D for Boeser since we have Tanev/Stecher available to sign. 

 

It helps our roster long-term more so.

Don't know if it helps our roster more, but it certainly helps our cap management.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to trade for a 'Parayko' :wub: but the cap he's going to require to retain...:wacko:

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

I was thinking more along the lines of he would get you a projected top 4 dman prospect, which is a high risk prospect, like Juolevi. You'd prob also get a 3rd or 4th round pick coming back as well. Defensemen have shown to cost a fortune to acquire. You need a topline centre to trade for a good defenseman a 1/2 guy. 

That makes more sense. Top 4 D are very difficult to find. Hard to find an exact replica of Juolevi given his pedigree but I get your overall point you are making.  There are some young D maybe like a Jake Bean or I would say Travis Sanheim but he's proven to be a very effective player already. Hmm. I would hate to move Jake for someone that doesn't pan out. Almost need someone with a high floor to make a comfortable swap without fear. We need a high end RHD to play with Hughes. A Merkley would be a fun gamble but he has character issues apparently and this regime is very clearly against players with that reputation. 

Share this post


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

Don't know if it helps our roster more, but it certainly helps our cap management.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to trade for a 'Parayko' :wub: but the cap he's going to require to retain...:wacko:

Helps with the roster moving forward, long-term. Adding a promising RD would help balance out our future at D. The kid would have to pan out though. We'd probably get a good pick too.

 

Overall Trading Virtanen for a younger cheaper D with potential is the only logical move given our options with Tanev/Stecher as a stop gap top 4 RD, circumstances with the cap and with the lack of promising RH shots on our D pool.

 

If we decided to trade someone.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

That makes more sense. Top 4 D are very difficult to find. Hard to find an exact replica of Juolevi given his pedigree but I get your overall point you are making.  There are some young D maybe like a Jake Bean or I would say Travis Sanheim but he's proven to be a very effective player already. Hmm. I would hate to move Jake for someone that doesn't pan out. Almost need someone with a high floor to make a comfortable swap without fear. We need a high end RHD to play with Hughes. A Merkley would be a fun gamble but he has character issues apparently and this regime is very clearly against players with that reputation. 

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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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 ;)

 

Very good point. Capfriendly would be a good resource! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes 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 ;)

 

 

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.

Edited by Junkyard Dog
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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.

Cheers. A guy like Fabbro would work nicely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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...

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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). 

 

 

Share this post


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. 

 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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...