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

(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I wouldn't be surprised.  He was a point a game player with the Hitmen for his 2 final seasons there.  Then in Van and in Utica he was much much less.

 

2012-13 3.png Calgary Hitmen WHL 62 16 18 34 67 25 | Playoffs 15 2 4 6 27 -2
  16.png Canada Pacific U17 WHC-17 5 5 2 7 8   |              
2013-14 3.png Calgary Hitmen WHL 71 45 26 71 100 23 | Playoffs 6 1 3 4 4 -2
  31.png Canada U18 WJC-18 7 3 3 6 10 2 |              
2014-15 3.png Calgary Hitmen WHL 50 21 31 52 82 15 | Playoffs 14 5 8 13 28 -1
  6.png Utica Comets AHL 0 0 0 0 0 0 | Playoffs 10 0 1 1 6 2
  31.png Canada U20 WJC-20 7 1 3 4 4 4 |              
2015-16 3.png Vancouver Canucks NHL 55 7 6 13 45 -7 |              
  6.png Utica Comets AHL 2 0 0 0 0 0 |              
  31.png Canada U20 WJC-20 5 0 1 1 10 0 |              
2016-17 3.png Vancouver Canucks NHL 10 0 1 1 2 1 |              
  6.png Utica Comets AHL 65 9 10 19 48 -11 |

Virtanen was ruined by a horrible systems coach - both by WD and Green. Neither of them know how to utilize certain players well. I really wonder at this point if Eriksson would have done better under a different coach.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

Yep... if the Heinen for Jake pretty much straight up rumour was real, that is a terrible idea and Benning needs to be removed without any more delay.  Take a low pick and don't eat back another player that you would have to qualify in the summer at an inflated price tag relative to his performance.  Cap space is more important than a handful of games from another bottom 6 winger in Heinen.. during a season where the playoffs are already out of reach.

If the stark reality is that no one is even offering a low pick for Jake at this point, then at least try to waive him and see if someone bites.... at least before you take back bad money in return.

Agreed. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

You just expressed the single biggest reason why we shouldn't move him, as reasoning why we should move him.

Yep, let's get rid of him because he's not worth what we want - ohwait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shayster007 said:

You just expressed the single biggest reason why we shouldn't move him, as reasoning why we should move him.

That would only be true if his value to us on our roster was more than the cap hit he is eating up.  Would we be better off if he just disappeared and we had that cal hit and real dollars gone from our books?  Is the opportunity cost of NOT having those dollars available going to cost us something better than Jake?  If either of those things are true, then the return is meaningless.

It is also the problem of when is appropriate to move a player.  When he is playing well everyone says he turned a corner and can't be traded... when he is playing poorly, everyone says don't trade him because his value is too low.
 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

Yep... if the Heinen for Jake pretty much straight up rumour was real, that is a terrible idea and Benning needs to be removed without any more delay.  Take a low pick and don't eat back another player that you would have to qualify in the summer at an inflated price tag relative to his performance.  Cap space is more important than a handful of games from another bottom 6 winger in Heinen.. during a season where the playoffs are already out of reach.

If the stark reality is that no one is even offering a low pick for Jake at this point, then at least try to waive him and see if someone bites.... at least before you take back bad money in return.

A low pick is useless without proper drafting and developing - hardly a guarantee. You talked so much crap about the Hansen and Goldobin trade. If that trade had worked out, the trade would've been robbery for the Canucks.

 

Similarly, getting a pick at any round is not necessarily a guarantee that a good player will be selected. I am not at all saying we should dump all picks, but not to overvalue them. A pick is just a pick. A lot of things can happen during a prospect's time. Injury, illness etc. A first rounder doesn't make them a lasting nhl player. A lot of the highly touted players may never see much NHL time.

 

Of course, these considerations are beyond the intellect of someone like you. You can stay back and evaluate players in hindsight, like you knew it before anyone else.

 

We've also seen just how infrequently players are picked up on waivers this season - for the very same reasons that you mentioned - cap space. Duh.

 

God, Provost. Just a joke every post.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

A low pick is useless without proper drafting and developing - hardly a guarantee. You talked so much crap about the Hansen and Goldobin trade. If that trade had worked out, the trade would've been robbery for the Canucks.

 

Similarly, getting a pick at any round is not necessarily a guarantee that a good player will be selected. I am not at all saying we should dump all picks, but not to overvalue then. A pick is just a pick. A first rounder doesn't make them a lasting nhl player. A lot of the highly touted players may never see much NHL time.

 

Of course, these considerations are beyond the intellect of someone like you. You can stay back and evaluate players in hindsight, like you knew it before anyone else.

Can you quote all my crap talking about the Hansen Goldobin trade?  I don't recall that at all.

Again with the "if only it turned out differently in another alternate reality" alternate dimension arguments to support your position.  The trade didn't work out, nor did it really not work out honestly.  Goldobin didn't make it, and it turned out to be the right time to walk away from Hansen.  No winners or losers really.

No one said that a pick is a guarantee that a good player will be selected.  No idea what alternate dimensions where that strawman argument was invented.  I can tell you that NOT having a pick guarantees that you won't get a good player with it.

