Jake Virtanen's next contract (Discussion)

[JM_]

14 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Well.... I do also remember how Demitra said that Bernier reminded him of Tkatchuk and how Mason Raymond reminded him a bit of Gaborik.  

touche. 

[Crabcakes]

16 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its tough. But to hear Miller talk about Jakes potential makes me think he could turn out to be a stud. 

Yes but he's only had one season where I thought he played decently.  0.5 ppg is the magic number for a top 6 forward and he finally did that this past season (0.52)  but he still hasn't put up 20 goals or 40 points.  The bigger issue I think is the consistency of his play.  

 

I'm going to draw a parallel with Baertschi because he's borderline top 6 as well.  He is a very different player but was putting up points at about a 0.55 rate and was rewarded with a lower end top 6 salary of $3.3M and now, when they've decided that he doesn't really fit with their future plans, that salary is a real hindrance to the team in terms of team cap and Baer in terms of a trade.  Over paying players is not doing them a favour.  Spiza was another one.

 

Jake needs a show me contract imo.  Where does Jake fit in this line up?  The players who are going to get paid are top 6, top 4 and the starting goalie and Jake is not there yet.  Paying the bottom 6 too much is going to get you in trouble and you won't be able to move them.  Paying him north of $3M is playing with fire.  2 years at $2.5 doubles his present cap hit and they won't have to renew until after Petey, Hughes and Demko are into their 2nd contracts.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Yes but he's only had one season where I thought he played decently.  0.5 ppg is the magic number for a top 6 forward and he finally did that this past season (0.52)  but he still hasn't put up 20 goals or 40 points.  The bigger issue I think is the consistency of his play.  

 

I'm going to draw a parallel with Baertschi because he's borderline top 6 as well.  He is a very different player but was putting up points at about a 0.55 rate and was rewarded with a lower end top 6 salary of $3.3M and now, when they've decided that he doesn't really fit with their future plans, that salary is a real hindrance to the team in terms of team cap and Baer in terms of a trade.  Over paying players is not doing them a favour.  Spiza was another one.

 

Jake needs a show me contract imo.  Where does Jake fit in this line up?  The players who are going to get paid are top 6, top 4 and the starting goalie and Jake is not there yet.  Paying the bottom 6 too much is going to get you in trouble and you won't be able to move them.  Paying him north of $3M is playing with fire.  2 years at $2.5 doubles his present cap hit and they won't have to renew until after Petey, Hughes and Demko are into their 2nd contracts.

If Jake stays, some people will be upset. If he's traded some people will be upset. Its one of those things the fan base will never be settled on imo.

 

Jake has shown he can fit really well all over the top 9 - thats pretty useful. But you're right he does disappear from time to time. 

 

I think this is one of the more difficult decisions since you're still banking on potential growth with Jake. 

[captaincowbasher]

There's no need to move any of these pieces. JB has always talked about 3 scoring lines. The elite teams in the NHL have just that. 

Miller- Petersson- Toffoli

Pearson/Hoglander- Horvat- Boeser

Pearson/Hoglander- Gaudette- Virtanen

This lineup is very much on the right track, and when iPod gets here JB will look to package up Pearson (who will probably be a 50pt. player), and a prospect, and or pick to bring in a top 4 defender like Dumba. 

This team is so close to being a legit contender

The real question is what to do with Tanev and Stecher? Is Rafferty ready to upgrade on Stecher, and can Tryamkin come in and be better then Fatenberg or Benn. Rathbone and Woo are a couple of years away.

[EdgarM]

38 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

If Jake stays, some people will be upset. If he's traded some people will be upset. Its one of those things the fan base will never be settled on imo.

 

Jake has shown he can fit really well all over the top 9 - thats pretty useful. But you're right he does disappear from time to time. 

 

I think this is one of the more difficult decisions since you're still banking on potential growth with Jake. 

