avelanch

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

Recommended Posts

Just now, VegasCanuck said:

Unless they can sign him before Qualifying,they won't take the chance of being forced to accept a 3 million plus arbitration award on Jake.

 

Would you?

only if the cap was there and we somehow lost TT. You could still make a deal for Jake 50% retained and get a good asset back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

only if the cap was there and we somehow lost TT. You could still make a deal for Jake 50% retained and get a good asset back. 

You're working from the assumption that there won't be a glut of middle six forwards looking for contracts in 3 weeks. Why would you take the chance of needing to retain 1.5 million or more in a flat cap, it's not good cap management. I think Jake would have a hard time this off season, finding a team that would risk more than 1.5 per season on him, due to inconsistent play. 

 

Go through CapFriendly and notice how many teams have cap problems due to inflated contracts and then think and realize,how many teams will likely stay at an internal cap this yeas, below the league cap due to reduced revenues.

 

I think he would resign at his current cap, to stay in Vancouver, and if not, take your pick of which free agent, mid 20s player would love to join a team with the amount of talent that Vancouver has.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Unless they can sign him before Qualifying,they won't take the chance of being forced to accept a 3 million plus arbitration award on Jake.

 

Would you?

Nope

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

You're working from the assumption that there won't be a glut of middle six forwards looking for contracts in 3 weeks. Why would you take the chance of needing to retain 1.5 million or more in a flat cap, it's not good cap management. I think Jake would have a hard time this off season, finding a team that would risk more than 1.5 per season on him, due to inconsistent play. 

 

Go through CapFriendly and notice how many teams have cap problems due to inflated contracts and then think and realize,how many teams will likely stay at an internal cap this yeas, below the league cap due to reduced revenues.

 

I think he would resign at his current cap, to stay in Vancouver, and if not, take your pick of which free agent, mid 20s player would love to join a team with the amount of talent that Vancouver has.

 

I see Jared McCann signed for 2.9 million X 2 yrs - same point total as Jake ...Jake would of scored 20 goals this year 24 yrs old some team will be excited to bring in Jake 6'1, 220 big guy that can really move.. If we are not going to sign him we have to try and trade least get something for him...

Burakovsky 24, 6'3 - traded to Colorado from Washington new team his career turned around 20 goals last year...This guy did nothing in Washington for 4 yrs..

Think trade will be Jakes wake up call and you will then see 20 goal guy 45 points... Shame it never happened in Vancouver..

I really feel Jake was given opportunity, Jake need the work ethic, drive and discipline ...

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, wildcam said:

I see Jared McCann signed for 2.9 million X 2 yrs - same point total as Jake ...Jake would of scored 20 goals this year 24 yrs old some team will be excited to bring in Jake 6'1, 220 big guy that can really move.. If we are not going to sign him we have to try and trade least get something for him...

Burakovsky 24, 6'3 - traded to Colorado from Washington new team his career turned around 20 goals last year...This guy did nothing in Washington for 4 yrs..

Think trade will be Jakes wake up call and you will then see 20 goal guy 45 points... Shame it never happened in Vancouver..

I really feel Jake was given opportunity, Jake need the work ethic, drive and discipline ...

This exactly. I actually feel that he will be back next season on a 1 yr show me, deal for about what he's making now. With the plethora of players about to become available, he'll have trouble getting better anywhere else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t sell low on a player. That’s the worst way to build a team.

 

Im sure him and his agent will realize this is the best place for his development and get him on another smaller 1 or 2 year deal to prove himself.

 

If he has another 20-25 goal season then you can sell high on him if you want. Or maybe in the next couple years he figures it out and becomes a real player for us.

 

Now is not the time to sell though.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 1:28 PM, Pete M said:

Neely was only 21 years old when he was traded...he was a power forward and star player for Portland in junior (I remembered watching him play and happy that Vcr drafted him). To the contrary, he was doing well with the Canucks as a 21 year old player...it was just a stupid trade at the time...it definitely was a wtf moment.

 

On the other hand, Jake is not Cam Neely...not even in the same ball park as Neely.Capture.PNG.c671fccafd3c4cd2a796be995c601df6.PNG

 

 

Interestingly, it looks like Neely was performing worse year after year with Vancouver and for those that care, was -30 in that last year. Not justifying it, but the trend was really negative. Also had only two playoff points (goals) in 7 games.

Share this post


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

You don’t sell low on a player. That’s the worst way to build a team.

 

Im sure him and his agent will realize this is the best place for his development and get him on another smaller 1 or 2 year deal to prove himself.

Wouldn't trading him now be the very definition of selling high? 

 

8 hours ago, DeNiro said:

If he has another 20-25 goal season then you can sell high on him if you want. Or maybe in the next couple years he figures it out and becomes a real player for us.