Feel free to pull up my posts about the Virtanen pick at the time.  I don't remember my exact quotes... but from memory it was something like.  "Seems like Virtanen was a stretch, if they really thought they needed a power forward Ritchie was a better pick."  and also "If they thought Virtanen was their guy, they could have traded down and probably still gotten him or another power forward in Ritche"


 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily a fan of a 1-for-1 deal involving Jake and Heinen, but I also don't think Heinen is that bad of a return.  He had 47-points in first full season and then 34-points the following year with a decent showing in the playoffs.  His numbers declined further last season but he put up some points in his first stretch with the Ducks.  His production has been very average to start the year, but it doesn't seem like it's been terrible.

 

IMHO, it's not as big of a deal whether Heinen was a 4th round pick in the same draft as Jake versus whether he can provide the level of production that Jake should be providing.  Heinen has generally had better production but it's hard to know if it was at sustainable level without digging into the fancy stats for his more productive years.

 

Personally, I don't think a deal for Heinen would be great but that's mostly because I suspect that Heinen's early production was due to high OZ starts (with Debrusk).  He initially started as a C but has since moved to W which I don't think helps the Canucks out very much.  Not that I think this is necessarily within the ballpark of Jake's value but I would rather see the Canucks try and acquire Sam Steel for Jake.  Steel can play C, a position at which the Canucks have rather shallow depth.  He hasn't quite produced at the level that was hoped for 1st Rounder but he was productive in the AHL and, IMHO, fits an organizational need much better than Heinen would.  The problem is Steel's $ don't help with a 1-for-1 swap and it looks like the Ducks are still high on him (which is understandable).

 

I wonder if Anaheim may be interested in sending Backes to the Canucks to clear $ in a deal.  I doubt Canucks ownership would want more "dead" $ on the books, but perhaps that could help facilitate a deal.  Still, Backes is a UFA at the end of this season, so I'm not sure how valuable clearing his cap space would be seen by Ducks management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Provost said:

That would only be true if his value to us on our roster was more than the cap hit he is eating up.  Would we be better off if he just disappeared and we had that cal hit and real dollars gone from our books?  Is the opportunity cost of NOT having those dollars available going to cost us something better than Jake?  If either of those things are true, then the return is meaningless.

It is also the problem of when is appropriate to move a player.  When he is playing well everyone says he turned a corner and can't be traded... when he is playing poorly, everyone says don't trade him because his value is too low.
 

Do we have something else we need the cap for currently? Hindsight seems to confirm that the better play would have been trading or letting Jake go and signing Toffoli. Benning bet on his own guy and it doesn't currently seem to be working out. That being said, many players on our roster are struggling so I don't think that the quality of play we are getting out of the Virt, Miller, Holtby, ect is a stronge indicator of their actual play.

 

If Benning has a big move that freeing cap is a huge deal, then pull a trigger. If we are just riding out this season then I see no reason to sell low on a player.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shayster007 said:

You just expressed the single biggest reason why we shouldn't move him, as reasoning why we should move him.

People say this as if his value will ever increase with the way he's playing and the way he's being played. At this point both sides are just suffering for no reason.

Edited by N7Nucks
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Do we have something else we need the cap for currently? 

Yes absolutely!

 

We are currently over the cap and pushing $4.7 million in ELC bonuses into next season.

Next season is when we have to give huge raises to Petterson, Hughes, and Demko.... and we don’t have that much coming off the books to pay for it.

Pushing the ELC bonuses means that our cap space next year is going to drop by another $4.7 million dollars.

 

That is the difference between being able to sign Hamonic or being able to sign a $6 million top 4D.  Or the difference between losing more depth.

 

That is a pretty important use for cap in my books... we need to be shedding unnecessary guys right now, the earlier the better to have more of their pro rated cap make space for the bonuses.

Edited by Provost
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All teams have cap problems. Simply pointing out that we have cap problems is about the least helpful contribution someone can make about a situation. You don't get rid of cap problems that easily because - get what? Other teams have cap problems.

 

Therefore, getting low value for what is perceived to be a cap problem is exactly how you get hosed in a trade. Virtanen is not worth much, so you'll either get a cap dump for him, or a really unsavouringly low pick.

 

And people here already feel like Benning isn't the best trader. Selling low will solidify this 'reputation' further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

Yikes... if this is the end result, its going to look absolutely horrendous on management.

Man he’s not even getting underperforming RFA players under good contracts.

 

How many buyouts and dead cap can one GM collect?

  • Sad 3
  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Herberts Vasiljevs said:

Lol could you imagine?

So many levels of bad:

 

- Wrong pick (many said, at the time)

- Arguably rushed

- Had value/trade interest despite repeated struggles, instead Canucks gave 2nd & 3rd chances here rather than moving him elsewhere. (like we often see)

- Then they signed him to a multi-year deal which was almost immediately (as soon as the puck dropped) an anchor.

 

So many times they could've moved him for value, or more recently let him go for nothing, and now here we are. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shayster007 said:

You just expressed the single biggest reason why we shouldn't move him, as reasoning why we should move him.

So if it goes lower, do you keep letting it go until he gets cut and you get nothing? Like Loui? Just ride out the contract. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2021 at 1:37 PM, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

 

the what? from whom, from whom? 

love that "told" qualifier.  even firmer than "believe".

 

believe all the rumours!

my bad - on  twitter - so must be a reliable source - even better - must be an 'expert'!

 

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...