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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Jake Virtanen


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope, lucky charm was a term you used. Not mine.

 

He's better defensively and allows Horvat and Pearson to create more offensively. Zero to do with luck. It's shown, plain as day, in the numbers. That doesn't make him a top 6 player hence why he's in and out of that line and the lineup in general.

 

Again, for what must be the fourth time, this isn't about 'selling' you Erriksson as a top 6, he's not. But the math doesn't lie. He allowed that line too produce more offense than Virtanen did. How sad is that? And all because Virtanen lacks the professionalism to actually maximize his potential (the reason HE'S in and out of the top 6 and lineup).

 

But carry on...:rolleyes:

LE lacks the skill and the work ethic to be a legit top 6 on a beer league team.  Professionals don't call out the coach after being sent to the press box for one game due to playing like complete trash and refusing to put in an honest effort.  I'd rather roll the dice with Virtanen, who is at least an actual NHLer, unlike our $6 million floating turd.

  • Wat 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

LE lacks the skill and the work ethic to be a legit top 6 on a beer league team.  Professionals don't call out the coach after being sent to the press box for one game due to playing like complete trash and refusing to put in an honest effort.  I'd rather roll the dice with Virtanen, who is at least an actual NHLer, unlike our $6 million floating turd.

Reading comprehension...

 

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, for what must be the fourth time, this isn't about 'selling' you Erriksson as a top 6, he's not

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

Still move comfortable letting Jake grow there than playing a guy who isn't good enough to play in the AHL.  There is zero excuse for allowing LE to waste another second of ice time.

I doubt Eriksson is in the starting 12. Ideally not even in the NHL. That still doesn't refute the fact that line produced more offense with him on it then Virtanen last year.

 

Again, not selling you Erriksson. Pointing out how pathetic it is that a young, promising player with elite speed, size, a great shot etc can't do more to help the team win than the likes of Loui &^@#ing Eriksson because he lacks the commitment to actually maximize his potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I doubt Eriksson is in the starting 12. Ideally not even in the NHL. That still doesn't refute the fact that line produced more offense with him on it then Virtanen last year.

 

Again, not selling you Erriksson. Pointing out how pathetic it is that a young, promising player with elite speed, size, a great shot etc can't do more to help the team win than the likes of Loui &^@#ing Eriksson because he lacks the commitment to actually maximize his potential.

Oh but I thought nothing is "given"::D You keep saying the same thing, Jake has to earn his way yet LE is "GIVEN" a position when he has no business being in the NHL. Your words not mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Still move comfortable letting Jake grow there than playing a guy who isn't good enough to play in the AHL.  There is zero excuse for allowing LE to waste another second of ice time.

Yes! Someone who gets it, thanks King Heffy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EdgarM said:

Oh but I thought nothing is "given"::D You keep saying the same thing, Jake has to earn his way yet LE is "GIVEN" a position when he has no business being in the NHL. Your words not mine. 

Nope. He's still a capable, depth NHL player, just not on the Canucks (and grossly overpaid). We have too much depth. Particularly on wing.

 

We lacked any solid option on 2RW, hence a rotation of him Leivo (before injury), Virtanen etc. Green was desperately trying to find ANYONE to play there. He'd surely love nothing more than Virtanen to actually earn that spot (as would I). But the numbers don't lie. That line was worse with Virtanen than Eriksson. You guys keep trying to make this about Eriksson, it's not. It's about a player with all the potential in the world unable to contribute more to the team than a guy that's an overpaid, depth player with almost zero offense.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I doubt Eriksson is in the starting 12. Ideally not even in the NHL. That still doesn't refute the fact that line produced more offense with him on it then Virtanen last year.

 

Again, not selling you Erriksson. Pointing out how pathetic it is that a young, promising player with elite speed, size, a great shot etc can't do more to help the team win than the likes of Loui &^@#ing Eriksson because he lacks the commitment to actually maximize his potential.

 

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope. He's still a capable, depth NHL player, just not on the Canucks (and grossly overpaid). We have too much depth. Particularly on wing.

 

We lacked any solid option on 2RW, hence a rotation of him Leivo (before injury), Virtanen etc. Green was desperately trying to find ANYONE to play there. He'd surely love nothing more than Virtanen to actually earn that spot (as would I). But the numbers don't lie. That line was worse with Virtanen than Eriksson. You guys keep trying to make this about Eriksson, it's not. It's about a player with all the potential in the world unable to contribute more to the team than a guy that's an overpaid, depth player with almost zero offense.

 

 

You truly are a confusing poster for sure aGENT. Lets just agree to disagree. Thanks. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EdgarM said:

 

You truly are a confusing poster for sure aGENT. Lets just agree to disagree. Thanks. 

If he can't play on our roster, we'd be demoting him to the AHL. AKA not the NHL. That doesn't mean he's not NHL capable, just not on our team.

 

But carry on keep on trying to keep up with the big kids. You'll get there one day little fella.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If he can't play on our roster, we'd be demoting him to the AHL. AKA not the NHL. That doesn't mean he's not NHL capable, just not on our team.

 

But carry on keep on trying to keep up with the big kids. You'll get there one day little fella.

Which NHL team would play that useless floater, even at league minimum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Which NHL team would play that useless floater, even at league minimum?

Especially during the flat cap era, he is not useful to anybody. The best thing we can do at this point is pay him and make him sit in the pressbox ,where he deserves, so this team can continue to develope into something special. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Which NHL team would play that useless floater, even at league minimum?

I don't think that's fair at all. Eriksson has played a ton on the PK and is very successful at that. This warrants AT LEAST 1-2 million.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If he can't play on our roster, we'd be demoting him to the AHL. AKA not the NHL. That doesn't mean he's not NHL capable, just not on our team.

 

But carry on keep on trying to keep up with the big kids. You'll get there one day little fella.

Your arguments had nothing but, for a few games, statiscally, Bo and Pearson produced more offense with Anchor Boy on their line. Wow! Very inciteful. 

Also, LE may or may not be an NHL player. 

Finally, that Jake has statiscally shown he can produce more offensively then LE , but its really about his lack of effort and conditioning and he has to earn his way into the top 6 like LE has. 

Good job you definitely are a Big Kid. :lol: Way to go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I don't think that's fair at all. Eriksson has played a ton on the PK and is very successful at that. This warrants AT LEAST 1-2 million.

Motte got 1.2 Million you really think he would get the same or more then him? I highly doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Your arguments had nothing but, for a few games, statiscally, Bo and Pearson produced more offense with Anchor Boy on their line. Wow! Very inciteful. 

Also, LE may or may not be an NHL player. 

Finally, that Jake has statiscally shown he can produce more offensively then LE , but its really about his lack of effort and conditioning and he has to earn his way into the top 6 like LE has. 

Good job you definitely are a Big Kid. :lol: Way to go!

Never argue with a something, something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

If the team got wins for Jake getting more points individually than LE, you two Einsteins might have an argument.

 

 

Well the team did get 6 more wins from Virtanen goals than Loui goals, and goals are points.:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the SN650 radio yesterday, they mentioned that Jake is similar to ANDREAS ATHANASIOU.  Capable of scoring off the rush but metrics show he brings the line down.  In other words, he doesn't make the line better.  That he gets his points by virtue of statistics of shot attempts.  And both players were weak defensively.

 

I thought it was an interesting take on JV.

 

He can be taught defense.  So hopefully he gets it and be comes defensively sound while contributing 15+ goals and being consistent. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 3
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...