Sign in to follow this  
avelanch

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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%

Share this post


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". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.