Jake is one of those I would like to see in the post season. Yes he isn't consistent, at times, and I am wondering if this changes when the playoffs start. If he is like any other Canadian Hockey player, the Stanley Cup has got to be high on is list. That and his speed and his aggressive checking go a long way in the playoffs.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, captaincowbasher said:

There's no need to move any of these pieces. JB has always talked about 3 scoring lines. The elite teams in the NHL have just that. 

Miller- Petersson- Toffoli

Pearson/Hoglander- Horvat- Boeser

Pearson/Hoglander- Gaudette- Virtanen

This lineup is very much on the right track, and when iPod gets here JB will look to package up Pearson (who will probably be a 50pt. player), and a prospect, and or pick to bring in a top 4 defender like Dumba. 

This team is so close to being a legit contender

The real question is what to do with Tanev and Stecher? Is Rafferty ready to upgrade on Stecher, and can Tryamkin come in and be better then Fatenberg or Benn. Rathbone and Woo are a couple of years away.

Winnipeg showed you can still be competitive with the right system and some pretty big changes to the back end. Maybe letting Tanev walk is the right move, and leave that money for Tryamkin and some of Toffoli's salary. 

 

Edler-Stecher

Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Raffetty 

 

might be about as good as this years group, with Juolevi and Rathbone coming up in a year or two.

[Provost]

I don't know what his next contract will be.  Peter Dorion is known to be kind of stingy.

[Aussie_canuck44]

On 5/3/2020 at 1:40 PM, EdgarM said:

I would like to see who gives us the most in the playoffs. So tired of being great in the regular season and seeing all of our faults or weaknesses in the playoffs. I say we don't hand out any big contracts until we see what they can do in the post season. 

Pretty sure taffoli has some post season runs on the board... personally I’d like to keep all 3 of them let Tanev, leivo and stetcher walk replace with joluevi and rafferty as cheaper options

jake 2-3 at 3 mil

taff 4-5 at 5.5 mil

Markstrom 4 at 6 mil

potential trade come deadline next year if demko steps up so we don’t lose one of them come expansion draft

the Luongo recapture is really starting to hurt us now....

don’t get why we didn’t give up a 6th round pick for him and put him on ltir ie: hossa 

fingers crossed there’s some compliance buyouts if the cap stays level

[Provost]

On 5/3/2020 at 9:00 AM, Crabcakes said:

Yes but he's only had one season where I thought he played decently.  0.5 ppg is the magic number for a top 6 forward and he finally did that this past season (0.52) 

It actually looks worse when you break into the yearly average though.

 

This season he had a 6 week run at almost a point per game.  The rest of the season he was at around a .25-.33 PPG average. (20-30 point pace).

 

It apples to be a blip of great games rather than some sort of sustained linear improvement.  He was bad early in the season and bad later in the season.

 

You can’t hand out a contract based on him having a few good weeks.  If any other player showed those kinds of numbers and folks weren’t emotionally invested in them...  no way they commit to that player.  It screams of a situation where you trade the asset as you can probably get more in return than his actual value.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Provost

[Phil_314]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:36 PM, Junkyard Dog said:

Short 2 year show me deal around 2.5-3ish million. Would expire when Beagle/Roussel/Eriksson contract's are up and we can definitely sign him long term then.

 

Sign Gaud to a similar 2 year deal but we can sign him to a less cap hit probably due to the fact he has no RFA rights.

That's what I was thinking too.  One year could be a fluke but if you prove yourself then could probably give him Ferland money as others mentioned.

[#Canucks]

Without ready anything on this topic I think his contact should be 3x3mil.

[Gurn]

On 5/2/2020 at 2:24 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

say a 4 year 20 mil deal

I like Jake, but I don't like Jake at $5 mill per.

Hoping for a short term 2 year deal at a bit less than $3.

[Crabcakes]

6 hours ago, Provost said:

It actually looks worse when you break into the yearly average though.

 

This season he had a 6 week run at almost a point per game.  The rest of the season he was at around a .25-.33 PPG average. (20-30 point pace).

 

It apples to be a blip of great games rather than some sort of sustained linear improvement.  He was bad early in the season and bad later in the season.