 

Now is not the time to sell though.

Another? I'm a believer of only giving players credit for milestones they've actually accomplished, even if we're talking about shortened seasons. 

 

All in all, I think you're banking on him trending up, which I think is quite the gamble, especially if arbitration makes us sign him at around $3 million+ in a flat cap and with numerous contracts that still need to be signed this year and next. 

Edited by guntrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DeNiro said:

You don’t sell low on a player. That’s the worst way to build a team.

 

Im sure him and his agent will realize this is the best place for his development and get him on another smaller 1 or 2 year deal to prove himself.

 

If he has another 20-25 goal season then you can sell high on him if you want. Or maybe in the next couple years he figures it out and becomes a real player for us.

 

Now is not the time to sell though.

Your wrong now is the time to sell ether pay for arbitration or package him for a right Dman or a draft pick. 3 million in arbitration is a lot to pay for someone who plays half the time. The only way you are going to get the most out of Virtanen is to fire Green. And I cant see that happening

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DeNiro said:

You don’t sell low on a player. That’s the worst way to build a team.

 

Im sure him and his agent will realize this is the best place for his development and get him on another smaller 1 or 2 year deal to prove himself.

 

If he has another 20-25 goal season then you can sell high on him if you want. Or maybe in the next couple years he figures it out and becomes a real player for us.

 

Now is not the time to sell though.

You're trying to over simplify this with saying don't sell low. That might have worked before the cap, but now, managing your space effectively is how you build a winner.

 

If you have someone who could be awarded a 3.5 to 4 million Arbitration ruling and you would be forced to accept it, you walk away if he is as inconsistent as Jake has been.

 

Personally,I love the potential he has, but you can't get locked into contracts based on potential in a cap that will likely be flat for the next 2 to 3 years. I'm not sure fans are really getting this point. The cap will likely remain at 81.5 for at least 2 seasons, possibly as many as 4. They built in cost  recovery for owner investment, but that won't start until fans can return to buildings. That is minimum of 12 months away.

 

Teams will protect themselves this off season,as they should.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DeNiro said:

You don’t sell low on a player. That’s the worst way to build a team.

 

Im sure him and his agent will realize this is the best place for his development and get him on another smaller 1 or 2 year deal to prove himself.

 

If he has another 20-25 goal season then you can sell high on him if you want. Or maybe in the next couple years he figures it out and becomes a real player for us.

 

Now is not the time to sell though.

Except, the numbers suggest this is selling high on Virtanen.  He didn’t show linear improvement year over year, he had a short heater in the middle of the season where he produced at a high rate and racked up some points.
 

If he was on our roster next year, he presumably wouldn’t get PP time like he did last year as Boeser and Toffoli will have pushed him off it.  That represented a good portion of his goals that disappear going forward.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake had 2 points playing on Petey's line in one game. The rest of the playoffs he had one point in 16 games.

 

I can see pros and cons in moving on from him - and expect the organization to internally have a clearer view on this - but in the current cap world there is no way we can allow him to get to arbitration and be rewarded around 3 mil, so qualifying him is out of the question.

 

If I were to guess I'd say he signs a 1-2 year deal around 2 mil before we have to qualify him and then he's traded before next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 11:44 PM, Provost said:

Except, the numbers suggest this is selling high on Virtanen.  He didn’t show linear improvement year over year, he had a short heater in the middle of the season where he produced at a high rate and racked up some points.
 

If he was on our roster next year, he presumably wouldn’t get PP time like he did last year as Boeser and Toffoli will have pushed him off it.  That represented a good portion of his goals that disappear going forward.

You lost me when you said he hasn't had linear improvement, bro, watch the game and don't just read articles and read forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Law of Goalies said:

You lost me when you said he hasn't had linear improvement, bro, watch the game and don't just read articles and read forums.

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.  

Edited by Provost
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Benning's comments and recent rumours, it seems reasonably likely that Virtanen's time as a Canucks is over. 

 

I still like Virtanen and think he showed relatively well over the season. He was seeing plays and making moves that we haven't seen him do before. This year he seemed a bit more confident in slowing down and trying to make something happen. His wraparound goal against Arizona is an example of this; I don't think he would have even attempted that play in the past. He still brings value as a bottom 6 contributor and someone who can carry the puck up the ice with speed. 

 

The inconsistency in effort levels are a definite problem though and it seems like it won't be possible to adjust that in Vancouver. He's grown too comfortable in his role and he's obviously comfortable in the city. Ideally I would like to keep him, but I won't lose sleep over losing him either. I've pretty much made the separation in my mind already. It just sucks that our two BC boys (Virtanen and Stetcher) both might be on different teams next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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 :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.