 

You can’t hand out a contract based on him having a few good weeks.  If any other player showed those kinds of numbers and folks weren’t emotionally invested in them...  no way they commit to that player.  It screams of a situation where you trade the asset as you can probably get more in return than his actual value.

 

You're right.  Some people (me anyways) remember the good parts more than the not so good parts.  Virtanen was actually showing poise with the puck, some play making ability and a shot that hit the net as opposed to the near miss that he fired in years past.  But let's see that in 9/10 games throughout the entire season and playoffs.

[Provost]

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

You're right.  Some people (me anyways) remember the good parts more than the not so good parts.  Virtanen was actually showing poise with the puck, some play making ability and a shot that hit the net as opposed to the near miss that he fired in years past.  But let's see that in 9/10 games throughout the entire season and playoffs.

It makes it frustrating because for six solid weeks we saw a top 6 guy who could be a major part of the team.

He was driving to the net, actually making good passing plays, keeping possession, using his speed...

 

Then he became Jake again.

 

I remember Taylor Pratt had games where he was a monster and made it look like he was playing against bantam kids.  Literally unstoppable.

He had every tool needed to be an elite player.... but eventually we all realized he really was just Taylor Pratt 9 games out of 10.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Provost

[Crabcakes]

21 minutes ago, Provost said:

It makes it frustrating because for six solid weeks we saw a top 6 guy who could be a major part of the team.

He was driving to the net, actually making good passing plays, keeping possession, using his speed...

 

Then he became Jake again.

 

I remember Taylor Pratt had games where he was a monster and made it look like he was playing against bantam kids.  Literally unstoppable.

He had every tool needed to be an elite player.... but eventually we all realized he really was just Taylor Pratt 9 games out of 10.

Good call, a lot of parallels there.  Pyatt was an 8 OA pick in 1999. 6'4" 207 and played 859 games with 6 NHL teams 140-140-280 -23 (0.33 ppg)

 

He played no more than 3 seasons with any team and scored 23 in his first year with the Canucks.  His best year, 37 points.

 

JV's career ppg is 0.34

[JM_]

15 hours ago, gurn said:

I like Jake, but I don't like Jake at $5 mill per.

Hoping for a short term 2 year deal at a bit less than $3.

yeah thats a bit much, not sure what I was thinking there. 

[Phil_314]

13 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Good call, a lot of parallels there.  Pyatt was an 8 OA pick in 1999. 6'4" 207 and played 859 games with 6 NHL teams 140-140-280 -23 (0.33 ppg)

 

He played no more than 3 seasons with any team and scored 23 in his first year with the Canucks.  His best year, 37 points.

 

JV's career ppg is 0.34

I'm just hoping Jake didn't become skinny fat over the break and fall back into bust category... though if he does there's more incentive to shed him and retain Toffoli

Edited May 5, 2020 by Phil_314

[Lazurus]

On 5/5/2020 at 4:31 PM, Phil_314 said:

I'm just hoping Jake didn't become skinny fat over the break and fall back into bust category... though if he does there's more incentive to shed him and retain Toffoli

Two things to post about,

One, What makes a lot of posters think Toffoli wants to stay? 10 games? He was just starting to score the same with LA and he was also on the top lines there. LA has loads of cap space, a very valuable commodity with a flat cap and next year's expansion bonanza and veterans, if they sign a younger or better goalie they are much closer to a cup in Toffoli's prime years than the Canucks with much more room to polish off a team ate the TDL than the Canucks. More playoff experience too.

 

Two, Jake is a product of building through the draft one of the very few drafted players to make the team so far, it kind of shouts a problem at the top if they keep trading away the drafted players for old vets. Jake will not compromise the cap.

 

Jakes worth more each season, he has always had good +/- numbers.

With the cap crunch a 3 years at 2.75 mil.

[WestCoastDave]

 It depends on if the Nucks resign Toffoli to a reasonable deal or not (no bad contract please) given how about clubs would want him.  If he sign elsewhere, keeping Boeser and Virtanen is a nobrainer.